The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About10 Final Environmental Impact Report Joerger Ranch Specific Plan TOWN OF TRUCKEE California RESOLUTION 2015-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TRUCKEE CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING A MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CEQA STATUTE AND GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee received an application requesting approval of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan also referred to as Planned Community 3 or PC-3, Zoning Map Amendments and a Phase I Tentative Map on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 19-620-01, 19-620- 02, 19-620-04 and 19-620-31 hereinafter referred to as "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee has determined the Project is a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and is not categorically or statutorily exempt: and WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee has determined an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared for the Project in order to satisfy the requirements of CEQA, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d); and WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee. in accordance with CEQA, issued a Notice of Preparation stating that an EIR for the Project would be prepared and inviting comments from Federal agencies, State responsible and trustee agencies, other public agencies and interested organizations, and the general public, and filed the Notice of Preparation with the State Clearinghouse and the Clerk of Nevada County; and WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee contracted with DeNovo Planning Group. a private consulting firm, to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR, the Town of Truckee issued a Notice of Completion, along with copies of the Draft EIR, to the State Clearinghouse to begin the review period for interested State and Federal agencies and filed the Notice of Completion with the Clerk of Nevada County and State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee provided a minimum 45-day public review period. affording the public and Federal, State, and local agencies the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and published a legal notice in the Sierra Sun providing public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR began on September 12, 2013 and ended on October 29, 2013; and Council Resolution No. 2015-10, Page 2 WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee received written comments on the Draft EIR, evaluated and responded in writing to those comments, and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Sections 15088 and 15089(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Council held a joint Town Council/Planning Commission workshop on the matter on February 22, 2012 and considered all information and public comment related thereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a series of public workshops on the matter on February 18, 2014, July 29, 2014 and November 18, 2014 and considered all information and public comment related thereto; and WHEREAS, at their January 20, 2015 hearing, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, at their March 24, 2015 hearing, the Town Council considered all information and public comment related thereto; and WHEREAS, a public notice was published in the Sierra Sun and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site and all other interested persons informing the public of the date, time, and location of the public hearing for the Council's consideration of the Final EIR and the Project. WHEREAS, the Town of Truckee on or before January 9, 2015 forwarded to all commenting State agencies the written response contained in the Final EIR to the comments made by the agency and afforded those agencies the opportunity to comment on the written response on or before the Town Council public hearing on March 24, 2015. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TRUCKEE, the Council hereby makes revisions to the Final Environmental Impact as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, the Council hereby certifies: a. The Final EIR, as shown in Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "D" has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines; and b. The Final EIR was presented to the Town Council and the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to its decision to adopt the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan, amend the Town Zoning Map and approve the Phase I Tentative Map; and c. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town of Truckee and the Town Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, the Council hereby adopts a program for monitoring and reporting on the mitigation measures it has imposed as part of the Final EIR to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. The Council finds the mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been completed in compliance with Section 20181.6(a) of the CEQA Statutes and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the mitigation measures are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures as set forth in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Council Resolution No. 2015-10, Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, the Council hereby adopts the findings of facts and statement of overriding considerations set forth in Exhibit "E", attached hereto and incorporated herein, in support of its certification of the Final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Town to attack, set aside, void, or annul the certification of the Final EIR and/or actions of the Town Council utilizing the findings set forth in this resolution, which claim, action, or proceeding is brought within the time period provided for by State law. The foregoing Resolution was introduced by Council Member Wallace Dee, seconded by Council Member Flora, at a Regular Meeting of the Truckee Town Council, held on the 24th day of March, 2015 and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Member Wallace Dee, Council Member Flora, Council Member Goodwin, and Mayor Barr. NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice Mayor deRyk Jones. Alicia Barr, Mayor ATTEST: Judy Price, MMC,'Town Clerk / J Exhibit A—Revisions to Final EIR Exhibit B—Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Exhibit C—August 2014 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) Final Environmental Impact Report Exhibit D—September 2013 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) Public Draft Environmental Impact Report Exhibit E—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations RESOLUTION 2015-10 EXHIBIT "A" REVISIONS TO FINAL EIR For purposes of clarification. the following text revisions are hereby incorporated into the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). These revisions do not change the findings of the EIR and are provided for clarification only. 1. The text in Errata, Page 3.0-28 and in the Final MMRP Page 3.0-21 of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR is revised to read as follows: - . ' - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -• satisfaction of the Town that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development project would not trigger an unacceptable level of service at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection or on Martis Road, Reynold Way or Estates Drive. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for a project that would generate traffic that triggers an exceedancc of the acceptable LOS at this the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection, the project proponent shall construct a single lane roundabout with single lane approaches at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection and any additional improvements on Martis Road, Reynold Way or Estates Drive identified in the traffic _ _ . - _ _ , 9 . e Mitigation Measure 3.11-1F: Following recordation of a Phase i Map totaling five 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. • Impacts and level of service on Martis Dr./Reynold Way and Estates Drive. • Locations of Class I trails connections and trail crossings on the west side of SR 267, along Brockway Road and along Hope Court as well as the evaluation of medians 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. • 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 five 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 Soaring Way 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 and other features to facilitate those crossings. Appropriate crosswalk locations at the) 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. (As modified by the Town Council and Adopted with Town Council Resolution No. 2015-10) Draft Environmental Impact Report- Butte County 2008 RTP ES-5 RESOLUTION 2015-10 EXHIBIT "B" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was formulated based on the findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan in the Town of Truckee. This MMRP is in compliance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that the Lead Agency "adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. Table 4.0-1 presents the mitigation measures identified in the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan EIR necessary to mitigate potentially significant impacts. Each mitigation measure is numbered according to the topical section to which it pertains in the EIR. As an example, Mitigation Measure 3.1.1 is the first mitigation measure identified in the EIR for the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan. The first column of Table 1 identifies the Impact. The second column identifies the Mitigation Measure. The third column identifies the responsible party for the monitoring, while the fourth column identifies schedule or timing. The fifth column deals with reporting and provides spaces for comments and dates and initials. The last column will be used by the Town to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been monitored. Draft Environmental Impact Report- Butte County 2008 RTP ES-6 Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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. A. 4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report- Butte County 2008 RTP ES-7 TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: To reduce Area Source Emissions, the project Impact 3.1-1: Project operations Truckee Prior to have the potential to cause a applicant shall implement the following: Community issuance of violation of an air quality • Only natural gas burning fireplaces/hearths(i.e. no wood burning Development building standard or contribute fireplaces/hearths shall be allowed). Wording relating to this Department permits,and substantially to an existing or restriction shall be included within the project's CC&R's. and the throughout projected air quality violation • Only low VOC paint and architectural coatings (interior and NSAQMD project exterior)shall be used on the project site. The use and application operations. 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. Exhibit B, Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (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 Exhibit B, Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (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. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5: To reduce short-term construction related Impact 3.1-2: Project emissions, the contractor shall be required to implement the following Truckee During construction has the potential to Community construction cause a violation of an air quality standard NSAQMD measures: Development and ground- standard or contribute a) Alternatives to open burning of vegetative material will be used Department disturbing substantially to an existing or unless otherwise deemed infeasible by the District.Among suitable and the activities. projected air quality violation alternatives are:chipping,mulching,or conversion to biomass fuel. NSAQMD 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. fJ 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. h) If serpentine rock is found in the area, the presence of asbestos, in Exhibit B, Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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. i) 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. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Exhibit B, Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Thirty days prior to commencement of Impact 3.2-1: The proposed construction, the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to Truckee Thirty days project has the potential to have Community prior to start of direct or indirect effects on perform a preconstruction survey to ensure that there are no occupied nests, Development construction including but not limited to raptors,if construction occurs during the nesting special-status bird species season (March to September). If it is determined from the preconstruction Department 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. Impact 3.2-4: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.2-3:Prior to construction,all Plumas ivesia located in Truckee Prior to start of project has the potential to have areas of the site proposed for ground disturbance will be hand excavated and Community construction immediately relocated to a pre-determined replanting site. The replanting direct or indirect effects on site will contain similar suitable habitat conditions,within the study area or Development special-status plant species general vicinity, and will be located a minimum of 50 feet from proposed Department construction activities.The excavation,and replanting will be performed by a qualified botanist with previous Plumes 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. Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: Prior to any activities that would result in Impact 3.2-5: The proposed removal,fill, or hydrologic interruption of the drainage/wetland area, the Truckee Prior to ground project has the potential to have Community disturbing project proponent shall provide a wetland delineation to the USACE for direct or indirect effects on Development activities wetlands verification and a wetland determination. If the USACE determines that the Department within 200 feet drainages are jurisdictional and that the project activities would result in a of wetlands or 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 drainage areas. 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 Exhibit B, Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE. MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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 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. Exhibit B, Page 6 111111 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATEiINITIALS) 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 Mitigation Measure 3.2-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Truckee Prior to project has the potential to project proponent shall incorporate the following measures into project Community issuance of a plans and specifications: introduce or spread noxious • Certified, weed free, imported erosion-control materials (or rice Development grading permit. weeds Department 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 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 Mitigation Measure 3.2-10: Prior to the final approval, the project Truckee Prior to final proponent shall redesign the project to ensure that the open space areas, project has the potential to Community map approval. conflict with an adopted habitat except for the hydrologic features, include an appropriate trail linkage to Development adjacent trail/recreation facilities (i.e. Martis Valley, Sportspark/Legacy conservation plan, natural Trail). This redesign would be required to ensure consistency with this Policy Department community conservation plan, 9.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the 2025 Truckee General recovery plan,or local policies or Plan ordinances protecting biological resources CULTURAL RESOURCES Exhibit B, Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) Impact 3.3-1: Project Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, p Truckee During implementation has the historic sites,and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during the Community construction course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters potential to cause a (165 feet) of the discovery, the Town of Truckee shall be notified, and a Development activities. substantial adverse change qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Department in the significance of a Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be historical or archaeological retained to determine the significance of the discovery. resource as defined in CEQA The Town of Truckee shall consider mitigation recommendations presented Guidelines §15064.5 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. Impact 3.3-2: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: If paleontological resources are discovered Truckee During project has the potential to during the course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within Community construction 50 meters(165 feet) of the discovery, the Town of Truckee shall be notified, directly or indirectly destroy and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance Development activities. a unique paleontological of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is considered significant, it Department resource 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. Impact 3.3-3: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.3-3:If human remains are discovered,all work shall Truckee During project has the potential to be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the Community construction County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State disturb human remains, Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Development activities. including those interred Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will Department outside of formal cemeteries notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d)and(e)shall be followed. GEOLOGY AND SOiLS Impact 3.4-3: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to project proponent shall ensure that project plans adequately address Engineering issuance of grading, erosion, sediment, and pollution control requirements of the result in substantial soil Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB).If one acre or more of land Department Grading erosion or the loss of topsoil will be disturbed, the project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent permits and (N.O.I) with appropriate fees and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan during (SWPPP) to the RWQCB. The SWPPP shall include non-structural and construction structural BMP5 such as: minimizing disturbance, preserving natural activities. vegetation,good housekeeping (i.e. daily clean-up), mulch, grass, stockpile Exhibit B, Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 3.6-1: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.6-1:Prior to bringing hazardous material onsite,the applicant and/or business owner shall submit a Hazardous Materials Nevada County Prior to project has the potential to pp / Environmental bringing Business Plan (HMBP) to Nevada County Environmental Health Division Create a significant hazard (CUPA)for review and approval. If the inventory of reportable hazardous Health Division hazardous through the routine materials include fuels stored in Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) that material onsite transport, use, or disposal of exceed 1,320 gallons (in containers >55 gallons) the applicant and/or hazardous materials or business owner must file documents required by the California Aboveground through the reasonably Storage Tank Act(APSA). If one of the AST's is larger than 20,000 gallons or foreseeable upset and the accumulative storage capacity exceeds 100,000 gallons a Spill Prevention p and Countermeasures Plan(SPCC)will be required.If during the construction accident conditions involving process the applicant and/or business owner or his subcontractors generates the release of hazardous hazardous waste,the applicant and/or business owner must register with the materials into the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste,obtain an EPA ID#and accumulate, shipand dispose ofthe hazardous wasteper Health and Sae Code Ch. 6.5. environment p Safety (California Hazardous Waste Control Law). Impact 3.6-3: The proposed 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 Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to Engineering issuance of result in impacts from being site that are cited within the Phase I ESA. This includes drums/containers, Grading Department equipment,parts,metal and wood debris,and other refuse. and included on a list of permits hazardous materials sites Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Prior to the commencement of grading, the during grading ro ect proponent shall abandon the existingwell after obtainingthe activities. compiled pursuant to P j P P � Government Code Section appropriate well abandonment permits. Exhibit B, Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 65962.5 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. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 3.7-1: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: The project applicant shall prepare a site Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to specific and construction phase-specific storm water pollution prevention Engineering issuance of violate water quality plan (SWPPP) in conformance with the California Stormwater Quality Department Grading Association Construction Handbook(Construction Handbook),in compliance permits and standards or waste discharge with the requirements of the State General Construction Activity Storm requirements during Water Permit(CGP), and in compliance with project guidelines for erosion during grading controlpublished bythe Lahontan RWQCB, as well as demonstrate activities. construction Q 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 Exhibit B, Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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. Impact 3.7-2: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to project applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a storm water Engineering issuance of management plan (SWMP) consistent with the Town's Municipal Code and violate water quality Storm Water Quality Ordinance. The SWMP shall,at a minimum,include the Department Grading standards or waste discharge following: permits requirements during • A written text addressing existing conditions, the effects of project operation 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 Exhibit B, Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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. • 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 Exhibit B, Page 12 1.11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) Guidance Document for the permit that supersedes the Town of Truckee Storm Water Management Program, 2007-2012 (December 2007). Impact 3.7-4: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-4:Project drainage improvements will be required to provide detention/retention storage and LID measures that will prevent Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to Engineering issuance of increases in storm runoff rates and volumes during storm events up to and g g alter the existing drainage including the 100 year 24-hour storm event. Included in this mitigation Department Grading pattern in a manner which measure is the requirement that onsite retention shall be provided for the 20- permits would result in substantial year 1-hour storm runoff volume from impervious areas. The design of erosion, siltation, flooding, detention/retention storage, LID facilities and other drainage facilities shall or polluted runoff 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. LAND USE,POPULATION,AND HOUSING Impact 3.8-4: Mitigation Measure 3.8-1:-A Foundations shall be installed for a minimum of 41-772 workforce housing units . .I• ,. Truckee Concurrent Implementation of the Community with approval proposed project may inducerent within the RMW-20 (Workforce Multi-Family Residential) zoning Development of future district Plan Area, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter substantial population ., .• .• • ,,,,, Department development ! ! prior to growth and mayconflict with within the Plan • ' - • '' build out of 40%of the requirements of the the Specific Plan. •• • -•.. - :• . •• .. Area.Area. Town's Workforce Housing standards •.., . - .. , , :'• • .:••:. The units shall be offered for sale or rent. Housing in-lieu fees as identified in Table 7.4B.shall be paid prior to issuance of temporary occupancy for the first building within each zoning district. 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. ,. • • , Exhibit B, Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) site. Plan Area are received by the Town, the Town shall require project NOISE Impact 3.9-2: Construction a. Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Construction activities shall Truckee During all of the project may generate adhere to the requirements of the Town of Truckee with respect Community construction to hours of operation, muffling of internal combustion engines, Development activities, significant noise and other factors which affect construction noise generation and p its effects on noise-sensitive land uses. Department • Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. • Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise-generating equipment where appropriate technology exists. • The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The project sponsor Exhibit B, Page 14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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 Mitigation Measure 3.9-3: Loading docks and truck circulation routes should be located at a minimum of 160 feet from future onsite residential Truckee Prior to will result in on-site Community approval of uses to the greatest extent feasible. If these activities are located closer than stationary noise Development subsequent 160 feet when tentative maps are prepared and individual development Department development in projects are proposed, a qualified acoustical consultant shall determine the Plan Area. 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 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. Exhibit B, Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Impact 3.10-1: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Prior to the approval of improvement plans, the project proponent shall incorporate the following requirements into Truckee Prior to project has the potential to Engineering approval of increase demands for fire improvement plans/drawings: Department subsequent protection services or Hydrants and Fire Flow development in require the construction of 1. Hydrants shall be spaced a maximum distance of 500 feet apart in the Plan Area. fire department facilities residential areas,so that no point on any road is more than 250 feet from a hydrant which may cause substantial adverse physical 2. Additional hydrants will be required in the areas with commercial development. environmental impacts 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. 3. Roads and driveways shall have a minimum unobstructed height of 13 4. Roads and driveways shall have a minimum 50'radius. Exhibit B, Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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 30'of all structures. 2. A 15 foot fuel modification zone shall be required on both sides of Exhibit B, Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) all roads and driveways. Impact 3.10-4: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.10-4: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of Truckee Prior to occupancy, the project proponent shall construct, or provide adequate project has the potential toCommunity issuance of the funding for the construction of the following offsite trail connections: increase demands for park Development first certificate and recreational facilities or 1. The proposed onsite Class I bicycle path that runs north along the Department of occupancy. require the construction of western edge of Martis Drive shall be extended offsite to provide park and recreational connectivity to the Truckee River Legacy Trail. The alignment and facilities which may cause design parameters of this offsite trail connection shall be substantial adverse physical determined through consultation with Town staff environmental impacts 2. The proposed onsite Class ll 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. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 3.1 1-1: Project Mitigation Measure 3.11-IA: Following recordation of a Phase i Map Truckee Timing is totaling seven ftyg or fewer parcels, but prior to any further parcel implementation would result Engineering dictated by subdivision or issuance of any grading or building permits on the project site, Department traffic in a significant impact to the project applicant shall construct a center turn lane on Donner Pass Road p local intersections and to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire Drive. conditions and roadways the individual Mitigation Measure 3.11-18: installation of a traffic signal at the Bridge mitigation Street/Donner Pass Road intersection is included in the Town's Traffic measures 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 seven-ffve or fewer parcels, but prior to any further parcel subdivision or issuance of any grading or building permits on the Exhibit B, Page 18 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) project site, the project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement. 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 seven-jive 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. Mitigation Measure 3.11-ID: 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 seven five 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-IE: Following recordation of a Phase I Map • totaling seven five 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: • . : •• ' .. • • : . :: . . :. . intersection or on Martis Road, Reynold Way or Estates Drive. Prior to the Exhibit B, Page 19 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) h wn Following recordation of a Phase I Map totaling five 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 Brockwav 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 proiect traffic volumes. The analysis shall idents 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. • Impacts and level of service on Martis Dr./Revnold Way and Estates Drive. • Locations of Class I trails connections and trail crossings on the west side of SR 267.along Brockway Road and along Hope Court as well as the evaluation of medians and other features to facilitate those crossings. Appropriate crosswalk locations at the SR 267/Brockwav Road intersection. Exhibit B, Page 20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION TIMING RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) • 30 percent design of SR 267/Brockway. Brockwav/Hope Court, and 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 five 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 Soaring Way Corridor Study shall be completed that identifies,at a minimum,the following: • Intersection Level of Service at the SR 267/Brockwav Road and Joerger Drive/Soaring Wav 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 and other features to facilitate those crossings. Appropriate crosswalk locations at the) 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. (As modified by the Town Council and Adopted with Town Council Resolution No. 2015.10) Mitigation Measure 3.11-IG: Following recordation of a Phase I Map totaling $even Aya 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 provide for the extension of the existing central Exhibit B, Page 21 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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 seven five 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 3.11-11: Prior to the issuance of grading 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. Impact 3.1 1-4: Under Mitigation Measure 3.11-4A: The propose proponent shall construct Truckee Timing is cumulative Conditions, separate left-and right-turn lanes on the southbound Martis Drive approach Engineering dictated by for the Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection. The timing of this project implementationimprovement shall be determined by the Town of Truckee. Department traffic would worsen already conditions and unacceptable levels of Mitigation Measure 3.11-4B: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the individual individual development projects within the Plan Area, theproject mitigation service at study intersections p measures and roadways. applicant(s)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, • Dormer 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 267/1-80 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. Impact 3.11-7: Mitigation Measure 3.11-2: The project proponent shall prepare a P ProjectTruckee Prior to implementation may result Construction Traffic Town Management Plan for review and approval by Engineering construction Exhibit B, Page 22 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) in traffic impacts during staff prior to construction. Department activities. construction UTILITIES Impact 3.1 2-1: Project Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Prior to the approval of building plans for Commercial and Industrial uses within the Plan Area, the project proponent Truckee Prior to implementation has the Sanitary approval of and/or business owner shall provide the TSD and T-TSA with appropriate potential to exceed details of the uses and wastewater generated within the commercial and/or District and building plans. wastewater treatment industrial area. Project proponents and/or business owners shall present Tahoe-Truckee requirements of the facility layouts with tabulated fixture unit counts and other T-TSA billing Sanitation factor counts. The methodologyused to developthesefixture,factor, and Agency applicable Regional Water Quality Control 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. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES Impact 3.1 3-3: Project Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: in order to reduce potential for nighttime lighting impacts,future development applications within the Plan Area shall Truckee Prior to implementation may result Community issuance of prepare and submit an exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the in light and glare impacts Town of Truckee Community Development Department. The lighting plan Development building shall include standards for all exterior light fixtures proposed in public, Department permits. 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 design review package,or maybe 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. Exhibit B, Page 23 RESOLUTION 2015-10 EXHIBIT "C" AUGUST 2014 JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FINAL EIR) AND ERRATA AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .• . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... . . . . m me.e.e.m.o.o.•••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.0.. ••••••••••••.e.m.o.m.e.•••••••••••••••.. •••••••••••••••••.....m.m.%••••••••••• • • •• • • • • •• •• • • • • •• • •• • Oa • ••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• Ma O . * •• • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • FINAL - - " - •: •: •: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR THE Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) SCH#2012052073 AUGUST 2014 • • _ 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 AUGUST 2014 I 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 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 2.0-2 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 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TOC-1 TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS This page left intentionally blank. TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES 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 14 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-1 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE ES-1:SUMMARY OF ZONING,ACREAGE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL(REVISED PROJECT) Zoning Designation Acreage Development Potential Regional Commercial (CR) 14.58 158,776 sf(0.25 FAR) Lifestyle Commercial (CL) 4.72 51,401 sf(0.25 FAR) Manufacturing/Industrial (M1) 9.57 125,061 sf(0.30 FAR) Business Innovation Zone (BIZ) 11.62 126,542 sf(0.25 FAR) Multi-Family Residential (RM) 2.95 41 housing units Open Space (OS) 23.13 N/A Total 66.57 461,780 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, 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 PROJECT 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. 00 No Project(No Build)Alternative 00 Reduced Intensity Alternative 09 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 ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES 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-3 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I This page left intentionally blank. I I ES-4 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) INTRODUCTION 1.0 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 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL 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: 0o the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)or a revision of the draft; 0o comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; co a list of persons, organizations,and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; co the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process;and 0o 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. PURPOSE AND USE 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.0-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 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 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps: NOTICE OF PREPARATION 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. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT 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. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/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. 1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) INTRODUCTION 1.0 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. CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION 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: SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 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. SECTION 2.0 - COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.0-3 1.0 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 3.0 - ERRATA 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. CHAPTER 4.0 - FINAL 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. I I 1.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 INDIVIDUAL OR AFFILIATION DATE SIGNATORY NUMBER 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-1 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES RESPONSE LETTER INDIVIDUAL OR AFFILIATION DATE NUMBER SIGNATORY 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 10-4-13 Association 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 011ar Mountain Area Preservation(MAP) 10-29-13 2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT 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 2.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. RESPONSES 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: 0o 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. 0o 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,sty ike for deleted text). CHANGES TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Following review of the public comments received on the Draft EIR,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 below(see Figure 2-1). Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-3 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES The following provides a summary of the proposed changes to the Project: o A significant portion of Parcel B has been changed from Lifestyle Commercial (CL)to Open Space (OS). o The roundabout at Hope Court was removed. Parcel B will not have any access from Brockway Road because of its OS zoning. o Parcel 4 is the existing Winery parcel. o Multi-family Residential designation (RM) was put back into the area north of Parcel 4. 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 ER and is consistent with the proposal. o The Martis Drive Road extension to a roundabout at Hope Court through Parcel B was removed. o The pie shaped area along Hope Court (Parcel 2) is now shown as a Lifestyle Commercial (CL) and intended to be donated to CATT for a community building site. o The teardrop parcel between Joerger Drive and Highway 267 (Parcel A) was changed to Open Space. o Regional Support Commercial (CRS) was removed from Parcel 2, north of Soaring Way and was replaced with M1 over the entire parcel. o Parcel 1, south of Soaring Way was revised and now reflects 14.58 acres of Regional Commercial (CR) and 4.44 acres of Ml. 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, except for Ml, which allows 30% FAR. Although this new concept has significantly more open space and less development area, the development potential is nearly identical by increasing the percentage of FAR. 2.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 TABLE 2-3:SUMMARY OF ZONING,ACREAGE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL(REVISED PROJECT) Zoning Designation Acreage Development Potential Regional Commercial (CR) 14.58 158,776 sf(0.25 FAR) Lifestyle Commercial (CL) 4.72 51,401 sf(0.25 FAR) Manufacturing/Industrial (M1) 9.57 125,061 sf(0.30 FAR) Business Innovation Zone (BIZ) 11.62 126,542 sf(0.25 FAR) Multi Family Residential (RM) 2.95 41 housing units Open Space(OS) 23.13 N/A Total 66.57 461,780 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 461,778 square feet of commercial and industrial uses and 41 multi-family housing units. The increase in development potential for the revised Project represents an increase of 0.2%. 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-5 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES This page left intentionally blank. 2.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EEO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL(CR) • REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL(CRS) ( r----1LIFESTYLECOMMERCIAL(CL) v a ra N MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL(M1) .4 1 BUSINESS INNOVATION ZONE(BIZ) Oti 6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RM) so�'"6,"Av E. L .• r OPEN SPACE(OS) * L # —• 7 NEVADACOUNTY .. - 7 y .n' r.. g l. s /I -Altilr -.." _ 4,, l '!eWN OF TRUCKEE 1 1'r '.e -w t .A* 'd JOERGER E/SOARING WAY ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENTS 1. ;a... SCALE 1".80' \ OERGRR DR/VE A•, . I .. i , ..W -.7,6, x i •��: f "- t (NEW plivi.IC TAN`% SfOr) • r w w 0y PARCEL A 97. 8.88 AC COSI y . ',l ., A1.ea0C �s PARCEL s 1( iS t+. _ 5.13 AC(M1) -- . --_ S WRING WAY A+r ~ , VI, PARCEL B _ 4a9wc(os) ,.. , ° �0 12.78 AC(QS) ,. / ) 1. IC �' 9 S PQ's _i' STFTf ia.,... '. .� + \ . , SCh �' die' �. ` �` 4 1 99 AC ICLI �P kqC Zs' 'f... y k. ♦ 211011k CV eR9ROCNWAY :L,,-.11.- _-AoPF COURT _ —._._ • t 4p' HWY 267/INOCKWAY 7/SOAPING WAY INTMC110N MARTIS DRIVE/SOARING WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS NEW CLASS I g 5111°ING IMI'KOVEMENE5 SCALE.1•.a 61KE TPA JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 2-1:Proposed Zoning Districts(Revised) Gw..N'1]Ylv...-.nysi o.,,,,,.....,-....,Mn.m. „. 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES I This page left intentionally blank. I I 2.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT REVISIONS 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 comparable amount of vehicle trips to the original Project, and as such, would generate a comparable level of mobile source emissions. Proposed uses within the revised Project would be similar to the original Project, and would generate similar 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 described in the Draft EIR, the potential for impacts related to seismic hazards and unstable soils would Final Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-9 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 a comparable amount of vehicle trips to the original Project, and as such, would generate a comparable 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 Bi, 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. 2.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 the same level of residential and commercial/industrial development as the original Project. As such, there would be no changes in land uses, increases in population, or housing impacts beyond those addressed in the Draft EIR. The workforce housing requirements established by Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 would continue to apply to the Project. 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 similar levels of traffic and include similar types of land uses and business types as the original Project. 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 the same level of residential and commercial/industrial development as the original Project. As such, there would be no increase in overall development intensity or demand for public services beyond those addressed in the 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-11 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 the same level of residential and commercial/industrial development as 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. 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 the same level of residential and commercial/industrial development as 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 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. 2.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 ' ., •' . iit.. . ....I- .• p.. if: T1•NA.: y BLM 1.•• =:•J. 6y:-e.rd DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION :4 '2 DISTRICT 3 '�- 703 B STREET MARYSVILLE,CA 95901 PHONE(530)741-5452 Flex yowpower! FAX(530)741-5346 Letter A Be enemyegiclentl TTY 711 October 28,2013 FMP#032013-NEV-0050 03-NEV-267/PM M1.435 SCH#2012052073 PC-3 Ms.Denyelle Nishimori Planning Division Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan—Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms.Nishirnori: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in the environmental review process for the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan. Referred to as PC-3,the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan proposal includes the development of 6 separate zoning districts dispersed over 66.61 acres which includes 101,843 square feet of Regional Commercial,52,881 square feet of Regional Support Commercial,118,222 square feet of Manufacturing/Industrial,121,707 square feet of Business Innovation Zone,41 housing units,10.24 acres of Open Space,and a Park&Ride facility among other amenities. This project is located along both sides of State Route(SR)267 at the SR 267 and Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection in Truckee. The following comments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR). Hydrologic/Hydraulic No net increase to the 100-year storm even peak discharge may be realized within the State's highway right of way(ROW)and/or Caltrans drainage facilities as a result of the project. Further, the developer must maintain or improve existing drainage patterns and/or facilities affected by the proposed project to the satisfaction of the State and Caltrans. This may be accomplished through the implementation of storm water management Best Management Practices(BMPs)(i.e.,detention or A-1 retention ponds or basins,sub-surface galleries,on-site storage and/or infiltration ditches,etc.)as applicable. Once installed,the property owner must properly maintain these systems. The proponent/developer may be held liable for future damages resulting from impacts for which adequate mitigation was not undertaken or sustained. Runoff from the proposed project that will enter the State's highway ROW and/or Caltrans drainage facilities must meet all Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards prior to entering the State's highway ROW or Caltrans drainage facilities. Appropriate storm water A-2 quality BMPs(i.e.,oil/water separators,clarifiers,infiltration systems,etc.)may be applied to ensure • that runoff from the site meets these standards(i.e.,is free of oils,greases,metals,sands,sediment, etc.). Once installed,the property owner must properly maintain these systems, • "Conran.,improves mobility across California" Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-13 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Ms.Denyelle Nishimori/Town of Truckee October 28,2013 Page 2 No detailed drainage plans,drawings or calculations,hydrologic/hydraulic study or report,or plans showing the"pre-conshuction"and"post-construction"coverage quantities for buildings,streets, parking,etc.were received with the DEIR. In order to adequately evaluate project hydrologic and A-3 hydraulic impacts upon State ROW and Caltrans drainage facilities,we recommend you request these documents from the project proponent(s)when development proposals are received for the Plan Area. Transportation and Circulation If and when development occurs within the Plan Area,we anticipate this development will generate A-4 a major increase in traffic volumes on SR 267. Improvements to the highway should be required as the Plan Area develops. The concept of collecting mitigation fees appears appropriate at this stage,but may be inadequate to mitigate all traffic impacts associated with the development of the Plan Area. Should the Town receive significant development proposals for parcels within the Plan Area,further traffic analysis A-5 should be required to identify specific highway improvements needed to mitigate the resulting traffic impacts of the proposed development(s). Mitigation Measure 3.11-1E requires the construction of a two-lane roundabout at the existing signalized intersection of SR 267 at Brockway Road/Soaring Way. Although this is acceptable to consider as an alternative,further analysis will be required prior to conceptual approval. A network A-6 analysis may also be required due to the close proximity of the SR 267 at Hope Court/Brockway Road and SR 267 at Joerger Road/Soaring Way intersections. Once agreement has been reached on the improvement concept for these intersections,the design of the improvement concept may begin. On Page 3.11-58,the results of the simulation analysis for the SR 267 corridor are discussed. Although the conclusion provided is that the highway bridge structure over the Truckee River will not need to be widened,this conclusion should be considered an educated estimate rather than a final determination. The projected peak hour directional volume of 1650 vehicles in the northbound direction on this bridge is an unusually high volume for an undivided two-lane highway. The A-7 simulation may provide a good estimate of the level of congestion expected to occur near the merge area,although minor changes in the assumptions could greatly increase congestion. Widening SR 267 from two to four lanes all the way to Northstar may also be necessary to deliver the projected — northbound peak volume to this intersection. In conclusion,while unlikely to occur within the 20- year period analyzed,the highway bridge structure will likely need to be widened in the future. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that would encroach onto State ROW requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans. To apply,a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation,and five sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be A-8 submitted to Bruce Capaul,Chief,Office of Permits,Caltrans-District 3,703 B Street,Marysville, CA 95901. "Coltrane improves mobility across California" 2.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Ms.Denyelle Nishimori/Town of Truckee October 28,2013 Page 3 Traffic-related mitigation measures should he incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. See the website at the following URL for more information: A-9 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developsery/permits/. Outdoor Advertising Sign plans for any proposed outdoor advertising should be provided to Caltrans for review and, depending on proposed sign location,approval.The plans should depict the layout,roadway setback orientation,glare intensity,and sign size. The outdoor advertising permit application is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/oda/download/Permi t_Appl ication_N ew.pdf. A-10 For assistance with outdoor advertising,please contact Tom Austen by phone at(916)651-1250 or by email at tom.austen@dot.ca.gov. Completed applications and sign plans should be mailed to Tom Austen,Outdoor Advertising Program,Caltrans—Division of Traffic Operations,P.O.Box 94287(MS-36),Sacramento,CA 94274-0001. Please provide our office with copies of any further actions regarding this project. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on any changes related to this development. If you have any questions regarding these comments or require additional information,please A-11 contact Shannon Culbertson,Intergovernmental Review Coordinator for Nevada County at (530)741-5435 or by email at:shannon.culbcrtson@dot.ca.guv. Sincerely, • DAVID R.VAN DYKEN,Chief Office of Transportation Planning—North c: Scott Morgan,State Clearinghouse Caimans Inynmes mobility amass Cal lu" Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 3.11-11. 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 further noted that the trip generation analysis was recently updated, due to a reduction in the project land use quantities. The revised projected peak-hour directional volume in the northbound direction over the Bypass is approximately 1,571 vehicles,which is an approximately 5 percent reduction from the original 2032 plus project traffic volumes shown in the Draft EIR (reference LSC Memorandum February 10, 2014, 'future 2032 with project' scenario, which is shown in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR). 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-17 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 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. 2.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G BROWN JR Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST ATH STREET SUITE SOC LOS ANGELES CA 90013 )'4 l H 1213)S76,70� Letter B October 15, 2013 Denyelle Nishimori Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Dear Denyell Re: SCH 2012052073 Town of Truckee Joerger Ranch Specific Plan. DEIR The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway-rail crossings(crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings in California. The Commission Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES)is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the proposed Town of Truckee(Town)Joerger Specific Plan project. The project area includes active railroad tracks. RCES recommends that the Town add B-1 language to the Specific Plan so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad/light rail right-of-way (ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade crossings. This includes considering pedestrian/bike circulation patterns or destinations with respect to railroad ROW and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitigation measures to consider include. but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at(213) 576-7076, ykc aAcpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Ken Chiang P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section Safety and Enforcement Division C: State Clearinghouse Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-19 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 `3 SOWN.0.6nwn�n Letter i M.r�.��°�` Water Boards Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board October 23.2013 Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner Town of Truckee Community Development Department 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH#2012052073),TOWN OF TRUCKEE, NEVADA COUNTY The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board(Water Board)staff received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the above-referenced project on September 13. 2013. The Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (Project) is intended to establish zoning, design standards, and site planning to allow for Project development consistent with the Town of Truckee General Plan. The Project will be located along State Route 267, at the southern boundary of the Town of Truckee on mostly undeveloped land.We have reviewed the DEIR as a responsible agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), and our comments follow. General Comments: The numbering in Section 3.2(pg. 3.2-7)appears incorrect.The Section numbered 3.4.2 discussing the"Regulatory Setting.'should be numbered 3.2.2. Impact 3.4-5 (pg. 3.2-20)concerning effects on wetlands also reflects this error and should be C-1 numbered 3.2-5, not 3.4-5 (Page 3.2-20).We refer to this Impact below. As a general comment, numbering in the DEIR is difficult to follow. The mitigation measures do not follow numbering associated with the numbered impact they are addressing, but are consecutively numbered throughout the section. This is quite C-2 confusing and makes the evaluation of mitigation measures for a given impact much more difficult than necessary. It is unclear which mitigation measure is associated with which impact by the numbers alone. Two different mitigation measures are identified as 3.6-1 (pg. 3.6-15 and 3.6-17). PBrER C.Puwwrxr, PA, 2.Kuvrw►tweN.OIEcu',v Dane.. 2601 ute THIS.Nve..Se un reeei.GA NM I mew W Oaaraa co.eav,uno*u^ 0.,r.�........ Final Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-21 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Denyelle Nishimori -2- Town of Truckee Specific Comments: 1. Section 3.2, Biological Resources 3.2.3: states. "The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on wetlands(Less than Significant with Mitigation)"-Page 3.2-20.This Section of the DEIR does not identify or discuss the specific mitigation measures suggested to reduce the impact resulting from the removal(fill)of an ephemeral stream.We suggest the impact is potentially significant,with potential to violate the waste discharge prohibition cited on pg. 3.7-12.There will need to be 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. Prohibitions exist in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region(Basin Plan)that apply to discharges in the 100-year floodplain c-: of the Truckee River and its tributaries Exemptions to the Basin Plan prohibitions can be allowed in certain circumstances(see Basin Plan pg.5.7-7),and when acceptable mitigation is provided for the impacts to the 100-year floodplain. The DEIR states that the development as it is currently proposed would require the removal of this ephemeral stream which is generally not allowed for Projects of this type. It is noted in the DEIR that the Town of Truckee would provide details on how compensation for wetland loss would occur,with ultimate approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Water Board. Subsequent environmental assessments of the proposed development will require site-specific detail regarding mitigation for the loss of wetland and/or 100-year floodplain. 2 Section 3.7(pg. 3.7-14)refers to the NPDES Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems(MS4s). The former permit has been superseded by a new version made effective on July 1, 2013(Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ: http_."www swrcb.ca.govrwater issues?prooramststormwater/phase ii municipal.sht C-4 ml). The Storm Water Management Plan discussed in various locations in the DEIR is no longer a component in the new MS4 permit, having been superseded by a Guidance Document The Guidance Document and additional requirements in the revised MS4 permit are expected to be addressed in future reports. and this should be reflected in the DEIR, if you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Dale Payne. Environmental Scientist,at 530)542-5464, or me at(530) 542-5430. grn.A.— /4 Alan Miller, P.E. Chief. North Basin Regulatory Unit DYPradw1T Joerger Rants Draft EIR Comments.docx File Under Pending I Nevada County r Town of Truckee/Joerger Rancn Specific Plan 2.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 there will need to be a verification commenter notes that 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. 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-23 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 111 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 Guidelines Section 15088.5. Section 3.0 Errata presents all text changes warranted by comments, including this text deletion. 2.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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). M54 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- 111 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) 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 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 under the existing General Permit. Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-25 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES The Lahonton RWQCB designated the Town of Truckee for coverage under the NPDES •. - .. . •- .._ -- n December 6, 2007 that addresses the required minimum 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 draft Order is targeted for adoption in the near future. Revisions from Page 3.7-14 of the Draft EIR: (December 7007) . • . • e - .. - .- . •• 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 x Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts x ?abi-ic l+wolvement/Participation x Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control x. Pest Construction Storm Water Management in New Development x Redevelopment and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping -"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-DWO. 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 2.0-26 Final Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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: 00 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. 00 Information demonstrating that the project design would result in drainage flow conditions below pre-project flow rates and volumes. co 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. 0o 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. co 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- Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-27 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES hauling plan consistent with Development Code Section 18.30.130.8.3.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. co 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. x 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. x 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. co 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 Proqram, 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 CECW Guidelines Section 15088.5. Section 3.0 Errata presents all text changes warranted by comments, including these text additions and deletions. 2.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 STAIE9RCAtkORNIA _ __Edmund G.BrarynJc.Goy a4t NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION ti 1550 Harbor Blvd..Suite 100 West SACRAMENTO,CA 95601 (916)373-3710 Fax(916)373-5471 Atannd Qt'ec7 October 14,2013 ngbh'ision OCT 27 91713 Denyelle Nishimori Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 RE SCH#2012052073, Joerger Ranch Specific Plan,Truckee,Nevada County Dear Ms.Nishimori: The Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)has reviewed the draft EIR referenced above. CEQA Guidelines§15064.5(e), Health and Safety Code§7050.5,and Public Resources Code§5097.98 identify the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3(Pages ES-20-21)misidentifies the process for addressing the inadvertent discovery of human remains and should be revised. The mitigation measure states: 111 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 archaeologist to properly excavate the human remains. In accordance with Public Resources Code§5097.98(a),after being notified by the County Coroner of a discovery of Native American human remains,pursuant to Health and Safety Code§7050.5(c),the NAHC designates a Most Likely Descendant(MLD). It is the MLD that recommends to landowner,or his or her D-1 designee means,for the treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. It is extremely unlikely that a MLD would recommend that a team of archaeologists excavate Native American human remains prior to having a plan for reburial Moreover,the first consideration in most cases is that Native American remains and any associated grave items be preserved undisturbed in place. In that the Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada would be the MLD for discoveries of Native American human remains within the Truckee area, it may be appropriate to discuss the Tribe's preferences in advance of any discoveries. In addition.Government Code§65352.3 requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC for the purpose of protecting.and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places in creating or amending general plans,which includes specific plans. To consult regarding any potential impacts to cultural places, including burial sites,within the specific plan area please contact: Chairperson Darrel Kizer, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 919 Highway 395 South Gardnerville, NV 89410 Telephone Number:(775)265-4191 Email: ktrovato@washoetribe.us Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-29 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES The specific steps outlined by Health and Safety Code§7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98 in the event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains is as follows: ▪ Pursuant to Health and Safety Code§7050.5(b): ✓ In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains... ✓ The County Coroner must be immediately contacted to determine the circumstances, manner and cause of death. ✓ The Coroner has two working days to mike his or her determination. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code§7050.5(c). ✓ If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American.within 24 hours of making the determination,the Coroner must contact the NAHC. ▪ Pursuant to Public Resources Code§5097.98(a): ✓ The NAHC immediately notifies the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American(MLD). D-1 ✓ After being granted access to the site of the discovery,the MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations for the landowner or his or her designee to the treatment or disposition, font with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. Pursuant to Public Resources Code§509798(b) ✓ The landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity,according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section, with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations,if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants'preferences for treatment.... • Pursuant to Public Resources Code§5097.98(e): ✓ Whenever the commission is unable to identify a descendant,or the descendants identified fail to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendants and the mediation provided for in subdivision (k)of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. ✓ To protect these sites, the landowner shall do one or more of the following: • Record the site with the commission or the appropriate Information Center. • Utilize an open-space or conservation zoning designation or easement. • Record a document with the county in which the property is located. The document shall be titled"Notice of Reinterment of Native American Remains"and shall include a legal description of the property, the name of the owner of the property, and the owner's acknowledged signature,in addition to any other information required by this section. The document shall be indexed as a notice under the name of the owner. Pursuant to Public Resources Code§5097.98(f): ✓ Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with the descendants is necessary to consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of the discovery may be ascertained from a review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards. Where 2.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate treatment measures the human remains and items associated and buried with Native American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity,pursuant to subdivision(e). D-1 If you have any questions,please contact me by email at rw nahcApacbell.net. Cunt Sincerely, rT��r Ute' Rob Wood Associate Government Program Analyst CC: State Clearirghouse I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-31 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 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: f •• _ - ,qative American Her* .. . .• • : - 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 apprepriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, which may include obtaining a remains. f The landowner shall retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if - .-- .- 1 ... • . .. . , ... 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 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 remoins 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. 2.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I 4 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Directors pi Receive Joseph R.Aguera ann/n9 Division Bob Ellis Bender Jeff OCT 0,5 J. J.Ron Hemig Tony Laliotis General Manager October 3,2013 Michael D.Honey Ms.Denyelle Nishimori Letter E Senior Planner Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,California 96161 Subject:Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR Dear Ms.Nishimori: The Truckee Donner Public Utility District(District)has received your department's routing regarding the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR. The Water Department has the following comments: 1) Page 5.5 states that the District operates three separate water systems. That is incorrect. The District operates two separate water systems. The Donner Lake Water System has been E-1 consolidated with the Truckee system. 2) Page 5.6 states "The on-site water line layouts in each Specific Plan area are shown with dashed lines." Such on-site water lines are not indicated on Figure 5-4. I E-2 3) 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. E-3 4) In addition to the above easements for pipeline facilities,the District may require the dedication I E-4 of lands for the future construction of water supply wells. Please note that the District's Electric Department may have additional comments on this proposed project. The Electric Department will respond in a separate letter. If you have any questions, or E-5 require further information,please contact me at 530-582-3950. Sincerely, Neil Kaufman,P.E. Water System Engineer 11570 Donner Pass Road,Truckee,CA 96161—Phone 530-587-3896—Fax 530-587-5056—www.tdpud.org I Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-33 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 BOARD OF DIRECTORS THOMAS S.SELFRIDGE,P.E. Robert W.Atletot,DOS General Manager Jerry Gilmore Chief Engineer Bnan Kent Smart Ron Sweet Nelsen Van Gunov T RN C S E E pfrfannlnohr for SANITARY > DISTRICT `'r3 A PUBLIC AGENCY 12304 Joerger Dr.•Truckee.California 96161-3312 Telephone(530)587-3804•Fax(530)587-1340 October 7,2013 Letter F Denyelle Nishimori,Senior Planner Town of Truckee Planning Division 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR—JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3) The Truckee Sanitary District(TSD)has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Joe-ger Ranch(PC-3)Specific Plan and has the following comments: Section 2.2—Project Settings.Surrounding Land Uses(page 2.0-1): Land uses to the north of the project site along Joerger Drive should be described,including Riverview Sports Park,Truckee Sanitary District,and the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District F-1 Transportation Center. Section 2.4—Project Description,Utility Infrastructure,Wastewater(sewer)(page 2.0-8): Wastewater collected from adjacent properties to the north and east of the project site is currently conveyed in a sewer interceptor pipeline that runs in an easement on Tahoe Truckee Airport F-2 District property before crossing Joerger Drive,SR 267,and Parcel 2 of the proposed Project. Section 3.11.1 Transportation,Environmental Setting,Study Area,Joerger Drive(page 3.11-3): Correct sentence to read as follows: Joerger Drive is a two-lane roadway providing access from Soaring Way to the Riverview Sports Park,the Truckee Sanitary District,the Tahoe-Truckee F-3 Sanitation Agency,the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Transportation Center,and a privately-operated quarry. Section 3.11.1 Transportation..Environmental Setting,Study Area, Existing Traffic Volume (page 3.11-3): Peak traffic conditions for the Soaring Way/Jocrger Drive intersection should consider mid-week F-4 traffic during the school year(not summer)when the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Transportation Center(School Buses)are in use. Impacts should consider school bus traffic at this intersection. 1 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-35 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Section 3.11 Mitigation 3.11-1H(page 3.11-47), Proposed single-lane roundabout at the Soaring/Joerger intersection should be designed to accommodate large truck-trailer configurations that are commonplace on Joerger Drive coming F-5 from the quarry. Section 3.12 Utilities.Wastewater.Impact 3.12-2(page 3.12-6): • The report states that a 6"sewer line would be installed in Hope Ct. What is the purpose of this sewer line? The parcel adjacent to Hope Ct is designated Open Space. F-6 • The report states that all development on the east side of SR 267 would connect to the 21"sewer line in Joerger Drive. It should state that it will connect to either the existing 8"sewer main along Soaring Way or to the existing 21"sewer interceptor that crosses Joerger Drive. If you have any questions or concerns,feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Blake Tresan,P.E. Assistant General Manager/District Engineer 2 2.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-37 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. The design of a future roundabout at this intersection is not contemplated 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 Parcel 7. Parcel 7 is now dedicated open space, and no housing is proposed within this area. As such, the 6" sewer line would not 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. linc in Jocrger Drive at the north cnd of the Plan Arcv. 2.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 w TRUCKEE TAHOE it-Nct---, AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RICHARD ANDERSON-Nevado County MeV of Supermen OR MARK BROWN-Nevada Coune'City&Medan Cennrer(1013 Aa Gnomon) DANIEL B LANDON.Erecue`e Micro, BRENTP COLUNSON_Meow CantyAirport Menepen Truckee Tinos Ahport Land UmConnIwon KEN FOSTER-Genn'RA& Nevada County TI napaMion Cama e3en PAUL JOINER-Placer County QV S.evaon Coomi.e(2013 dunnnn) JENNIFER MONTGOMERY-Phew Canty Bomar of SupaNnsoto G KEVIN 9AITN N.e.de Cgnbr Al l en keep* Letter Letter Fitts' 4 02 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Denyelle Nishimori,Senior Planner Town of Truckee Planning Division FROM: Daniel B.Landon,Executive Director s , ' SUBJECT: Review of Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) Draft Environmental Impact Report DATE: October 24,2013 Attached is a compatibility analysis of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental impact Report prepared by Mead & Hunt, Inc., for the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission (TTALUC). This information will be forwarded to the TTALUC for a consistency determination. When reviewing a major land-use project proposal,the TTALUC has three choices of action: (a) Find the project consistent with the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (TTALUCP). (b) Find the project consistent with the TTALUCP,subject to compliance with such conditions as the Commission may specify. G-1 (c) Find the project inconsistent with the TTALUCP. Based on the compatibility analysis, staff's recommendation to the TTALUC will be to fmd the project conditionally consistent with the TTALUCP. I will provide you with copies of the TTALUC agenda and staff report once a date for the meeting has been scheduled. Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please contact me if you need any further information. attachment 101 Providence Mine Reed.&iM 102,Nevada City.California 95958•(530)255-3202•Fax(530)265.3260 E-mail:ncicanccn-ner•Web Site:www.nc1c.ca.pav Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-39 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Letter G Attachment Joerger Ranch Specific Plan - Compatibility Analysis with Truckee Tahoe ALUCP The Joerger Ranch Specific Plan fells within Zones 81 and D of the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.Information relating the proposed land use types and target uses were obtained from the Specific Plan.A preliminary consistency determination was made by using the guidance contained in Appendix D'Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses'of the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. B1 Compatibility Zone(intensity limit:40 people per average acre/80 people per single acre) Proposed Land Uses Business Innovation Zone(BIZ FAR 0.2)target uses include: • Manufacturing of custom furniture and household products o Potentially Compatible tf satisfy Intensity limits • Specialtyfood ands irit roduction&distribution o in 61—Intensity and potential for airspace hazards(e.g.,steam production)are the likely concerns here. • Research and development o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Green technology including material production design&research o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits Manufacturing/Industrial(MI FAR 0.2)target uses include: • Fitness center and indoor sports activities and training facilities o in 81—intensity and vulnerable occupants are pnmary concerns • Manufacturing and warehousing o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Auto/recreational dealerships,repair and maintenance transportation centers o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Special food and spirit production facilities o in B1—Intensity and potential for airspace hazards(e.g.,steam production)are the likely concerns here. • Research and Development facilities o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Transportation Centers o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits D Compatibility Zone(intensity limit:100 people per average acre/300 people per single acrel Proposed Land Uses Business Innovation Zone(BIZ FAR 0.2)target uses include • Manufacturingof custom furniture and household products 0 • Specialty food and spirit production&distribution o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Research and develo ment 0 • Green tech nolo includin material production design&research 0 Manufactunng/Industrial(MI FAR 0.2)target uses include. • Fitness center and indoor sports activities and training facilities o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Manufacturing and warehousing i1DAMShareWCTC 19.141WE 2.4VTTALUCUoerger Ranch Specific Plan 100213.docu 2.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 o 111111111111.1111111 • Auto/recreational dealershl s.repair and maintenance transportation centers 0 • Specialty food and spirit production facilities o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Research and Develo ment facilities 0 • Transportation Centers 0 • Multi-Famil Residential RM —12 units per acre o —ALUCP allows either low-density II du/5 ac)or high-density (greater than 5 du/ac) Lifestyle Commercial(CL FAR 0.2)target uses include. ▪ Home furnishin w/indoor&outdoor displays 0 • Wine tastin facilities&beverage garden 0 • Retail w/outdoor sales&displays 0 • Garden supplies and nu r5 sales 0 Regional Support Commercial(CRS FAR 0.2)target uses include • Outdoor recreations equipment sales o . • Bike sales and rentals 0 • Health&Fitness facilities o Potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Casual dining restaurants o if sit down establishments.Fast food restaurants with drive-thru are potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits • Recreational vehicle Sales 0 Regional Commercial(CR FAR 0.2)target uses include: • Grocery market O • General merchandise ar;Ze noon plate 0 • Home furnishin s&a liances 0 • Office space—la a floor late 0 • Casual dinln restaurants o sit down establishments. Fast food restaurants with drive-thru are potentially compatible if satisfy intensity limits aDANIShare\NCTC 13•I41WE 2-44TTALUCVoerger Ranch Specific Plan 10021.3.docx Final Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-41 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 1 I 2.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I `1t.—:'w` TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT DIRECTORS opiprla 10356 Truckee Airport Rd. MARY HETHERINGTON [ +-4t\-► Truckee,CA 96161 JOHN JONES (530)587-41191.1 Letter H JAMES W.MORRISON TRUCKEE (530)587.2984 fax J.THOMAS VAN BERKEM T A I1 0 E AIRPORT WWW.TRUCKEETAHOEAIRPORT.COM LISA WALLACE To:Denyelle Nishimori,Senior Planner Town of Truckee Planning Division From:Hardy S.Bullock,Community Affairs&Conservation Manager Truckee Tahoe Airport District Subject:Review of Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3)Draft Environmental Impact Report Date:October 24,2013 Denyelle, Staff has reviewed the EIR.We support the findings outlined in the response from Mr.Landon, Executive Director,Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission in his letter dated October 24,2013. H-1 I wanted to relay a few relevant concepts regarding the potential development. The Specific Plan identifies Multi Family Residential(RM)areas of concentration within CLUP zones D.Over the past 36 months 25%of new households reporting annoyance are H-2 located within CLUP zone D. Noise contours depict the average levels for all aircraft and all flight paths. The'Truckee Tahoe community is not average but highly aware of aircraft noise and over flight annoyance.Almost all of our community annoyance as reported by our constituents is,"single event".This means it was a unique sound by way of its intensity,duration,frequency,or time of day.Most of the time residents in this area would not notice the average aircraft following an average track. H-3 Occasionally there will be a large aircraft,an exceptionally loud aircraft,or an aircraft lower than usual that will annoy and or frighten people.This single event annoyance is considered material by our agency and it is our goal to prevent this where possible.The location of this (RM)area is positioned slightly south of the extended departure centerline of runway 29 and directly under an existing arrival route.There is a significant possibility that residents will routinely encounter single event type annoyance associated with flight operations in the proposed development area 70%of departures occur on runway 29.If aircraft depart this runway and fail to initiate an adequate positive rate of climb they may appear low to observers on the ground.This location H-4 will be subject to low flying aircraft and maneuvering aircraft during all weather conditions and times of day. Due to local site conditions and proximity,the proposed development area is subject to noise from aircraft ground run up,snow removal equipment,and medevac operations.While most H-5 aircraft activity is limited to daylight hours both medevac and snow removal operations take place around the clock. connected,by more than a runway www.TRucxEETAHocAIRPoRr.com I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-43 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES The runway 11 REILS(runway end identifier lights)are clearly visible and very bright when viewed from areas on or near the proposed development area.These lights only activate when H-6 an aircraft turns them on in advance of a visual arrival to runway 11. Thank you for considering these items. Most Sincerely, S/ �. Hardy S.Bullock Community Affairs&Conservation Manager Truckee Tahoe Airport District connected,by more than a runway WWW.TRUCKEETAHOEAIRPORT.COM October 24,2013-Page 2 of 2 2.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-45 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES TAHOE-TRUCKEE SANITATION AGENCY A Public Agency Directors 13720 Butterfield Drive O.R.Butterfield T AL. TRUCKEE.CALIFORNIA 96161 Dale Cor -- :A (530)587-2525 • FAX(530)587-5840 ErikHennksan il�;iP .IJ S Lane Lewes �' A Jon Northrop General Manager Marcia A.Beals VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL 29 October 2013 Letter I Ms. Denyelle Nishimori,Senior Planner Town of Truckee Planning Division 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 dn'sh'mor a townoftruckee.com RE: The Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3)Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms Nishimori: The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency(T-TSA)has received the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)and associated technical appendices for the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan,or PC-3 Project(Project).T-TSA staff has reviewed these documents and offers the following comments. T-TSA pros ides regional wastewater treatment service to several Tahoe&Truckee area communities in portions of El Dorado,Placer,and Nevada counties through the Agency's five member sewage collection districts The five member entities involved are the North Tahoe Public Utility District,the Tahoe City Public Utility District,the Alpine Springs County Water District,the Squaw Valley Public Service District,and the Truckee Sanitary District(TSD).The Northstar Community Services District(NCSD)is also served by T-TSA facilities through an agreement with TSD.T-TSA owns,operates and maintains the Truckee River Interceptor(TRT), a main trunk line for raw sewage conveyance,and the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency Water 1-1 Reclamation Plant(WRY),both of which are described in more detail below. The 17-mile long TRI pipeline runs along the Truckee River corridor between Tahoe City and the WRP in Truckee.The interceptor flows exclusively by gravity and vanes in size from 24-to 42-inches in diameter.The interceptor conveys all of the untreated,raw sewage collected from the northern and westem shores of Lake Tahoe,Alpine Meadows,Squaw Valley,and Truckee Wastewater from the Northstar development is conveyed to T-TSA via an export agreement between NCSD and TSD. The WRP regional facility is designed to treat and dispose of the sewage delivered by the TRI. Throueh a series of biological,chemical and physical processes,the wastewater is purified to a degree where surface and ground water quality is protected. Wastewater flow to the faci:ity NORTH TAHOE•TAHOE CITY•ALPINE SPRINGS•SQUAW VALLEY •TRUCKEE I 2.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) I COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 varies in quantity and quality in proportion to the population present during the year.The WRP is principally sized to treat the maximum sewage flows that occur during peak holiday periods 1-1 Cont with the large influx of seasonal residents and visitors. We would like to take this opportunity to offer the following comments on the DEIR and associated documents: 1. There appears to be conflicting information with respect to the traffic control improvements that would be made at the intersection of Soaring Way and Joerger Drive. Text on pages ES-4 and ES-5 make mention of a four-way intersection with stop signs and a left-hand turn pocket.However,Mitigation Measure 3.11-1H on pages ES-36 and 3.11-47 and the text on Page 3.11-46 refer to a single-lane roundabout at this location.In any case,T-TSA is concerned about the potential inadequacy of traffic controls for 1-2 vehicles wanting to turn into the northbound lane of Joerger Drive from eastbound Soaring Way.There is a large volume of traffic that makes this turn including(1)cars heading to the soccer fields,(2)cars,trucks,and heavy equipment to the Truckee Sanitary District,(3)cars and school buses to the school district bus yard,(4)cars to the old sanitation access road,(5)cars,trucks,and heavy equipment to the Teichert quarry, and(6)cars,trucks,and heavy equipment to the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency's water reclamation plant.Please carefully re-evaluate the amount of traffic that makes this turn throughout all times of the day and provide the necessary mitigation to keep traffic flowing without causing a traffic queue on Soaring Way that extends beyond the capacity of the proposed improvements at the busiest times. 2. On page ES-6,the DEIR correctly states that"wastewater treatment would be provided by the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency(T-TSA)"As mentioned in Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 and in the text on page 3.12-5,there is a need to assess the potential impacts on the sanitary sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project.The Project would result in an increase in the amount of wastewater that would require conveyance through the TRI and treatment at the WRP.More detail will need to be furnished on the 1-3 proposed improvements before T-TSA can make an assessment.In order to accurately evaluate whether or not the TRI has sufficient unused capacity to serve the proposed Project,estimated Project wastewater flows must be provided to T-TSA.Project developers will need to present facility layouts with tabulated fixture unit counts and other T-TSA billing factor counts.The methodology used to develop these fixture, factors,and flowrates also must be submitted. 3. Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 states that"the business is subject to receiving a 'Will Serve' leiter for the specific use/business."Further,the text on page 3.12-5 states that"the TSD and T-TSA requires the issuance of a 'Will Serve'letter for all commercial development...If these agencies determine that they can treat the business(wastewater generator)then they would issue a 'Will Serve'letter for the business."Mitigation 1-4 Measure 3.12-I reiterates that"the business is subject to receiving a 'Will Serve'letter for the specific use/business."Please be informed that T-TSA does not issue Will Serve letters.All capacity allocations are made on a first-come,first-serve basis for all projects within T-TSA's service area. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-47 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 4. Impact 3.12-2 states that there is no mitigation required for construction of new or B expanded wastewater treatment and/or collection facilities as a result of this Project. Also,on page 3.12-1 the DEIR states"Currently, the T-TSA WRP has a capacity of 9.6 million gallons per day mgd,which is adequate to meet projected buildout demands of its service area through 2025."The text on page 3.12.6 states"The T-TSA wastewater treatment plant current capacity of 9.6 mgd is adequate to meet the projected buildout demands of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not require any off-site 1-5 expansions or new construction of wastewater treatment facilities because the anticipated wastewater generation would be within the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant."As clarified above,T-TSA operates on a first-come,first-serve basis.Once proposed Project wastewater flow data have been developed and submitted to T-TSA,a capacity evaluation of the TRI and WRP 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 proposed Project at the time the Project is expected to be constructed.Only then would it be known whether mitigation measures are required for T-TSA's facilities. 5. T-TSA is not currently listed as a"nearby facility"on Page 3.6-3.Further,T-TSA is not Iisted as a user of Joerger Drive on Page 3.11-3.Has the sometimes heavy traffic into and out of T-TSA's facilities been accounted for in the Project's traffic studies?Have Project planners taken into account the presence of our facilities when studying other impacts of 1-6 the Project?Please take note that the facilities that T-TSA owns and operates in the Martis Valley are separate and distinct from those owned and operated by TSD. 6. On pages 3.12-1 and-2,the DEIR states that T-TSA's"sanitary wastewater treatment requirements are established in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permit issued by the RWQCB...The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency has a permit to discharge treated wastewater into the Truckee River corridor."Please be 1-7 informed that T-TSA does not directly discharge treated water to the Truckee River. Instead,plant effluent is discharged into a subsurface disposal field.The facility operates under Waste Discharge Requirements(WDRs)issued by the RWQCB,not an NPDES Permit. 7. Impact 4.12 of the DEIR discusses the potential cumulative impacts to utilities. Statements are made suggesting that the Project could be adequately served by current wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities and that"the project's cumulative impact to wastewater services is less than cumulatively considerable, and no additional mitigation is required"We do not share the confidence that the Project will have no cumulative impacts.The effects of cumulative impacts that the Project may have on t-8 T-TSA's facilities should be further investigated.There are several other large developments in the region that Project planners will need to consider(e.g.,Village at Squaw Valley,Homewood Mountain Resort,Northstar,etc).The Town will need to properly evaluate the cumulative impacts of these and other developments in assessing T-TSA's ability to serve the Project. 8. In the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan,a Class I bikepath is shown on Figure 2-7 as being located on T-TSA property(Trail#46).A recreational trail is also shown(Trail#39)that 1-9 2.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 may or may not be on T-TSA property.T-TSA has neither reviewed nor approved the proposed construction of trails in these locations.As such,please remove these trails i-g Cont from future versions of this figure. T-TSA would like to thank the Town for an opportunity to provide these comments.Please evaluate and address the concerns noted above so that we can better define the impacts that this Project might have on T-TSA's facilities and operations. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(530)587-2525. Sincerely, Jason A.Parker Engineering Department Manager JAP:jp c; Marcia Beals,General Manager Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-49 2 0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 1-2: 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 USA, 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 1-3: 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 2.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 1-4: 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 buildinq 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. - - Response 1-5: 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 1-4 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 1-6: 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-51 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 1-7: 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 jWDRs) 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 2.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 1-8: 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-53 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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,USA 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.' 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 USA 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 USA 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. 2.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-55 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 1-9: The commenter states that Figure 2-7 shows a Class I bikepath 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. Figure 2-7 is based upon the current Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan that was in effect at the time of the plan development. The Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan has since been updated in November 2012 and a more comprehensive update is currently underway. The new plan is expected to be adopted in 2014 and will reassess the appropriateness of future trail connections, such as Trail #46 and Trail #39 shown in Figure 2-7. Regardless, the location and orientation of the trails shown on Figure 2-7 are conceptual, and the exact alignment and final location of future on- and off-site trails has not been finalized at this time. 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. 2.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I NORTHERN SIERRA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Gretchen Bennitt,Executive Director DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS NORTHERN FIELD OFFICE 200 Litton Drive,Suite 320 257 E.Sierra,Unit E Mailing Address:P.O.Box 2509 Mailing Address:P.O.Box 2227 Grass Valley,CA 95945 Portola,CA 96122 (530)274-9360/FAX:(530)274-7546 (530)832-0102/FAX:(530)832-0101 Email:officeramyairdisiricLcom Web Site:www nsypdislrCt.corn Email.rt,,n-m1Jir1,ir c!cum November 1,2013 Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner Letter J Town of Truckee Planning Division 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Dear Ms. Nishimori: On October 29, 2013 the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District(NSAQMD) submitted preliminary comments on the Joerger Ranch project EIR. Those preliminary comments briefly covered several topics, including permits and approvals, GHGs, model output reporting, mitigation measures and toxics. Please consider these comments to supersede those preliminary comments in all respects, as these are much more informed. In fact, the preliminary comments were completely incorrect regarding J-i model output reporting and the greenhouse gas analysis; the section of the EIR on greenhouse gases is well done and the model output reporting is fine. As a whole,the DEIR is a well thought-out and well written document,with regard to air quality issues. The NSAQMD applauds the inclusion of sidewalks, bike lanes and numerous traffic improvement measures,as well as other significant air quality mitigations. Regarding permits and approvals, some aspects of the project are likely to require permitting by the NSAQMD. In particular, 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 generator engines and any spray booth/coating J-2 operation. In general, if any source of air contaminants is proposed as part of the project,the NSAQMD should be consulted regarding the potential need for permitting. In addition, required approvals from the NSAQMD include the dust control plan required under Rule 226: Dust Control. In light of the fact that the project's net calculated air quality impacts are considerably above the NSAQMD's thresholds of significance and deemed unavoidable, an additional mitigation measure that could be incorporated to reduce emissions is the installation of electric vehicle charging stations at strategic locations within the project. In addition,the NSAQMD encourages the lead agency to work with the project J-3 proponent to identify reasonable offsite mitigations. Note that the commitment in the DEIR to fully mitigate particulate matter emissions will likely have some collateral benefits in mitigating other pollutants. Examples of offsite mitigations used elsewhere include woodstove change-out program funding; fire-safe clearing/chipping programs; and establishing/maintaining a residential green-waste drop-off facility(to reduce SERVING THI.COUNT'JiS OF Nt..VADA.PLUMAS AND SIERRA Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-57 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES residential open burning of yard waste),which would involve chipping and hauling the waste to a biomass-fired power plant or commercial composting facility. J-3 cont In general,the air quality impact analysis and the proposed mitigation measures are in concert,although in at least one particular the analysis includes more stringent mitigations than the actual proposed mitigations. The air quality calculations (Appendix B)take credit for"Low VOC coatings(50 g/L flat, 100 g/L non-flat and 150 g/L high gloss)." However,the mitigation measure listed in Table ES-3 and in the Air Quality section references Placer County's Rule 218 as the standard for"low VOC paint and J-4 architectural coatings." Placer County's Rule 218 is more stringent than the NSAQMD's default to state and federal standards, but is much less stringent than the"50 g/L flat, 100 g/L non-flat and 150 g/L high gloss" used in the emission calculations. Rule 218 specifies 100 g/L flat, 150 g/L non-flat and 250 g/L high-gloss. However,the difference in overall emissions is not substantial enough to change the threshold comparison metric. Also, it is not known if the 50/100/150 criteria can be met through local suppliers. Therefore,the NSAQMD is not recommending that emissions be recalculated specifically for this reason or that the mitigation measure be changed. In addition,the air quality analysis contains a user-entered comment(page 81 of Appendix B) under"Sequestration"that reads,"SCAQMD mitigation tables." A brief description of what this refers to would be helpful in understanding its meaning. The SCAQMD(South Coast Air Quality Management District)generally has more stringent controls than the NSAQMD, due to the severity of its air quality problems. The NSAQMD has 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. In order to more fully inform the public and decision makers,this should be discussed in the FEIR. The presence of seasonal heavy truck traffic associated with the facilities on Joerger Drive(including Teichert, which is not specifically addressed in the DEIR),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 J-5 area of significant toxic risk from air contaminants. The traffic report(Appendix D2), pages 29 and 54,lists the percentage of heavy vehicles at the Soaring Way/Joerger Road intersection as 2%. Casual daytime observations of the intersection indicate that this percentage is too low. Even with this 2%assumption,the intersection is identified as exceeding the LOS standard under the project(page 31 of Appendix D1). The Teichert aggregate and asphalt production facility on Joerger Drive is quite large, and at certain times(subject to market demand)the truck traffic to and from Teichert is heavy. These times don't necessarily coincide with the modeled/observed peak traffic hour. The NSAQMD recommends that a 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. 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 SERVING,THF:COUNTIES OF NEVADA,PLUMAS AND SIERRA 2.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 NSAQMD supports the installation of a roundabout(proposed mitigation measure 3.11- 1H) .11-1H) at the Soaring Way/Joerger Dr. intersection (assuming the radius is adequate to 1-5 accommodate large trucks). cont Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 reads,"All offroad construction equipment must utilize'Diesel Oxidation Catalyst' and Tiered Engine that are certified to effectively reduce NOx emissions by 40%." This is both difficult to enforce and somewhat vague. It seems to mean that engines have to emit 40%less NOx than a Tier Zero engine, but even this is difficult to interpret. An older Tier Zero engine,for example, typically emits more than a newer Tier Zero engine. Also,for engines less than 50 hp, even a brand new Tier 4 engine does not provide a 40% reduction from Tier Zero. In general, based on a 6 comparison of reductions from Tier Zero for different engine ages and sizes, a 40% reduction equates roughly to a Tier 2 engine. As a related matter, if a piece of equipment has already been retrofitted with a Diesel Particulate Filter to reduce air toxics emissions, it may not be possible to also add a Diesel Oxidation Catalyst. Therefore,the NSAQMD strongly recommends that Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 be changed to read something to the effect of,"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 manufacturer's specifications and recommendations." The DEIR doesn't go into detail about how some of the proposed air quality mitigation measures will be accomplished,so it is important to provide adequate details in the 1-7 Final EIR and/or the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)to ensure that the mitigations that have been committed to in the DEIR for the purpose of reducing calculated project emissions actually come into being. The NSAQMD hereby approves the conditions in Mitigation measure 3.1-5 as a Dust Control Plan for the project, pursuant to NSAQMD Rule 226: Dust Control. The dust J-g control conditions should be included on grading or improvement plans for each portion of the project, preferably in their own section with an obvious title such as"Dust Control." Please include the NSAQMD on the distribution list for the Final EIR, as well as the 1-9 MMRP if it is separate from the Final EIR. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, .7' Samuel F. Long,- e, APCS SERVING THE COUNTIES OF NEVADA,I'I.UMAS AND SIERRA Final Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-59 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Response to Letter 1: 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 lands 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 2.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 standard regulatory requirement of all businesses constructing and operating a stationary source in the Town. No further response is necessary. Response 1-3: The commenter notes that the project's net calculated air quality impacts are considerably above the NSAQMO'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. 111 o A walkable design/improved pedestrian network(i.e. walkways, paths, sidewalks, trails, etc.). Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-61 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 2.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-63 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 2.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 USA, 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 1-80, 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-65 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 offroad construction equipment --• . ' ' - - e - - and Tiered Engine that are certified to effectively reduce NOx emissions by 4O% 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 2.0-66 Final Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-67 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Town of Truckee Attention:Danyelle Nishimori Letter 1 RE:Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3 ► My husband&I have owned a home on Reynold Way,on the Ponderosa Golf Course since 2008.We love the location because of the peace and quiet,away from the busy downtown area where we once lived.What is now a quiet,peaceful neighborhood could potentially be surrounded by a huge 1-1 commercial development and all the negative things that come along with that. I am VERY concerned about the proposed commercial development of the Joerger Ranch west of Hwy 267(Parcels 1&2)and the widening of Martis Drive,which is presently a one lane dirt road adjacent to the golf course.Turning these parcels into commercial properties is bound to have a major impact on 1-2 the peace and quiet of our neighborhood,including commercial lighting,additional traffic and pollution from commercial vehicles.The Paving&widening of Martis Drive is bound to increase traffic through our neighborhood as people decide to come and go on Reynold Way. The idea of building 42 units of multi-family residential housing along Martis road(Parcel 3)doesn't make sense.There is presently a condominium complex across the golf course from us,which still has many vacancy's years after being built.The addition of these units would have a major environmental 1-3 impact on traffic and pollution and increase the population of our neighborhood.In addition,what would be the impact of the wildlife in our area? I would also like to remind you of the proximity of the airport.In December of 2009 a small plane crashed between Hwy 267 and Martis Road.One reason no one was killed in this crash was the existing open space and a recent snow storm which had dropped a foot or more of fresh snow and cushioned their landing.If the proposed commercial zoning for parcels 1&2 existed at that time,the crash would 1-4 have been fatal and could have caused serious damage to the property and lives of the proposed businesses&their employees. Another issue is the impact of construction on the air quality and the environment,not to mention the impact on the neighborhood.The construction of new buildings could potentially go on for years.Not all lots would be sold at the same time or construction projects start and finish in the same amount of time. 1_5 This would mean years of large trucks,dust,noise and pollution.Some people know what it's like to live in a neighborhood when one single family home is under construction,the inconvenience,constant noise,dust and traffic.Imagine the development of Joerger Ranch. I would like to see a final environmental impact report.The initial study shows many environmental factors could be affected including;air quality,greenhouse gases,soils,water quality,noise,traffic, 1-6 hazardous materials and biological resources. 2.0-68 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I am seriously opposed to this plan to develop the west side of Hwy 267.This mountain town that I love so much has already been compromised by over development.I hope you will think seriously about the 1-7 impact this project will have on the lives of the people who live here. Thank you, Ann Baldwin 10381 Reynold Way Truckee,CA Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-69 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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, 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 3.1-5 through 3.1-7 regarding construction-related air quality impacts. The 2.0-70 Final Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. I I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-71 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Letter 2 From:David Beres[mailto:davldOberes-constructlon.coml Sent:Monday,October 28,2013 9:31 PM To:Denyelle Nishimori Subject:loerger Ranch Specific Plan PC-3 Dear Denyelle, My wife and I lived in downtown Truckee from 1974 to 1987,In Tahoe Donner from 2005 to 2008,and now on 10381 Reynold Way,from 2008 to present day. My wife and I are not happy about the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan PC-3,being that our house is next to the fourth tee on the Ponderosa Golf Course and close to the proposed project. I believe that myself and our neighbors would be negatively impacted by the development of Parcels 1.through 6 and the widening and paving of proposed Mart's 2-1 Drive. This proposed new development would produce pollution,noise and traffic congestion. At the end of construction,the proposed Industry at that site.would still produce pollution,noise and traffic congestion. Keep the Industry away from the neighborhoods. Please note that the initial study of the PC-3 plan,listed as,"Mandatory Findings of Significance"that have potentially significant impact are, I. Air quality. 2. Noise and traffic conditions. 3 Degrade the quality of the environment. 4. Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. 5 Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels. 2-2 I, Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. Reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or create cumulatively considerable impacts. K Eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. All of the above are considered POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT by the EIR. Much of the area around the golf course is a neighborhood and I would like It to stay that way. If you must develop,then build individual homes west of hwy 267 and keep the industrial development eastaf 2-3 267. Sincerely, David Beres 10381 Reynold Way Truckee,CA 96161 530587 2995 2.0-72 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. 1 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-73 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES tis lo, • CARD Letter 3 III I l119 I t%.* Denyelle Nishimori City of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Re: Joerger Ranch Specific Plan SCH Number-2012052073 Dear Ms.Nishimori, The undersigned represents Citizens Advocating Rational Development("CARD"),a non-profit corporation dedicated to issues in development and growth. This letter contains corn ments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan,in accordance with CEQA and the Notice of Completion and Availability. Please ensure that these comments are made a part of the public record, ENERGY The DER does not discuss any requirements that the Project adopt energy saving techniques and fixtures,nor is there any discussion of potential solar energy facilities which could be located on the roofs of the Project. Under current building standards and codes which all jurisdictions have been advised to adopt,discussions of these energy uses are critical. The construction of a mixed use 3-1 commercial/industrial project with a multi-family residential component which may accommodate up to 97 residential housing units and approximately 460,000 sf of commercial and industrial uses,will devour copious quantities of electrical energy,as well as other forms of energy. 2.0-74 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 WATER SUPPLY The EIR(or DEIR-the terms are used interchangeably herein)does not adequately address the issue of water supply,which in California,is a historical environmental problem of major proportions. What the DEIR fails to do is: 1. Document wholesale water supplies; 2. Document Project demand; 3. Determine reasonably foreseeable development scenarios,both near-term and long-term; 4. Determine the water demands necessary to serve both near-term and long-term development and project build-out. 5. Identify likely near-term and long-term water supply sources and,if necessary,alternative sources; 3-2 7. Identify the likely yields of future water from the identified sources; 8. Determine cumulative demands on the water supply system; 9. Compare both near-term and long-term demand to near-term and long-term supply options,to determine water supply sufficiency; 10. Identify the environmental impacts of developing future sources of water;and 11. Identify mitigation measures for any significant environmental impacts of developing future water supplies. 12. Discuss the effect of global warming on water supplies. There is virtually no information in the DEIR which permits the reader to draw reasonable conclusions regarding the impact of the Project on water supply,either existing or in the future. For the foregoing reasons,this EIR is fatally flawed. AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS/CLIMATE CHANGE Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-75 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES The EIR lacks sufficient data to either establish the extent of the problem which local emissions contribute to deteriorating air quality,greenhouse emissions or the closely related problem of global warming and climate change,despite the fact that these issues are at the forefront of scientific review due to the catastrophic effects they will have on human life,agriculture,industry,sea level risings,and the many other serious consequences of global warming. This portion of the EIR fails for the following reasons: 1. The DEIR does not provide any support or evidence that the Guidelines utilized in the analysis are in fact supported by substantial evidence. References to the work of others is inadequate unless the document explains in sufficient detail the manner and methodology utilized by others. 3-3 2. Climate change is known to affect rainfall and snow pack,which in turn can have substantial effects on river flows and ground water recharge. The impact thereof on the project's projected source of water is not discussed in an acceptable mariner. Instead of giving greenhouse emissions and global warming issues the short shrift that it does,the EIR needs to include a comprehensive discussion of possible impacts of the emissions from this project. 3. Climate change is known to affect the frequency and or severity of air quality problems,which is not discussed adequately. 4. The cumulative effect of this project taken with other projects in the same geographical area on water supply,air quality and climate change is virtually missing from the document and the EIR is totally deficient in this regard. For the foregoing reasons,the EIR is fatally flawed. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS The alternative analysis fails in that the entire alternatives-to-the-project section provides no discussion of the effects of the project,or the absence of the project,on surrounding land uses,and the likely increase in development that will accompany the completion of the project,nor does it discuss the deleterious effects of failing to update the project upon those same surrounding properties and the land 3-4 uses which may or have occurred thereon. Thank you for the opportunity to address these factors as they pertain to the referenced DEIR. 2.0-76 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Very truly yours, CITIZENS ADVOCATING RATIONAL DEVELOPMENT NICK R.Green President Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-77 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 2.0-78 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 they relate to the proposed project, consistent with the guidance provided by the CECtA 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-79 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-80 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 111 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-81 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES r 40 t,moll r uva TS -.- ��J SA 945{ I{ r GRASS VrtS�',CA 95945 71n.:533.272..5941 1 FAx 530.272.5880 GE:N'L atom.:rryFo@scopgiNc.riET PLANNING ENGINEERING Letter 4 'Au � cta .5-10.582.4C,43&SURVEYING October 29,2013 Vh rmi b thblehnoritgamenictee.cam DenyelleNishirnari,AICP Town of Truckee Community Development Department 10183 Truckee Airport Rd. Truckee.CA. 96161 Re: ✓oerver Ranch Specifw Plan((PC-3)—Drat!FIR Conunenls SCO Job No.200905 Dear Dem:elle: The following comments are in response to the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3)Draft EIR: Land-Use,Population. and Housing Impact 3.8.4: The discussion on page 3.8-15 analyzes the anticipated amount of employee housing required as a result of the full-time equivalent employees that could be generated as a result of the project. This discussion assumes that build out of the PC-3 is one project. The discussion fails to recognize that PC-3 is a Specific Plan prepared under the parameters of Government Code Section 65451. The plan is intended to build out over 20 year horizon and its primary scope is to focus on coordinated land-use, establish zoning,outline infrastructure requirements and set forth financial obligations for implementation and improvements. The plan anticipates build-out under several ownerships with different interests but guided under the parameters of the Specific Plan program. The plan has targeted specific land uses that 4-1 are currently not being provided in the Truckee region so 'Truckee can provide an atmosphere that encourages new development opportunities to capture and service existing demand that is seeking such services outside the region. Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 attempts to mandate workforce housing as if the PC-3 is being developed as one specific project. This mitigation measure does not recognize the provisions of Truckee Development Section which reads: 18.216.000-Workforce Housing Requirements B.2. The number of workforce housing units to be constructed and completed for o development project,by which empbyees ore calculated as full-time equivalent employees in accordance with Sections C.1,shall be as follows: Page 1 of 7 2.0-82 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Re:Joerger Ranch—Comments on Specific Plan Draft EIR Date:October29,2013 i. For development projects that generate less than seven FTEE,the development project shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter; if. For development projects that generate seven or more but less than 20 FTEE,the development project shall pay a fraction of an in-lieu affordable housing fee equivalent to the number of FTEE divided by 28. Ai. For development projects that generate 20 or more but less than 40 FTEE,the development project shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each 14 FTEE. iv. For development projects that generate 40 or more FTEE,the development project shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each seven FTEE. This section sets forth provisions for exemptions and sets forth levels of implementation based on number 4-1 of employees. PC-3 may or may not reach the level of anticipated development described in the project description. Further PC-3 may provide the development opportunity for startup businesses and new Cont employment generators which can have an overall positive impact on Truckee's economy. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1, as worded,places a burden on small projects That otherwise might be exempt from this criteria set forth in the above-referenced Development Coda Section. We respectfully request Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 be rewritten so that development projects within PC-3 arc treated equally to other development projects in the Truckee region. As stated on pages 3.8-16&17, implementation of the project would not increase population growth in Truckee beyond the build-out levels assumed in the 2025 General Plan. In fact,if the workforce housing provisions are implemented fairly,there may actually be a reduction in housing. Basically this mitigation measure as written does not mitigate any physical impact on the environment. Therefore there is no nexus between the mitigation being proposed and the so-called impact. Any potential impact will be mitigated by adherence to the standards adopted by the Town as set forth in the Development Code Section listed above. Chapter 3.11 Transportation and Circulation Section 3.11.3;Table 3.11-4 Land Use Elements: Table 3.11-4 should be corrected as follows: • The Parcel Size for Parcels 4&5 should be 3.16 acres,not 7.59 acres. 4-2 • Parcel 6 should be 4.43 acres,not 7.59 acres. • The total Quantity for Parcels 4,5&6 should be 66.12 KSF,not 132.24 KSF. • The"CS"zone on Parcel 14 should be corrected to read"CR". • The FAR for the CS zone on Parcel 14(11.69 acres)should be 20%,not 40%. The KSF should be 101.84 KSF,not 203.69 KSF(see Project Description 2.0,Table 2-1.pg.2.0-5).The Joerger 4-3 Ranch SP does allow for some FAR increases but ONLY for specific targeted uses and only in Page 2 of 7 ec*_Awmn100em-xercotrt sAsot ' a Colrain ISTISREMOIMORISIIIR COMMIT Doc Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-83 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Re:Joerger Ranch--Conrmentr on Specific Plan Draft E1R Dote:October 29,2013 the CL zone. A 203,000 S.F.Shopping Center cannot physically fit on 11.69 acres when you 14-3 factor in parking.snow storage,storm water treatment and landscaping. Cont • Table 3.11-12—The above errors are reflected in this table. Additionally,this table appears to include"Research&Development"as a Commercial use rather than an Industrial use. This chart should reflect 119 KSF for LT Industrial,not 83 KSF,and the Commercial KSF should be adjusted accordingly. These numerical errors identified above result in 168 KSF increase to the Project square footage and an 4-4 inflated Commercial KSF. These errors arc duplicated and compounded within all of the trip generation charts as well as the Comparison Chart("Table 111-12). We request that the data in all of these charts he corrected and the traffic impacts reassessed. With these changes to the overall KSF and an accurate allocation toward LT Industrial, the project will be below the threshold anticipated in the General Plan and significantly closer to the Current City TransCAD Model. This is extremely important since these high numbers are the basis for acquiring significant off-site mitigation measures. Page 3.11-12; Trip Generation: We request that the proposed public parking lot as described be removed from consideration.The proposed parking lot was intended to be a gift of land for the benefit of local residents desiring to use the trail system. As stated in other sections of this report,it is assumed that traffic generated from this project exceeds what was anticipated in the 2025 General Plan and that 4-5 additional traffic generation is used to justify a variety of off-site road improvements throughout the Town (see MM 3.11-A, 3.11-1D). We do not believe there is a nexus to require such improvements based on questionable assumptions and traffic use not generated by this project. Page 3.11-25; Comparison between Proposed Project and Assumptions in General Plan: We question why the General Plan Land Use assumptions for the property are so much different from the Current City TransCAD model as shown in Table 3.11-12. In addition why do these assumptions not reflect the reduction for pass-by and intercepted trips (see pg. 3.11-25. 2 paragraph. last sentence)? This methodology appears to provide a false baseline assumption and reflects false trip data generated from the project.This site is uniquely different from a typical commercial real estate perspective in that it will intercept a tremendous amount of existing traffic traveling to Tahoe and the Northstar Resort. On 4-6 face value this does not appear of much importance. However,the end result appears that these numbers arc used to justify a variety of off-site improvements. These off-site improvements are based on the premise that the project generates more traffic than anticipated in the General Plan and therefore mitigation such as construction of the Gtenshirc Drive and Donner Pass Road Intersection and off-sitc striping requirements on various roadways throughout the Town is needed to mitigate project impacts. Please provide an explanation of why the traffic model is so much different than what was anticipated in the General Plan and why reductions for logical assumptions such as pass-by and intercepted trips are excluded, Traffic Impacts 3.11-1: The following comments are in response to the mitigations proposed for various off-site roadways and intersections: Page 3 of 7 S UOS ADl414200M-/PER R RANORHRIER COMMENT LETTERME 5 ORt DER?COMMENDS DOC 2.0-84 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Re:Joerger Ranch—Comments on Specific Plan Draft E1R Date:October29,2013 • Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection currently operates at a LOS F. This is an existing condition.The report concludes that the proposed project would exacerbate the existing LOS deficiency and therefore concludes that the project is responsible for improvements to that intersection. This assumes that projects within the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan are the only development occurring in Truckee. A variety of recently approved projects (i.e. Avery Hotel, Rock Commercial Expansion continual build out of the Glcnshirc subdivision, build-out of Gray's Crossing subdivision, public use of the Gray's Crossing golf comae, build-out of the Winter Creek Subdivision,and others)also exacerbate this existing LOS. The Town has adopted AB 1600 mitigation fee program for situations just like this where there is an existing deficiency as a result of an existing condition and is being exacerbated by a variety of sources_That program 4-7 is intended to generate funding to offset the incremental decline of the road systems LOS by imposing development fees to be used to construct improvements to correct deficiencies on all projects that contribute to the existing deficiency. The purpose of the fee program is to avoid placing the financial burden entirely on one project. While this improvement is listed in the fee program,it is not subject to receive funding from the program because it's not listed in the three- year Capital Improvement Program (CII'). To burden one development project with such mitigation,while the intersection is continuing to erode based on others that contribute traffic is not fair and places the projects within the Joerger Ranch Specific flan at a disadvantage. We request that this improvement be placed in the Town's Capital Improvement Program so that equitable funding is generated to all those that are further contributing to the deficiency at that intersection pay their fair share of the needed improvements. • Mclver/West River Street Intersection. As outlined above, many sources contribute to this impact and as such PC-3 should be responsible for paying its fair share towards that mitigation, not the full improvement. We request that this improvement be placed in the Town's Traffic 4-8 Mitigation Fee Program so that equitable funding is generated by all those contributing to the deficiency of this intersection. • SR 267/Brockway/Soaring Way. The report states that"Implementation of the project would cause the SR 267/Brockway/Soaring Way intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2012. Removal of the existing traffic signal and construction of a multi-lane roundabout would improve the LOS to an acceptable level."It further slates that"...while provisions of capacity enhancing improvements to the existing signalized intersection also improve the level service to an 4-9 acceptable level this would not be consistent with the Town's policy(General Plan Policy P7.1), which strives to replace existing traffic signals with roundabouts including traffic signals on State Highways." While this is hue, the report fails to list the other pertinent policies which guide recommended traffic improvements. Those policies read as follows: P7.1 Strive to replace existing traffic signals with roundabouts as o means of intersection control, including traffic signals on State Highways. Page 4 of 7 S JOB ADM 15007.05-IOERGO sANCMmR,m COMMENT MSITssssMSHatoRM PER COMMENTS GOC' Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-85 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Re:Joerger Ranch—Comments on Specific Plan Draft EIR Date:October 29.2013 P72 install roundabouts instead of new traffic signals or capacity enhancing improvements to existing signalized intersections,when roundabouts will achieve the some 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 4-9 A7.1 Conduct a study of existing signalized intersections in Truckee to determine which might be Cont suitable for replacement with roundabouts,and develop a prioritization and implementation program for their replacement.Criteria that should be used in considering replacement of existing signals with roundabouts include pedestrian access and safety,historic character,urban design goals for a corridor or neighborhood,costs,and construction feasibility. As discussed above, the traffic volume listed in Table 3.11.4 do not reflect accurate traffic volumes generated by PC-3. Therefore we do not know if the LOS exceeds what was anticipated in the General Plan. What we do know,is that the General Plan Circulation Element Table CTR- 4 10 5 anticipates improvements by the Town"upon development of PC-3 or long range". Those anticipated improvements at SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way include a "roundabout or additional through and turning lanes". A roundabout at this intersection is included in the Town's Traffic Impact Fee Program. However, Action Policy A7.1 has not been completed to determine construction feasibility. These policy statements indicate a roundabout OR additional through and turning lane improvements could satisfy these policies. The key factor is determining if installation of a roundabout will not be substantially costlier than a signal. The existing intersection is already signalized and adding additional through and turning lanes will be significantly less costly than 4-11 removing the signal and replacing it with a roundabout. If the roundabout at the development known as Gray's Crossing is any indicator (construction cost estimated over S5 million) mandating such improvement conflicts with General Plan P7.2 listed above. We request that the text on page 3.11-45 reflect all policies listed above so decision-makers are aware of the criteria they can use in making such a discretionary decision. As written this mitigation measure precludes that discretionary process. In addition Caltrans has recognized that this intersection and roadway segment will need to he improved in the 20 year horizon and the owners of PC-3 will not be responsible to bear the cost of any of these planned projects or program projects (see attached Caltrans letter Land's date route to 267 segments one and two summary). Being that both Caltrans and the Town have recognized that this intersection improvement to be a regional need it only appears fair that this 4-12 improvement be placed in the in the Town's CIP and PC3 be required to pay its fair share mitigation fee.The DEIR needs to evaluate what through or turning Lane improvements would be needed to accommodate development within the PC3 project on the interim basis and the Town needs to conduct the required feasibility assessment required by General Plan Circulation Page 5 of 7 vas AUI4 1559.7!-moues s wnoankrm COMMENT LETTERS,NISHEMON DEM COMMENTS Lax 2.0-86 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Re:Joerger Ranch--Continents on Specific Plan Droll EIR Date:October 29,2013 Element A7.1 to determine if a roundabout is appropriate before a full roundabout mitigation can 4-12 be imposed on PC3. Cont • Brockway Road/ltope Court/Site Access. Hope Court serves a multitude of housing units known as Pinyon Creek. That project was required to contribute funds for future intersection improvements at Hope Court. Those funds should be made available to implement this improvement. In addition,future development should he required to pay their fair share cost of 4-13 this improvement. We request that this mitigation be amended to incorporate a reimbursement agreement so that projects that contribute to and benefit from this improvement pay their fair share. • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access. Adjacent to Soaring Way is approximately 25 acres of land owned by the Truckee Airport District with significant development potential. In fact,the District is pursuing a large scale office complex consisting of non-airport type uses. Future 4-14 development should be required to pay their fair share cost of this improvement. We request that this mitigation be amended to incorporate a reimbursement agreement so projects that contribute to and benefit from this improvement pay their fair share. This also applies to SR 267/Brockway/Soaring Way improvements. 111 We request that the draft LIR consider amending the following mitigation measures: • Mitigation Measure 3.11-1A: Construct a center turn lane on Danner pass road to allow to stage left turn movements to be made from Glenahire Drive. Payment of a traffic mitigation fee is considered to be adequate mitigation for this intersection. The project proponent shall pay the 4-15 town's traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement. • Mitigation Measure 3.11-1D: Amend the last sentence to read 7lw-pre}rusJswl Ra-stripe the existing pavement to provide TWLTL on West River St.east of the McIver Crossing. The project proponent shall pay 7'own of Truckee traffic impacts fees contributing to this improvement. 4-16 • Mitigation Measure 3.11-11: Add an additional sentence that reads in compliance with Table 2- 2:Specific Plan Implementation Measures and Action Items and Table 2-3:Intersection/Roadway Frontage/Class I Bike Trail Improvements. A reimbursement agreement shall be prepared so that 4-17 projects that contribute to and benefit from this improvement pay their fair share. • Mitigation Measure 3.11-1G: Add an additional sentence that reads in compliance with Table 2-2: Specific Plan Implementation Measures and Action Items and Table 2-3: 4-18 Intersection/Roadway Frontage'Class I Bike Trail Improvements. • Mitigation Measure 3.11-IH: Add an additional sentence that reads in compliance with Table 2-2: Specific Plan Implementation Measures and Action Items and Table 2-3: 4-19 Page 6 of 7 8 JOB ADMINVA5S-3QI5t l RANCHfk1}isa Ci9411ai4T LsT r ss n n..4 4,,.: LE j. 1l s Final Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-87 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Re:Joerger Ranch—Comments on Specific Plan Draft ELR Date:October 29,2013 InlerscctionwRoadway Frontage/Class I Bike Trail Improvements. A reimbursement agreement 4-19 shall be prepared so that projects that contribute to and benefit from this improvement pay their Cont fair share. • Amend Table 3.11-18 SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way mitigation measure to also allow 4-20 consideration of through and turn lanes. Sincerely. S(:0 PLANNING& ENGINEERING:,INC. Dale T.Creighton,AIC P Principal DTC.`cr Enclosures(as stated above) Page 7 of 7 t VOD Ap@5taasos-Jo0t9Lit RANCMCRER 0014111.31T LISIlm4ow SCA CVWQNrd L. 2.0-88 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 kmte Allat CALRWUAn.-pow+kti:.n tAxsernn snnei AND musINc,e�U1tY ..,•.i.r..,�. -;:.,. � �:,.• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION L�'t DISTRICT 3 703 B Strcn Marysville.CA 95401 rtioFAX (5. 0530).4490 :70"VW po"Yr' FAX IS a0301.40� Letter 4 Attachment Rr'rerp ejlirmw' December 21.2011 John Renwick 03-PLA-267-PM 1.2 10598 Combie Road EA:OF0109 Auburn,CA 95602 Parcel leo.35957-1 Dear Mr.Renwick: Bawd on the review of the PC3 Project.there will not be a requirement or mitigation placed on the project or the project owners to bear the cost of any of the Planned Projects or the Progrannncd Projects as per the attached Highway Improvement Project Summary. Sincerely. • -- i. SHALVIN SINGH Associate Right of Way Agent Enclosures • "Caw wss unprr.,.•,*whim.across Coldoniu' Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-89 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES I State Route 267 Segments 1 & 2 Summary -41111, ,'tr.. . -••••• at iii, of IL 4v .--- i iiiiilli Segment 1- 1-80 to Placer County line(NEV PM —_. Segment 2-Nevada/Placer County line to Brockway M0.000-PM 1.80) Summit(PLA PM 0.00-0.67) Segment 1 begins at the Interstate 80 and SR 267 inter- Segment 2 is an undivided 24ane conventional highway change and ends at the Nevada/Placer County line. The that extends southeasterly from the Nevada/Placer county Truckee Bypass is a 2-lane expressway that was con- line. provides a connection to the Truckee-Tahoe Airport structed to remove traffic from downtown Truckee. and Northstar-At-Tahoe Ski Area, it then ascends moun- However, the bypass was built with sufficient right of tainous terrain at a 9%grade,and ends at Brockway Sum- way to expand to 4 lanes when needed. mil Over the next 20 years,this segment will be impacted This segment currently operates at LOS U.but is ex- by the development of adjacent land for commercial,recrea- 6T. petted to decline over the 20-year planning period to Urinal,and residential uses. LOS E. In order to meet Concept LOS,the facility will This segment of SR 267 currently operates at LOS D, Qneed to be upgraded to its ultimate concept as a 4-lane although LOS is expected to decline over the 20-year plan- �af� N expressway. rung period to LOS E. In order to meet the Concept LOS the facility will ultimately need to be widened to 4-lanes. rm. Highway Improvement Projects (Construction Cost in Thousands(1,000);Construction Completion Year) Segment 1 Segment 2 Planned Projects: Planned Protects: • Construct two-lane roundabout at 1-80 westbound • Widen to four-lanes from Nevada/Placer County line ramps(53,500;2030)2011 Nevada County RTP to Northstar Drive($10,000;2025)PCI'PA 2035 RTP • Construct two-lane roundabout at I-SO eastbound • Rehabilitate pavement and widen shoulders from Ne- ramps(53,100;2030)2011 Nevada County RTP vada/Placer County line to Brockway Summit(511.400; • Construct roundabout or equivalent improvement 2018)EA-2F290k al Brockway Road ($4,200; 2020) 2011 Nevada • Install ITS at various location(STBD;2013)PCTPA 2035 County RTP RTP • Widen to four-lanes from Brockway Road to Placer Programmed Protects: County Tine ($3500. 2030) 2011 Nevada County • Martis Creek left tum pocket($1,800;2015)EA-0F010 RTP • Replace asphalt concrete surfacing from Nevada/ Programmed Protects: Placer County line to Northstar Drive($600;2014)EA- • None 3M940 Conceptual Protects: • Replace asphalt concrete surfacing from Northstar • None Drive to Brockway Summit(5495;2013)EA-3M600 • Plant establishment and protection from Northstar Drive to SR 28(5705;2014)EA-0E830 • Northstar slope stabilization(57,510;2014)EA-0E990 Conceptual Projects: • None Page 6 ctate Route 267 Tnmsporlatton Corridor Concept Report I 2.0-90 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 requirement to construct workforce housing units will fall to future developers within the Plan Area. The Draft EIR identifies the Town's mandatory workforce housing requirements, which shall be implemented as future development applications within the Plan Area are received and approved. The Town will work with individual future applicants to determine the appropriate workforce housing requirement for each new project and develop the appropriate plan for compliance with Chapter 18.126 of the Truckee Development Code. No changes to the Draft EIR are required. 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. The land use assumptions shown in Table 3.11-4 have been revised, as requested, and a "follow- up"traffic analysis was prepared (reference LSC Memorandum Feb 10,2014), which is provided in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. 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, resulting in an overestimation of building square footage used in the traffic analysis for the Draft EIR. The floor area ratio assumptions shown in Table 3.11-4 have been revised, as requested, and a "follow-up" traffic analysis was prepared (reference LSC Memorandum Feb 10, 2014), which is provided in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. 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. The comparison chart was revised, as requested, and the traffic impacts at the key site access intersections were re-assessed (reference LSC Memorandum Feb 10, 2014). The "Research & Development Center" land use (ITE Land Use Code 760) falls under the "Office" category in the ITE Trip Generation manual, and not under the "Industrial" category. However, the ITE trip generation rates for an R&D Center are similar to the "Light Industrial" trip generation rates applied in the Town TransCAD model, which are substantially lower than the "Commercial" trip generation rates in the TransCAD model. Therefore, it is appropriate to re-classify the R&D use as Light Industrial, for purposes of comparison with the Town TransCAD model and this change has been made in the LSC Memorandum (Feb 10, 2014). Note that whether the R&D use is classified as a commercial or industrial use does not affect the outcome of the traffic impact analysis, as the trip generation of the R&D use is estimated based upon standard ITE trip rates specific to an R&D Center. Final Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-91 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 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. 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. 2.0-92 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. The project proponent would need to make a formal request to the Town Council for consideration of this action. Construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension from Bridge Street to Glenshire Drive 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 3.11-1A has been revised to clarify the implementation timing for construction of a center turn lane on Donner Pass Road to Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-93 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire Drive. As shown in Section 3.0, the construction of this improvement may occur following recordation of a Phase I Map totaling seven 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 4-8: 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 seven 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. 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. The land use quantities have been corrected and reduced, and a "follow-up" traffic analysis was prepared (reference LSC Memorandum Feb 10, 2014). The extent of the improvements required to provide an acceptable LOS at the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection has been reduced accordingly. The improvements are 2.0-94 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 consistent with what was anticipated in the General Plan ("roundabout or additional through and turning lanes"). As described in the revised traffic memo, 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 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 111 associated with the construction of a roundabout, it is appropriate to allow the provision of additional turn lanes as interim improvements as an alternative Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-95 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 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. 2.0-96 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 revised as follows: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for any future development projects within the project site, each development applicant shall prepare a traffic study to the Town that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Town that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development project would not trigger an unacceptable level of service at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for a project that would generate traffic that triggers an exceedance of the acceptable LOS at this intersection, the project proponent shall construct a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. 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 Road/Soaring Way intersection was reduced. The commenter is referred to Response 4-10. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-97 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Letter 5 From:Ellie and Don Hyatt[maitto:hyattrPJusarnedla.ty] Sent:Monday,October 28, 2013 5:26 PM To:Denyelle Nishrmon Subject: PC3 comments To Derryelle Nishimori Senior Planner Town of Truckee I would like to make a few comments pertaining to the Pratt EIR for Planned Community R3. The PC3 development is the first area that a visitor sees when approaching from route 267 to downtown Truckee along Brockway road. It appears there seems to be much light industry and large box type buildings in the plan.I was surprised that auto dealerships would be allowed as they would not enhance any visual approach to the town.In the Community Character Element of the General Plan,the opening statement reads: it is to preserve and build upon Truckee's"sense of place and unique identity.It is a 5-1 place that one remembers long after leaving.I do not think an auto dealership in something that supports that statement.IF,the Goal CC-5 statement,the General plan is to ensure that planning and development decisions are oriented towards the maintenance of Truckee's unique character.It is very hard to envision large,box type distribution buildings on this gateway into Truckee. Also,distribution buildings and centers for alcohol/spirits do not appear to be in maintaining Truckee's character.The noise associated with these type of activities especially in moving alcohol,etc.at night will not support a quiet, neighborhood atmosphere.New development Is suppose to enhance the gateway and corridor'not deflect from our historic town atmosphere.It Is important to avoid the"strip mall"type 5-2 of appearance such as you view out driving along IS 80 around Roseville.It used to be a pretty,scenic area but few people would think it Is that now. New building is suppose to create a visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing town environment.In the general plan, it states that new development is suppose to create a distinct and positive sense of arrival into Truckee.It Is hard to envision how this development will accomplish that statement. Yes,we could use possibly a grocery store and nice restaurants and affordable housing in that area.in keeping with our small town atmosphere,bike paths and pedestrian walking areas are needed Once the town 5-3 allows a project as large as this one Is to proceed,it only encourages more large development for the future.We will just end up looking like a"bedroom"community of Reno's such as what happened around Sacramento. The crossing at the intersection of Brockway and route 267 Is a very dangerous intersection, especially during the winter months and busy summer days.Traffic often is backed up for miles on busy week-ends, especially morning week-end traffic to Northstar.This huge development appears to only increase this situation.Recently,we had friends that decided to drive to King:beach,over Mt.Rose and back to IS 80 to 54 get back to the Bay Area during the Ironman week-end. They could not turn left from Northstar to approach 1580.Each year,more events are added in our area that only increase traffic along route 267. When accidents occur especially during winter months.it only increases the wait time. There are sections presently on the property that support nice groves of trees It seems that It would be important to preserve these groves not only for visual appearances but to also reduce noise pollution. It was hard to note on the plan what would be preserved of existing plants and trees Many trees and 5-5 landscaping would need to be planted to ensure you would not just be viewing box type structures. I could not find an archeological study in the EIR. Since the area is so close to Martis Valley where the Washoe tribe spent their summers,it seems that there may be artifacts that may be lost to excavation and construction. Most of the artifacts were lost forever in Martis Valley due to lack of oversight in the 5.6 development of the Northstar golf course,etc.There should be a field study performed by an impartial archaeologist before construction commences. 2.0-98 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Please strongly consider retaining Truckee's unique mountain community feel especially at one of the main gateways into Truckee.Make it a gateway that is conducive for visitors wanting to see more of what is available in Truckee.Development could still be done on all 4 corners of the Joerger property and still have an approachable,visually positive feel;not just one of sprawl and the appearance of trying to usellj 5-7 the land for development. Let's try to maintain the scenic mountain town character and keep our gateways and corridors visually appealing and inviting for all visitors and community members alike. Thank you for your consideration. Ellen Hyatt Truckee,Calif. 1 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-99 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 2.0-100 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. This impact has been thorough addressed in the Draft EIR. The commenter's concerns regarding the project are noted, and these comments have been forwarded Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-101 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 NRNP 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. 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 2.0-102 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-103 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Letter 6 Re: Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) October 28, 2013 Dear Town of Truckee Planning Division Staff, We have lived in Truckee for nearly 40 years and on Reynold Way, at the Ponderosa Golf Course,since 2007. Prior to our move,we lived in Brickelltown for 30 years, near the street traffic,train and freeway noise,and all-night lighting that came with living in downtown Truckee. We are thrilled to live in a quiet neighborhood now,away from the impacts we endured. Unfortunately,the proposed commercial development in the Joerger Ranch PC-3 project (Parcels 1-6)threatens that. If the Joerger Ranch parcels west of Highway 267 are developed for commercial purposes, and if Martis Drive,the narrow,one-lane dirt road connecting Brockway Road to Reynold Way, is widened to 60 feet and paved,the character of our neighborhood is changed forever. From a livable one, it becomes a noisy suburban setting with large buildings and huge parking lots,and a road that invites trucks and traffic to our narrow unlined streets 6-1 where people walk their children and dogs en route to the Legacy Trail, past senior housing and the popular skateboard park. We admire the loerger family for potentially donating Parcel 6 to the proposed Truckee Community Building. However, if they consider the donation a trade for developing Parcels 1-5,or for widening and paving Martis Drive to Reynold Way,then we are very much opposed and would urge TCB supporters to find another location. When you consider new development to our community, please remember the value of the people who live here--in the neighborhoods that reflect their dreams of being in a beautiful, small mountain town. A few years ago, our neighborhood was dramatically affected by construction of the new Highway 267 bypass,which now exposes some residents to the noise of day and night traffic, when before there was none. We are very lucky to live here, and we know it.We are also well aware that Truckee needs new businesses for a vital economy and energetic people to run them. But, without desirable neighborhoods to live in,Truckee has nothing to offer,and the future of this very special place may not be what we envision. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Laurel &Tom Lippert 10355 Reynold Way Truckee, CA 96161 #530-587-2995 2.0-104 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 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. Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-105 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES I The Mun terman Group nc Paas Office Box 625 A/armee'' Carnelian Bay Ph, ey California 96140 del J4itnti (kw/ 530(546-3126 voice/fax !•I 9 J,t3 Letter 7 October 25,2013 Denyelle N.Nishimori,Senior Planner Town of Truckee Planning Division 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Dear Ms.Nishimori, In letter is in response to the publication of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3)Draft Environmental Impact Report dated September,2013. As a homeowner in the Ponderosa Meadows subdivision,directly adjacent to this proposed development,I feel compelled to respond to several items in the EIR which I feel are not being honestly and adequately addressed. • First,the supporting map documentation is completely out of date,as it fails to show uur subdivision which was constructed back In 2008.This omission was pointed out by myself and another homeowner back in the spring of 2012,when the public hearings were held,and have not been corrected.A professional document which could end up being contested in court should be current and representative of conditions 7-1 as they exist in the present day,not six or seven years ago.The maps as they currently are shown are misleading and represent a level of impact to surrounding homeowners that is less than accurate. . The"significant'Air Quality impacts delineated in items 3.9-1 through 4 are a grave concern.The mitigation measures proposed are certainly not in proportion to the proposed threat of air quality degradation.Most of the recommended mitigation measures border on the laughable when viewed against the degradation they are supposed to prevent.The geography of the proposed project location is prone to severe inversions in the winter,holding in exhaust from highway 267 and highway 80,let exhaust fumes Z from the airport as well as smoke from wood stoves in the Ponderosa Meadows area.This"exhaust soup" can already be unbearable at certain times of the year,and only stands to get substantially worse under this EIR.Keep in mind that good air quality is one of the main reasons that we all have chosen to live in Truckee. • The Noise impacts have been listed as"potentially significant",which I feel is a gross underestimation of the problem.These Impacts are delineated in items 3.9-1 through 4.This applies especially to the permanent noise impacts vs.the temporary construction impacts.We knowingly purchased our property with the understanding that the airport was nearby and would impact us at different times of the year,and we understood full well that Highway 267 was several hundred yards away and would affect us in much the 7-3 same way.I'm confident that the current level of noise we experience day to day is far beyond what most reasonable people would be comfortable living with.That being said,we are now possibly being asked to bear the burden of additional layers of sonic contamination,both short and long term.if a noise study were done from my rear deck,I am confidant that those noise levels would be alarming,bordering on the "unhealthy with risk-of-hearing-loss"territory. . The Greenhouse Gas impacts,item 3.5-1 is also a concern for the obvious reasons.The mitigation measures offered are not substantial and forward thinking,but are simply boilerplate bureaucratic responses.We 7-4 should be holding ourselves and our community to a higher standard with respect to this lung-term danger. 1 I 2,0-106 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 * Finally,the Park and Recreational Facility impacts,item 3.10-5,list a couple connecting bike paths as the extent of the mitigation measures.I feel a development of this size should not be approved without a substantial pay-back to the community.In my previous letter in response to the public workshop dated February 24,2012,1 brought up the idea of a"mini-park"at the natural junction of the paths of travel from 7-5 the Sierra Meadows subdivisions,around the Ponderosa Meadows golf course and down to the Truckee River and the Legacy Trail.I wish to bring up this concept once again,as a more fitting mitigation measure in support of our recreational facilities here in Truckee. However,based on the issues raised by this EIR,I would ask that your staff as well as our entire community focus closely on the"No Build"alternative offered on page.5.0-6. 7-6 Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely yours Dale Munsterman AIBD www.themunstermangroup.com Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-107 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 2.0-108 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-109 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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, CaIEEMod 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. 2.0-110 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 • 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: 00 Bicycle connectivity 0o Open community and walkable streets 00 Energy efficiency in buildings 00 Reduced water use 0o Solar orientation 0o Reuse and recycling 0o Minimize site disturbance 0o 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 0o Wood Materials o Reclaimed wood o Certified Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) lumber 00 Energy Star windows 00 Insulation upgrades beyond Title 24 requirements 00 Recycled and energy efficient flooring materials 00 Permeable paving and hardscape materials 00 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-111 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-112 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 To whom it may concern Letter 8 Oct 28, 2013 Comments on PUBLIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR III EJoerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC---3) SCH#2012052073 The EIR suggests a REDUCED INTENTISTY ALTERNATIVE with a 50%reduction to the currently proposed PC3 Plan. I support this alternative and hope that even further reductions will be required limiting the size and types of uses,as the current plan does not seem to comply with the established Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. Auto dealerships and large commercial buildings with a total of over 400,000 sq.ft of coverage is not what the community has approved. The section Community Character Element specifically in 3,3 states the following: Maintain Truckee's unique qualities and sense of place to preserve the town's established historic and scenic mountain town character Conserve and protect the natural beauty,scenic landscapes ano open space resources of the Town,including the Truckee river,Donner Lake,ridges and hillsides,scenic corridors and vistas,and views of the night sky. Emphasize and enhance the visual and physical connection 8 1 between the town's natural environment and the community's quality of life. Enhance Truckee's important corridors and community gateways." "Policy 14.3:Ensure that the design quality and character of the PC---3 development Is compatible with the gateway qualities of the south end of Brockway Road" The project will not do any of the above. The first thing people will see when they enter Truckee via hwy 267 from Hwy 80 or Lake Tahoe, probably the second biggest"community gateway in Truckee` is what they see everyday in the cities they are trying to escape from - a continuous mass of commercial buildings covering all four corners with about 400,000 sq ft of commercial buildings of one type or another. There is already many commercial buildings in the Airport area,which is at least set back from the hwy not built out to the edge of the road as the PC3 development is currently designed. The Airport area isn't even fully utilized currently so why add another large section which will take years to be fully occupied.while scaring the land for ever. The Truckee General Plan requires the following "Policy 4.1:Recognize and preserve views of the night sky as an important natural and scenic Resource in Truckee. Policy 4.2:Require light fixtures to be designed and sited so as to minimize light pollution, glare,and light trespass into adjoining properties" 8-2 "Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky around and above us,including glare,light trespass,sky glow and over-lighting. Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-113 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment,particularly for a mountain community like Truckee.Excessive light and glare can also be visually disruptive to humans and nocturnal animal species,and often reflects an unnecessarily high level of energy consumption.Light pollution has the potential to become an issue of increasing concern as new development contributes additional outdoor lighting installed for safety and other reasons.Truckee is threatened not only by light pollution from development within the town's own borders,but also suffers from sky glow associated with the intensive and sprawling development of the Reno/Sparks metropolis" 8-2 Currently in the area of the proposed project there are no large developments Cant which add significant light to the nightscape except for the light in the Airport area. The PC3 project will increase the potential for a huge impact on the night light. The lights will make one feel like they are in a big city with the density planned currently planned for the site, Currently we have a lovely view of the Mts to the East which would be compromised if the area is lit up at night. The EIR also covers Biological Resources as follows: "As described in Section 3.2 Biological Resources, Construction on the Plan Area has the potential to result in impacts to special—status species On the project site. There are documented occurrences of Plumas ivesia within five miles of The project site. Field surveys revealed the presence of approximately 60 individual plants on The project site. Development of the proposed project would require disturbance to these Special status plants. Mitigation Measure 3.2-.-2 requires the excavation and replanting of all Plumas ivesia from The Plan Area prior to any site disturbance,which would reduce impacts to this species to a Less than cumulatively considerable level." "Additionally, there are documented occurrences of Sierra Nevada red fox within five miles Of the project site. Field surveys performed by Foothill Associates on August 21 and 22,2006, Quad Knopf on September 7,2006,and by De Novo Planning Group on July 13,2011,did not 8-3 Reveal the presence of this species,or any essential habitat for this species on the project site. There is no evidence of existing or past denning on the project site. Implementation Of the proposed protect is not anticipated To have a direct impact on this species. Therefore,this is a less than cumulatively Considerable impact." Both of these statements show that the area is very special and while maybe each may not have a Cumulative Considerable impact according to the EIR,it does show us what a special place this is,and we can't allow it to become like another strip commercial district, like many in the intensive and sprawling development of the Reno/Sparks metropolis. I live within 5 miles of PC3 and have a wonderful video take at least 6 years ago of two Red Foxes nesting in the woods next to my home. I have spotted the Plumas Ivesia in Truckee in Martis Valley and in the high Sierras along the PCT,it is a special plant and we are lucky to live where it grows. I hope that somehow we can keep development at a minimum so that what we all moved here to enjoy will remain for our children to also enjoy!! We also live in an area that was important to the Indians in the area,and I have not seen mention of an Archelogical review being done for this area. Many sites have been found in 8-4 The Martis Valley,so it is likely that there are some here near the Truckee River. For the above reasons I believe that the proposed PC-3 plan should be aligned more closely to the goals established in the Truckee General Plan, which was developed and designed 8-5 2.0-114 Final Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 by the community,will not be met with the current PC3 Plan. Please step back and 8-5 Lets look at the big picture and reduced the current PC3 Plan by 50%or hopefully more. Cont Sincerely, Ann Penfield 30 year Truckee Resident 11269 Skyline Ct. Truckee,Ca 96161 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-115 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 2.0-116 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 2.0-117 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Ponderosa Palisades Townhouses Homeowners Association 12219 Business Park Dr.118 Truckee,CA 96161 Letter 9 October 4,2013 Town of Truckee Planning Commission Attn:Denyelle Nishimcri,Senior Planner 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Ponderosa Palisades Townhouses Homeowners Association comment on the Draft EIR for Planned Community- 3(Joerger Ranch Specific Plan) SCH 112012052073 Our Association is a 30 unit single family home nonprofit mutual benefit corporation located on Schaffer Dr and Pine Cone Rd. We are directly adjacent to the east of the Hilltop Master Plan bordering the Davies/Fitch and Intrawest Parcels. We are also directly adjacent to the south of the Truckee Commons Plan. We would like to express our support of the zoning recommendations included in the Draft EIR for PC-3 as they relate to the following 1- Regional Commercial(CR)11.7 acres targeted for buildings larger than 5,000 sq feet 2- Residential Multi-Family(RM)3.5 acres for higher density housing 3 lifestyle Commercial(Ct)and Regional Support Commercial(CRs)combined 13 7 acres 4- Traffic mitigation solutions its understood that the community in general has concerns regarding the need for additional senior housing in the Truckee area. We support the concept of an assisted living facility here in town. However,we believe that the Pollard Station project currently being considered to be inappropriate and see an exceptional alternative location 9-1 in the PC-3 Joerger Ranch Plan. Both projects contain higher density residential use zoning which can accommodate the semi-assisted senior housing. However,the commercial/industrial zoning incorporated in the PC-3 Plan more easily accommodates the 76,000+square foot nursing home facility. The PC-3 parcels are more level for such a large building and would require significantly less timber removal. The Pollard Station site would require extensive grading and would possibly affect the water drainage en route to the Truckee River. The business park activity anticipated in the PC-3 Plan would also be more suitable for a nursing home facility which would require commercial deliveries and emergency vehicle access 24 hours a day. The airport business park area located near the PC-3 Plan includes emergency services for police and ambulance services The proximity of those services near a nursing home also makes the PC-3 Plan location more desirable. We are also in support of additional grocery market options for our community. This is especially true for choices on the east side of town to support the lahontan,Martis Camp,Schaffer's Mill and Glenshire communities We are aware of the Truckee Commons Plan submitted to the town which proposes a 20,000 commercial development including a Grocery Outlet, The PC-3 already contains area for an identical use The PC-3 location is a superior location for this type of commercial business since it is more centrally located to Highway 267 thereby 2.0-118 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 providing easier access. it would also be included in a commercial/industrial zoned area rather than adjacent to 9-1 Cont existing residential neighborhoods. The traffic mitigation plans included in PC-3 Plan appear to be thorough and have given consideration to the affected neighborhoods. Both the Pollard Station and the Truckee Commons projects would dramatically Increase the traffic especially on Pine Cone Rd. The traffic planning included in the PC-3 Plan anticipates this and is not 9-2 expecting to negatively impact existing residential areas. The recommendation to implement the Bridge for the Railyard Project to alleviate the indirect traffic for Glenshire also makes good sense. We support such a consideration in that it would help with traffic on Brockway Road. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Tori Goux.President Ponderosa Palisades Townhouses Homeowners Association Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-119 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-120 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Letter 10 Ron West & Associates Project Development Land Planning.Entitlements PO Box 1166 12091895-460Q Office 1 Patterson,California 95363 12091 985-11595 Mobile Email: rnnsest:t pv'isI.cum 12119 i 895-4960 FAX October 29,2013 Town of Truckee Planning Dept Attention:Denwelle RE: PC 3 DEM-.TRAFFIC IMPACTS-BROCKWAY/SOUTH RIVER Denyelle: I am representing Mr Lyn tiriytht,owner of the Truckee Springs property on South River Street. Before the PC 3 Draft EIR comment period ends we need to add one request of the process. We always wish our iteighhors well with their projects,and PC-3 is certainly no exception. We do,however.need to 10-1 request that any proposed protects which could have traffic impacts on Brockway and'or the Brockway- South River uttersecnou.analyze those impacts as Iran of their FIR and traffic studies Thank you for this opportunity. Ron West ('C Mr I.yn Bright I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 2.0-121 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-122 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Tahoe Safe Letter 11 a R®ceh, Alliance �a�hn�nn , U Stoppng Abuse for EVERYONE i �l G _:JI3 October 22,2013 Attn: Denyelle Nishimori.Senior Planner 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Dear Ms.Nishimori: I am the Executive Director of Tahoe SAFE Alliance,stopping abuse for EVERYONE. We are a private nonprofit organization who has been in business since 1985. We provide services to victims of domestic violence,sexual assault and child abuse in the Truckee Community. We currently rent office space in Truckee. We are extremely excited to have the opportunity to be a part of the Contractors Association's shared site office space for nonprofits. This concept of having a nonprofit center with affordable rents in Truckee is a huge need This collaborative project will 11--1 allow nonprofits to work closer together and will also be a huge benefit for our clients so they can receive multiple services in one location. Our organization feels strongly that Parsol 6, of the PC3 is a perfect location for office space for the nonprofits in Truckee. This shared site location will provide easy access for our clients who come to us for services. We support this project and support this shared site location.Thank you for your consideration in this manner. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Karen S. Carey 948Incine Way Executive Director I4CI ne V,Ilage.NV 89451 )775)2980010 8520 Brook Avenge,Ste A P O.Bot 1232 tangs Beach,CA 96143 (5301546-7804 12257 Bus-.ness Part Drive Ste 6 Truckee.CA 96161 1530)562-8117 A NON-PROFIT AGENCY DEDICATED TO REDUCING THE INCIDENCE AND TRAUMA OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT,AND CHILD ABUSE IN THE NORTH LAKE TAHOE/TRUCKEE COMMUNITIES Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-123 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-124 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 October 29,2013 Letter 12 Ms.Denyetle Nishimori Senior Planner Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 RE: Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms.Nishimori: We are writing to provide comment on the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report IDEIR) During the scoping session for this document.we requested that the possibility of maintaining a multi- purpose trail where the existing Martis Drive right of way is located,either in place of or In addition to the proposed bicycle path along the realigned Martis Drive running through the center of the proposed project area,be studied.I could not locate the discussion/analysis within the DEIR There are several reasons why maintaining a multi-purpose trail along the western boundary of the proposed project,in the existing ROW,would be beneficial both for the existing residents in the area and for the public at large: 1) It would provide a sufficient set-back/buffer between the existing Ponderosa Meadows community and the higher density residential uses proposed for the adjacent area and likewise a buffer between the proposed residential uses and the existing hotel and commercial uses along Brockway Road.In addition,it would provide a similar buffer between the Ponderosa 12-1 Meadows golf course and residential uses north of there and the proposed light industrial uses adjacent to them in the specific plan.This would help mitigate building massing,light,shadow, and noise concerns from these transitional areas of different land uses and densities 2) Many residents utilize the existing dirt road in the old Martis Road ROW to connect to the City's regional trail system that runs down along the Truckee River and improving this existing ROW with a multi-use trail would promote continued use for hiking,biking,etc While we realize the bike trail along a re-aligned Martis Road could also connect,it would be along a potentially busy street in an urbanized area.A hiking and biking trail that is located away from the street would be safer and much more pleasant to use,providing scenic views out over the golf course.It is also the shortest connection for the Regional Trail system. I know that many of my fellow residents in Ponderosa Meadows share our concern that these issues and ideas be considered and addressed.We thank the Town of Truckee Planning Department for Its consideration on this matter. Sincerely, - David Stearn 11341 Brockway Road Truckee,CA 96161 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-125 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-126 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 CAT1 wan Midis Clubs Tao October 29,2013 Denyelle Nishimori Letter 13 Senior Planner Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 RE: PC3 Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms.Nishimori: The Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe(CATT)is composed of 329 members companies representing the broad cross section of the building industry and related trades. it is usual practice of this Association to not comment on draft plans or environmental analysis for specific projects. However, in this case,GATT is submitting comment to set the stage for a future specific project in the PC3 subdivision. That future project will involve CATT and several non-profit partners and is called the "Truckee Community Building"project on Parcel 6 The Truckee Community Building(TCB)is the name given to a conceptual proposal to house multiple non-profit organizations under one roof,sharing costs and better serving the community. Tne TCB could be the site where various organizations share office equipment,front counter receptionist, storage space.commercial kitchen facilities,and more. Employees working at the TCB will likely hold jobs with higher paying wages(not minimum wage). The TCB will provide a direct benefit to the community. This model has been successfully executed in Incline Village under the umbrella of the 3-1 Parasol Foundation. There are a dozen or more groups in that one building. On a smaller scale,Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation has created the Community House in Kings Beach,where three non- profits work together to deliver health and social services to their constituents. Local groups showing interest in this concept consist of social services,the arts,faith-based, environmental,and recreation organizations. the Joerger family rias offered to grant a"gift deed"for Parcel 6 of the PC3 subdivision for the Truckee Community Building once the PC3 Plan approval has occurred. For purposes of land ownership,CATT's charitable 501c(3)sister organization,C.A.T.T. Community Project,is the designated recipient of Parcel b. Please see the signed MOU between C.A.T.1 Community Project Board member Paul Griggs and loerger Associates representative Milton C.David. The signed MOU was delivered to CATT on May 21,2013,well after the Specific Plan publication date in 2012. The MOU destinies the conditions fur granling the gift deed. C.A.T.T.Connnunity Project has received federal and state income tax exemption as a charitable organization. The exemption letters can ne provided upon request. 57313',atone Way Sun.'16•Truckee,CA 96161•530.5549999•F•530-550-9998• Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-127 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE Comments on PC3 DEIR October 29.2013 Page 2 of 4 CATT questions/comments in this letter are described by DEIR page number and may have some bearing on the PC3 Specific Plan 1) CL Zoning District-OFIR page 2.0-4(Specific Plan Land Use Chart pages 3.9 3.11) Please amend the uses listed for the CL zoning district to allow the use of Parcel 6 for a TCB. Most TCB activity would be considered Office/Professional but could also fall under Membership Organization Facilities or Food Production and Distribution.This anticipates the need for partner groups like the Sierra Senior Services with its"Meals on Wheels"program. The Meals on Wheels program is already occurring on a parcel closer to the downtown core and would move to Parcel 6 as part of the TCB. The Specific Plan notes that Food&Beverage Production is Permitted in the CL district but Food&Beverage Distribution is Not Permitted. Food&Beverage Production and Food&Beverage Distribution are both 13-2 allowed in the CR and CRS zoning districts. This is puzzling in itself to allow production but not distribution in the same zoning district. In any event,environmental impacts related to Food Distribution in the CL zoning district would be analyzed in the project-specific documents to be prepared for the TCB on parcel 6,so needed mitigations could become part of the approval process. We do not see how adding Food Distribution to the CL zoning district generates significant new,unavoidable Impacts for purposes of this DEIR. The potential to create a TCB on parcel 6 is a new concept not envisioned when the Specific Plan and subsequent DEIR were written. Had the TCB been a viable option in 2012,comment to change the zoning district description would have been submitted then. This is not a request to exempt the TCB from necessary permit or approval procedures.Please modify the CL zoning district description on page 2.0-4 to include Office/Professional,Membership Organization Facilities,Food Production,and Food Distribution. 21 Roadway Improvements: Cost Share Analysis-DOR page 2.0-9(Specific Plan Chapter 6) Please amend the procedure describing the Cost Analysis Assessment to allow the public an opportunity 13_3 to evaluate the land use intensity chart,anticipated traffic use,30%design,and estimate of probable costs and responsible share matrix.Since TCB will be a"Payer"of some portion of the improvements, this is critical to understand needed improvements and help control costs. Intersection/Roadway Frontage/Class 1 Bike Trail Improvements Chart-OUR page 2.0 11 (Specific Plan page 6.71 The first entry of the chart ties Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection improvements to parcel 9.This appears to be a typo. Whatever improvements are deemed necessary should be tied to parcel 6 and not 9. Please correct the error. If this is not an error,the EIR should provide complete explanation why parcel 9 has any bearing on Parcel 6.This would be considered new information not disclosed to the 13-4 public and decision makers and may warrant additional public review Please clarify the"Timing"of the improvement by adding text specifying where the Certificate of Occupancy for the"first building"is located in reference to multiple parcels.For instance.does"first building"for the Class 1 bike path along Brockway Road and Hope Court mean the first building or 2 2.0-128 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE Comments on PC3 DEIR October 29,2013 Page 3 of 4 addition anywhere in the PC3 subdivision or on ane of the six parcels(Parcels 1-6)shown as the 13-4 responsible party? Please clarify/confirm. cont Hope Court Roundabout—DEIR pages 3.11-46-48,3.11-67 The mitigation measure calling for Parcel 6 to be responsible for a signalized intersection or roundabout at the intersection of Brockway Road and Hope Court prompts several comments: A. It is questionable whether a mitigation measure Is actually needed at this intersection given the fact that land use activity on parcels 1-5 in total are deemed below a desired threshold for Martis Drive or Brockway Road but use on parcel 6 Is over the acceptable threshold for Brockway Road.Perhaps the traffic calculations deserve review?? Parcel 3 13-5 is the site for Multi-Family Residential (RM)with 41 workforce housing units. If occupancy is assumed at just two people per unit,there will be 82 new fulltime residents using Martis Drive and Brockway Road in addition to the other uses associated with parcels 1,2,4,and S.Parcel 6 will likely not see that collective volume every day-it will be less given the office/professional nature of the anticipated uses and reliance on public transit,so why impose a mitigation measure on Parcel 6? Please address the questions of accurate traffic modeling and consistent/fair application of mitigation measures on Parcel 6. B. Leave all options open for needed mitigation and do not describe the roundabout as the "recommended LOS mitigation measure"(DEIR page 3.11-67) A roundabout is one of several options that could be evaluated once traffic use for Parcel 6 is known. Town preference for a roundabout must be weighed against Town preference for appropriate economic development. Roundabouts are usually more expensive than signalized intersections.If the cost differential is the breaking point for an economically desired project that pays higher wages and provides direct benefit to the community,then the 13-6 roundabout may not be the preferred or desired mitigation measure. Higher costs could hinder desired economic activity as an unintended but very real consequence. Decision makers and the public should be able to assess a parcel-specific project and compare costs vs benefits of different mitigation measures at the appropriate time. It is premature to identify one type of mitigation as"recommended."This text change does not generate significant new,unavoidable impacts for purposes of the DEIR because parcel-specific project review must still quantify impacts and identify mitigation in the context of desired policy and community goals. C. If the roundabout is determined to be actually needed,then a cost share that includes other contributors beyond the PC3 subdivision should be considered. These other contributors could be: Clear Capital Campus proposal(TTAD/Nevada County),Placer County for Martis Valley/Northstar/North Shore traffic,Pinyon Creek town homes, 13-7 CalTrans for Hope Court/Parcel 7"park n ride"lot,or trails funding for trailhead parking. Any other adjacent development with a nexus to the Brockway Road/Hope Court roundabout should be added to the list of contributors. 3 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-129 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE Comments on PC3 DEIR October 29,2013 Page 4 of 4 Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3). Please add the Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe to the Town contact list for any and all items related to the PC3 subdivision(Plan and EIR). This includes 13-8 meeting notices,staff reports,or new information available for public distribution.Feel free to contact me(530-550-9999 or pat@ca-tt.com)if you have any questions. Sincerely, CONT TORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE Pat Davison Executive Director Attachment:MOU between C.A.T.T.Community Project and Joerger Associates 4 2.0-130 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING I. The representatives of Joerger Associates LLC, hereafter "Joerger", and CATT Community Projects,a 501 (3)(c) nonprofit entity,hereafter collectively referred to as"CATT " have met and discussed the granting of a gift deed by Joerger to CATT that parcel of property described as "CL"depicted on the attached exhibit consisting of approximately 4.3+/- acres upon the following conditions: (t) Joerger has accepted all of the requirements and provisions of the development described as the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan. hereafter"Plan': (2), the formal approval by appropriate resolutions of the Town of Truckee's Town Council of the Plan have been adopted;(3),the map describing the Plan has been recorded in the official records of Nevada County, State of California;and(4), no appeal or complaint challenging the approval has been filed in any court exercising jurisdiction to review the approval. It is acknowledged and understood by CATT the Town of Truckee and its Planning Commission may impose such onerous conditions for the approval of the Plan that further pursuit of such development is not feasible or acceptable to Joerger;and that as a result thereof,it may in its sole discretion decide to abandon such application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and based upon informal positive discussions with the representative of the Town of Truckee.the parties believe it is in the interests of the parties to move forward with the approval process. Therefore the purpose of this memorandum of understanding(MOU)is to state and set forth in general terms the intention of the parties to seek the approval of the Plan. 3. Joeger intends to move forward with its application for the Plan approval and to continue to expend the costs required for that approval. CATT understands that it is not the intent of Joerger to incur any costs other than those necessarily required for the general approval process. 4. CATT acknowledge that Joerger is the applicant for the Plan and all decisions made by Jocrgcr in connection therewith shall be in its sole discretion without the requirement of approval of CATT, except that Joerger shall consult with CATT as to those decisions which affect the uses of the subject of the gift deed. However CATT understands that Joerger as the owner of the property retains as its sole right and discretion its decisional rights in this regard. 5 The parties understand that when the approval process is completed and the Plan has been adopted by the Town of Truckee and the conditions stated in paragraph) have been met , the parties will, to the extent a formal agreement is required or necessary. adopt an agreement matting forth the further rights and duties of the parties. 6. CATT acknowledges that its support and advocacy for the approval of Plan is in the mutual best interest of the parties to this MOU. Notwithstanding the foregoing it is not the intent of the parties to restrict, bind, or obligate in any way a member of CAT!' or the Contractor Association 'Truckee "Tahoe (CATT') from expressing their opinion at any public or private meeting. CATT's intentions in accepting the gift deed to the described property is for a shared building site use and the subsequent development for the nonprofit entities, within the Truckee North Lake area. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-131 I i 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Page 2 of 2 Joerger Associates LLC BY CATT Community Projects 2.0-132 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 is a conceptual proposal for Parcel 6 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. 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, rather than Parcel 9. The commenter is referred to Section 3.0, which includes revisions to Mitigation Measure 3.11-1F. The revisions require the preparation of a traffic study that demonstrates that the proposed development would not trigger an unacceptable level of service at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for a project that would generate traffic that triggers an exceedance of the acceptable LOS at this intersection, the project proponent shall construct a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-133 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 in the Plan Area. The commenter is directed to the revised traffic analysis memo in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. The land use assumptions (floor areas) for Parcel 6 were reduced as a part of the "follow-up" traffic analysis (reference LSC Memorandum Feb 10, 2014). The revised trip generation analysis indicates that Parcels 1-5 in total generate more trips than Parcel 6. As further described in this memo, with full buildout of the PC-3 project under 2012 conditions, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS. Although no LOS mitigation measures are necessary for existing plus project conditions, the peak-hour traffic volumes warrant eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, as well as a westbound right-turn lane along Brockway Road. However, as shown in Table J of the follow up traffic memo, the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection is expected to exceed the LOS threshold under cumulative (2032) conditions. Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches would provide an acceptable LOS under all scenarios with the proposed project. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, improvements to this intersection to provide an acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project, which is specified under Mitigation Measure 3.11-1F. Future development projects within the Plan Area are required to contribute a fair-share contribution towards this intersection improvement. This issue has been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR and the subsequent traffic revisions shown in the February 10, 2014 Traffic Memo contained in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR. No additional changes are warranted. The commenter is further directed to the revised Zoning Plan shown in Figure 2-1 of this Final EIR. Parcel 6 is now proposed as Open Space, and as such, would not generate traffic from this portion of the Plan Area. Future development applications would still be required to contribute fair-share payments towards improvements to the Intersection of Brockway Road and Hope Court. 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 installation of a roundabout at this intersection, as described under Impact 3.11-1 and Mitigation Measure 3.11-1F would improve LOS conditions at this intersection to an acceptable level. The commenter's preference for additional mitigation options is noted, and has been forwarded to the Planning Commission and Town Council for their consideration. However, no changes to the Draft EIR are required at this time, as the Draft EIR has adequately mitigated this impact to a less than significant level, the construction of a roundabout is consistent with the policy guidance provided in the Truckee General Plan, and this proposed improvement has been deemed acceptable by the Town of Truckee Public Works Department. 2.0-134 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. 1 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-135 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES From:plomanto sbcalobal.net[maRto:pomantocalobal,netl Sent: Tuesday,October 29,2013 6:07 PM To:Denyelle Nishimori Subject: PC3 Comments DRAFT EIR Attn: OenyelleNishlmori, Planner Letter 14 Town of Truckee RE: PC3 Draft EIR Comments Dear Oenyelle: Because of my limited time I will make my cumntents very short and try nut to repeat comments that may have been submitted by others. 14-1 My concerns are that the Community Character Element ul our General Plan is not being followed; that our nightlight (dark sky) is likely to be negatively impacted: that natural beauty, landscapes and resources are being compromised; and that historic resources not respected. The project is simply too much and too big. It shows little concern for existing neighborhoods,further degradation of quality life already Impacted front noise of the airport, Hwy 00,ever increasing traffic,noise and pollution from Hwy Z67. I believe the plan fails to 14-2 adequately assess the negative aspects of peak traffic generated from the Northstar ski hill operations,housing and entertainment of Northstar,Nurthxtar's plans for expansion,Placer Counties plans for increased dwelling units, and existing natural and physical barriers to moving people and traffic. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I support very reduced plan,removal of the"Roseville"/"Placer"County-like density, removal of most of the industrial uses such as distribution of spirits and auto sales,and preserving,albeit to a somewhat limited extent,the 14-3 quality of life in the Truckee and Manic Valley areas that attracted most of my friends and neighbors to living in this community. Sincerely, Patty Lomanto (Resident since 19091 10305 Pine Cone Dr Truckee,C2 96161 2.0-136 Final Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-137 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-138 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 °ea db� °ala° Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church Rev.Ed Hilton,Pastor P.O.Box 10620 RecTruckee,CA 96162 Pia e�D v�an 1013 Letter 15 October 27,2013 Attention:Denyelle Nishimori,Senior Planner 10183 Truckee AirportRoad Truckee,CA 96161 Dear Ms Nishimori, Our church,Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church is one of a number of Truckee area non profit organizations working along with CATT on the idea of building a"shared space"concept building to house non profits who serve the people of Truckee. We believe that Parcel 6 of Planned Community-3 would be an excellent fit for our 15-1 needs.The location of Parcel 6 is very good and it appears to be on a bus line allowing easier access for many clients of these organizations. We urge you to give consideration to this use for parcel 6(professional/office). Sincerely, /4V L ogers, Tru ee Lutheran Presbyterian Church Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-139 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Response to Letter 15: Lynn Rogers,Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church Response 15-1: The commenter expresses support for the use of Parcel 6 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. 2.0-140 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 •r _ mountain area preservation ESTABLISH E D IN 1 9 8 To: Denyelle Nishimori October 29,2013 Senior Planner Town of Truckee Truckee Community Development Department 10183 Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Dnishimona.Townoffruckee.com Letter 16 From:Alexis 011ar Executive Director Mountain Area Preservation 101 l6 Jibboom Street Truckee,CA 96161 RE Comment Letter on Public Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the Proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Project(PC-3 Project)(SCH#2012052073) Dear Mrs.Nishimori, On behalf of the Board and Staff at Mountain Area Preservation(MAP)we would like to submit the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEM) for the proposed project,Planned Community-3(PC-3).Mountain Area Preservation's 16-1 mission is to preserve the.Truckee region's community character and natural environment for present andfuture generations MAP has worked for 26 years in the region advocating for sound land use planning,open space and smart growth development Our goal with commenting on the PC-3 DEIR is to support the Town's General Plan policies for PC-3,while providing more heightened mitigation measures to protect Truckee's community character and the scenic viewshed at the gateway to Town.Since,the Project applicant is proposing a Specific Plan,zoning and tentative tract map for PC-3,we have provided a new mitigation measure and conditions of approval that will bring the 16-2 Specific Plan into conformity with the General Plan and General Plan policies for PC- 3. Our proposed new mitigation measure also provides clearer direction for the development at PC-3 to ensure the Project when developed is consistent with the Town's General Plan and all other applicable policies and regulations.This new mitigation measure also provides a more clear direction for a more cohesive development to occur at the Joerger Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-141 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Ranch site.The DEIR also contains numerous inadequacies,including deferred and inadequate mitigation measures to address significant impacts related to air quality,visual and biological resources and plan consistency among others.Specific defects in the DEW 16-2 are also contained in our following comments.Our comments have been prepared with the cont assistance of the following experts;Jared Ikeda,Land Use Planner and Terry Walt,Land Use Planner.(See attachment 6 for Consultant's CV/Resume). Introductory Comments MAP supports the purpose of the General Plan and its policies for PC-3.(See e.g., Attachment 2,Partial List of General Plan Excerpts and Inconsistencies Relevant to PC-3). The General Plans intent of establishing appropriate types,mix,design and scale of uses to fulfill needs currently lacking within the Town are appropriate.Targeting land uses that 16-3 strengthen the local economy by capturing uses that are currently being met by travel to other areas within the region is a smart approach towards making the town even more livable with heightened connectivity.In addition,the intent of providing land uses at PC-3 that do not compete with the downtown,also providing the surrounding neighborhoods with access to commercial amenities without vehicle reliance,and providing zoning uses for the relocation of light industry from the Truckee River corridor helps to improve the economy and livability of the entire town. Major elements of these comments include the following: • New Mitigation Measure:The main purpose of these comments is to recommend the inclusion of one New Mitigation Measure in the DEIR that would resolve general plan inconsistencies and provide feasible mitigation for significant impacts to Air Quality,Greenhouse Gas Emissions.Climate Change,Biological Resources,Visual Resources,Transportation and impacts related to Project-Plan inconsistencies.The PC-3 Project,if approved without additional conditions,allows the applicant to sell 16-4 parcels without an integrated design and streetscape plan fulfilling required mitigation,reduce significant impacts identified by the DEIR and being consistent with Town goals and policies. The Specific Plan,zoning and tentative map must be held accountable to meet the Town's goals,policies and action items as well as reducing to the maximum extent the significant impacts of the Project • Ahemative Location(s)for Non-Profit Center Site: MAP's proposed solution in the form of a New Mitigation Measure that would modify and condition the Specific Plan provides a means of meeting these legal requirements,while allowing approval of a Project at PC-3,near-term sale of some of the parcels and superior locations for a non-profit community center. We are aware the applicant has offered Parcel 6 for 16-5 a non-profit center and believe that that particular parcel has many constraints to being developed:constraints that make development uncertain,costly and potentially infeasible. Our proposal would be to locate the non-profit center in a mixed use. walk-able area where shared parking,transit stop and services are easily accessible. 2 2.0-142 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 • DEIR Project Alternatives:We appreciate the Town for including the all'Industrial Alternative'in the DEIR analysis. We have now delved more deeply into Town policy,smart and sustainable planning and believe an integrated design and mix of uses that do not compete with downtown,but complete the surrounding neighborhoods within a Vz mile walking circle will provide for a superior Project at 16-6 PC-3.(See attachment 5,Walking Circle for Project Site).We are supportive of the DEIR environmentally superior alternative,the'Reduced Intensity Alternative'.The New Mitigation Measure we are proposing would allow the development to transpire in a unified manner,while protecting the scenic corridor and natural resources at the gateway to Truckee. • Specific Plan&DEIR Defects/Inconsistencies:The Specific Plan and DEIR both exhibit a lack of specificity and feasible mitigation measures.We have addressed some of the defects and particular parts of the Specific Plan and DEIR that need to be revised. We used this comment period time to work on a solution that would address the most significant of those defects—deferred and incomplete mitigation to 16-7 reduce impacts to Air Quality,Transportation and Green House Gas emissions are inadequate for the DEIR Preliminary comments on the numerous inadequacies and defects in the DEIR follow our comments on the solution;New Mitigation Measure. Finally,the comment period for a project of this importance,scale and complexity is extremely short.We plan to follow up with the applicant and the Town regarding our comments and suggestions after the close of the DEIR comment period. Background The solution MAP proposes would allow the Project to comply with planning and CEQA requirements.As currently proposed,the PC-3 Project fails to comply with numerous General Plan goals,policies and actions including those related to Land Use,Community Character,Economic,Biological Resources,among others.In addition,the DEIR fails to require feasible mitigation measures in the form of Specific Plan modifications capable of meeting Town goals and policies and reducing significant and significant unavoidable 16-8 impacts to Air Quality(e.g.,Impacts 3.1-1 and 4.1),and defers mitigation for biological impacts(e.g.,Impacts 3.2-4 and 3.2-5). Finally,the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate other potentially significant impacts such as those related to General Plan consistency(e.g.,PC-3 Specific Plan policies,economic,visual character,streetscape design,and biological)1. The proposed Specific Plan,Zoning and Tentative Tract Map do not provide the certainty needed to meet either the goal and policy obligations in the General Plan or the mitigation measures in the DEIR. In addition,the proposed Specific Plan,Zoning and Tentative Tract Map are not detailed enough to illustrate how the Town's See Attacluaeit 2 hereto,partial list of General Plan goals,policies and action items the PC-3 Project is inconsistent with as proposed. MAPs proposed New Mitigation Measure would bring the PC-3 Project into consistency with these provisions. 3 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-143 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES requirements in its Development Code will be achieved.The problem lies in the lack of an adequate Specific Plan to achieve the Town's vision and policies for the PC-3 site along 16-8 with the lack of a legally adequate environmental impact report. Our proposed New cont Mitigation Measure is feasible and addresses these problems. New Mitigation Measure—Specific Plan Overlay Designation and Conditions The New Mitigation Measure described in detail below provides a feasible approach to modifying the proposed Specific Plan such that the goal.policy and mitigation obligations can be met as required by law.This new measure incorporates the general elements of the `Reduced Intensity Alternative'by reducing the total amount of development by approximately 50%(for a total of approximately 230,387 allowable non-residential square feet).(See DEIR at page 5.0-3). The New Mitigation Measure also: • Reduces the developable area to mitigate for visual,biological and community character impacts; • Further limits the range of potential land uses; • Requires that land uses,with the exception of the housing parcel(portion of Parcel 1),be subject to additional planning to produce a more integrated and detailed design to meet both Town policies and mitigate significant impacts;and 16-9a • Does so by adding Specific Plan Overlay Designations,including one for Mixed Use areas and another for the Scenic Corridors. Development approvals,including any development permits and Final Map,for the Mixed Use areas would be conditioned on completion of additional planning steps specified in the Overlay Designation. • Sale of parcels in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Designation would be conditioned on completion of additional planning steps specified for that Overlay Designation. • Addresses the Town's Policy,Project objective and DEIR recommendation to relocate uses along the Truckee River to the PC-3 site. "Accommodate the possible relocation of certain existing types of commercial and industrial business located along the Truckee River Corridor."(Page 2.0-3 of the Draft ELR). The New Mitigation Measure does not modify the Multi Family Residential(MFR)portion of Parcel 1. However,the more detailed design phase for the MFR should focus on the connectivity of these units to the adjacent uses in the Mixed Use areas to maximize walk- ability,bike-ability and overall safe ease of access without reliance on an automobile. In addition,these units should be of the highest quality design.A description of the New Mitigation Measure including Specific Plan overlays and related conditions is set forth below: New Mitigation Measure: 3.1-4(a): To reduce Area Source Emissions, Cumulative Air Quality emissions.cumulative impacts on greenhouse gases and climate change,Energy Source Emissions,potentially significant visual impacts and resolve Project—Plan inconsistencies related to community character.economic impacts on Downtown,Specific Plan policy inconsistencies,among others.the following Specific Plan Overlays and 4 2.0-144 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I conditions shall be adopted as part of the Specyu Plan approval in concert with a reduction in land use intensity similar in total square footage and total housing units under the Reduced Intensity Alternative(for a total of approximately SO,inclusive of 48.7 16-9a workforce housing units and approximately 230,387 square feet of non-residential mixed cont uses. Bonus densities could be allowed based on an adopted incentive program to relocate the industrial uses along the river to the PC-3 site). I MAP EIR comments Figure 1 t Overlays + LApond 44. t.--,Hvhway S.mc Ml ' a..J8.4e,Areney Y S 'tiL JM�u..a.n,y ` p ti \ l 1-"-MinYnvn Scan Setback } E�hemeN Bream ` % Joerger Ranch IIsi � ',' �'. 9 :3 /', 2 • r.. �� Specific Plan '44- Districts n u l'''..t. ..—�x '. BZ /. i, aa. MI CL 1. 1 . ti` ,. `� Overlay-••�' r? CRS Mi OS - '.7� T' , ( _ `` RIA i • c 'Qo " .i, 1 1111 i 1: 'StN' ) \ p t f .4- '.7)",.., I 0 100700 we eoo soo Figure I:PC-3 Mixed Use Overlay Designations d Scenic Buffer Overlay PC-3 Specific Plan Mixed Use Overlay Designations for Areas A and 11: Tentative Tract Map parcels shown on the Tentative Map(Figure 2-7)located within the Specific Plan Mixed Use Overlay Designations as illustrated above on Figure 1,may he sold individually or collectively,however,no other approvals for development including 16-9b but not limited to Final Map,design,grading,building,other shall be made until all of the following additional planning steps are successfully complete for each respective Mixed Use Overlay area,A and B. (See attachment I far larger configuration of Figure 1:PC-3 Mixed Use Overlay Designations&Scenic Buffer Overlay). 5 I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-145 (E-3d) Ueld aijpads t{pueg 102Jao(-l.zodaj pedal[ ieluauluo.unug Fuld 917t-o"Z 9 •spougwggSuu Sutpuno.uns asp u!s.iouns!envy uo paseq osayt lot!e1 pploys.Spn+S !woauai aqj .(lu*gs•tnu+{c wuK•ato:+siI M'M. A. :Jug)aeo3161�eR1 pue a. ueiaul imp ural sip stouls!p Aepano ass paa!w atp Iql sass puel algeMopeJo ism ayy al:u!a SunllI -alms*+a u!yt!,N pateaol"mos A1!l!gc-+lle.ts atoldwt rayl h3511 pue1.lo aualad ayl wt:untetoty jo Apoy qiu a s!alagl.; -1'F pun Z-1'F fil vfo s,uausa.unbaJ Jagxr fa leratua.ta;rpn fit truuu.usuoeua(l . •saaJnosaJ asagl Joj vane Jaffnq,00f-ps wsunrtrur er aln.tiJd pup.tiruna.us lurauraelda pun sptrolrant plots o1 u8!sapai laafoJd 8ugtnl.ur!(01-Z'£-t-:T lt'lt•'X a aas)'rrogsarrud amtinsaJ 1v.uUts mq Jai samsvaw uoatnYuuu pv:Itrawa.taspv fu urn,nusrmrua(1 . :c,uatuaauJrkut a?fn,uolf.tipuaryt nrasapad,ar!q pup Tow puts s1laqua#J8 puts spun('11v traa.tuay sutsaur/a7:ts4J ssa.rru pa.uwlous-uo,V . f(.uo,aq f to I:wary mss) •F-Jd ml.a.e!rpuaatll-;Osua,rtl paanpa?l,asp.lq pa,.toddnc aq una imp u8!sap podwoa u puts sass:fo Jagwnu v syroddns ap/g.0 •uYlsap asn-passu Jof.xopq papnpu!Si uo,d trawls:Ur u f0 aldwvra is ..s,ul Yuppod aXJnl fo urnpgialuJd•.cpaul Ja.ttwJJtsa•,aa.r,s un 1101,010av0 Yu$spny :or patlwrl Jots snq 8rnpnpor!pup apo.S'eruvinBai Jagao 40 RHO)pastry woof sv sanlnuspar Jopuns Stnsn Idols fsur)JJ sts lfax.as srruuutntsap asn paxnu puts lmlerap,sa4 uaa.tuaq.s}!.t!aaauta.)utni,.ealrad sa.nu!xnw 111111 er8;sap pal:Satu1 . P6-91 :saJlatanus f0 no!,p,rrauo Joys . :Su!dnaspuvl•81n.tvd•aXnuSrs•ainp;unflaairs s,Xlsap t1!lunb gY!tl pew.s,aa.us arraldwoa fo sauawapa 8u!prrput rrold uirsap adyasaaa.as . :8rnuopof asp Jo 1pr o1 pupal!',ou nag•8tnpnpu!p-jj Jof sainsnaw uouo8rmu 813Q pup num/UJatra9)asp in.uuawa nnbaJ laaw 01.611040,lt,,Ja.ur asp en 1traludnla.tap fa wnrnlnf funs prns.l}1d asp alnus,alp a,csaioid uXssap pasnq.tnunwtuua v ass pun scaly.IblJaep as?parljt a.t!uadsaa aql Juf suouulnBaJ ass puv,pup sans pup!aqr aunt,atnf•.tjuus atworroYJ asp waif s2tr!ptnf aq,Buis) uu1r1 erOsaQ (Z •(alas,-8err.Ylu1t ass Iaal0Jil •s luaus yams aas) •spa(aid Ju seam Jagao pun uuoluttotl uo podun asJa.tpv uv ur 11ssaJ gnu 1pss slap sass pun ,ma ay,ua aluv!as aanpa4 o,spourl4ogsB!au 8urpunoJJns asp aaalduroa tyga sass; :ap!.0-,alto p say:nu paws-Joplin no stool:rasp scam ass paxrw S.(-ad Jof rasa pawl fo asp u Inc psi 0,1 paluuap!al,joys appJra 8usylun alms,w tngal.ts palyaol .l pua.una lou 0m nap suormuusalr.(pup fa.la.+n:s u•u0rnpp;t u1 •spatead Jo roam Ja y10 pun ua+a,umoQ 8urpwdru!.Ijasiaapv,soyl!55 arias um"(-3d my,sari u 36-9 j uua 1 rtrr)-ruvwa s in mats o Iliad Jas o Jun utuuu+ asp u,.noatoad y. p.1 1 p Sjreln. d I 1 1 � 1 pasndaJd puts pautw,d Jarpo.sofass pull prm sffir!p lnq alrlvpvnv.1tal.t04:(etolaq) 1s11 ass alp u;rp!At sash carpo poo winning•aaL0.0 •1!0JJJ Jof puuwap pa,udiauuu Brawn.tluuap!01 unoj fo nu Jofalvpdn un pun(-ad Jof31. 1 dq pa.^.tjvuv .Ijssso!.taid ymo.s+?pupil!o,.srs.tlpuv alnpdn Sinus.usuouova uy .fpnas 3puouoa3 (1 S3SNOdS31I UNd Nig LiV IQ NO S.LNTWWOJ 0.Z COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I • The Design Plan shall be developed with robust public participation using tools such as Crowdbrite to engage the public early and easily in the design of 16-9d the Project cont Mixed-Use Building Lot(MU) Character Examples •:i iflr ------ 1, I — • I1 11 Apartment Building Lot(AB) Character Examples - a�- }. fw_ ~� I; ; ap f i 5 i.. fir` 0 paif (1,' - I 1 ICorr , F 4 • 1� .. w. lel O�Mf � j. • FIR \------..- ✓_*".-- ('gure 32-248(b) Figure 2 Mixed-Use Building Lot&Character Examples,Lee County 7 I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-147 2 0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES COMPACT COMMUNITIES §32-405 ,� a ••••.1 A• -- r it 3 a! 1 Li I ' 7r/ if iif ;rs .;. . \ , - .40# ' r 4,,,....-:„..., ' \,/'• 1 a .E. ... i Co . , ofII' w- I .. ''''.‘• f. Ott .� 1Y c • 1— , . e.xl t • ,, •., 1 1 t 11 ; , I_a I.., • I, ♦ ♦. i1 . �3 ,1,,y . tl.. 1.....1 L.... [4); lio• \ •: Lte . . . "......... , - , r 1 I': i - - p �. .., amu.. t .. Xii , j1 Figure 32.405(b).portion of conceptual regulating plan for Mixed-Use Community in 18/19.45.26 Figure 3.Compact Community Design with Mixed Uses Example,Lee County 3) Codes. Covenants,Restrictions and Reciprocal Easements where warranted: Ideally CC&Rs would be created prior to parcels being sold off,but as long as they are in place prior to development they will bind development and future property 16-9e owners to practical requirements developed during the Design Plan step above. 8 I 2.0-148 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 4) Incentives for Transfer or Relocation Riverfront Lases as appropriate=: Simultaneously or prior to the above project specific planning steps.the Town shall develop an incentive program for the existing uses along the River to relocate to PC-3. Possible incentives could indude waiver of certain fees or taxes. payments.potentially density bonuses to PC-3 residential and/or mixed-use areas. 16-9f and the like. M4P»til!provide examples of incentive programs under separate cover and look forward to discussions at the upcoming.November 12°'Economic Workshop. This is also a prerequisite to any further approvals for parcels located in the Mixed Use Overlay areas. 5) Land use modifications within Mixed L:se Overlay Designations.1 and B: Land uses permitted in Mixed Use Overly Designations subject to Economic Stuck refinement: • .Soaring Way=complete street with bike/pedestrian/trails etc. • Uses that"complete the neighborhood within a'b mile walking/biking circle) • Housing Over commercial(all types) • Fitness and recreation(gym.parkles.pocket park:tot lot/par course:hike and other outdoor recreations equipment rentals and sales: yoga studios:etc.) • Teller machine/bank • Real estate office 16-9g • Coffeehouse:bakery:bar • Farmers market"area":food truck station • Community center/non profit center • Public facilities-brand,library.fire station.other • Green industries(e.g.,green tech product design and manufacturing and research) • Transit stop or center • Small format drug and market(defined by square feet) • Unique locally owned retail • Dry cleaner • Sinai!garden center/nursery • light industrial(compatible with residential-like specialty food and spirit production-e.g..brewery•,bakery:R&D. repair shops) • Uses identified in the"walk circle"surrey as missing in the walk circle that would capture significant trips. Accommodate the possible relocation of certain existing types of commercial and industrial business located along the Truckee River Corridor.-(page 2.0-3 of the DEIR). 9 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-149 (£-3d) ue[J JiJPadg gaueg aaaaaoj—liodau pedal'iquauuuoa[nug leum OSI-0.Z 01 aga fr HD luau apnw aq Hogs lagpo•Xurpnnq•XurpviX•uXisap dna jots/ DJ panusy ion trrq Xrnpnlaur pawdola tap_sof.clvno.iddn Jagao ou.mato algndoja.tap asarp pod .suouou8isap.fvl.ra.to asn passu sip fo(a.togv)sprawatirtbat 16-9 al oa taa(qus aq pugs.1 atnat_,j uo 11101/S atnj.yaugaas aruaas wnnrnw w asp puo,taq snails.tun'sdals 8snuunjd atogv asp fo uouajdwoa asp fo 1JdsaJ is so {1 paaalrluroa way a.tvg a.wgo sdsLc Xutuuvjd aqa aurin sands rtado in utvwat pugs do/tato Jaffna)auaas dusitlXry asp to sjaaJvd If :.cuowt frpo;y-nasal purr! (i (f-3j?v saatnosaij puo/pa.}j 't paw:avuo aaS) •staffnq pun aauvpioev 8urpnpui djddu Hogs gag a rn sainsvaw trortu8uiw 16'91 jvaiZojorq Jaw Hu•(atogv).crs.t join.in tursrras aruaas pun uouvarnjap asp no pansy ajgvdolaeap fj .ajqudoja.tap sl 9 jaamndfo.tiro la:pagFu fo rrouvuiuuatap n fo pod so•9 palvd-j1 asp tofpalajrlwoa ay pugs:uouuaurja(j punas n (z -(.18o/oporpaw..of luawrpzwv say 'maw spUipas airaas jvurf fo uounenwJalap sap rn djrsua pun djwva agynd alp a8v8ua of anaipuotq sn gams spot 8rnsn uouvdraumd ai jqud tsngot apnpui Hogs pun f wampum,in:prof tan asaaoad asp gn.0 pranisuoa auop aq/jogs sin(iouv aqj •j atrt8r•j uo mitosis pintas amass wrnurunjt•asp pun L9Z dPHg8ijj uaautaq !6-91 paunulad ay sawdojatap/jogs asva ou uj •rm wuXtsap.fvpan°Jafni,aruaas ay;mzpzu sjaatud_sof s.affnq/syavglas aruaas alnudoiddv aunutalap of patajdwo) sq Hugs su.f/vuv Xpeuuuas antaas papaaap F :sis.tjvtrv.:Qiututas somas (1 :vaty prawdo/anap asn pasiw lvarnnppv Xur.tfurrapt of ansrnbatatd sdats 8uruuvid :snafu.tojta.to asn par.w tofa.wgo :prof pas m passjdruoa.tj/pfssaaans airs sdass 8uruurrid jnuourppv alt fo jn porn spout aq !togs Jaspo'Xrnpp.tq •eunpu.X•uXasap•dnJt•jourg os papsutj sou auq Xrnpnptn nawdojatap tof sjn.toJddv Ja yao on•ma.ru ajgndop tap asasa to•j •suorwu8isap.(opa.to asn parity aspJo(aaogn)sauatuannbai alt os taa(gns aq Hogs'.f aataprp sip to W0.111osa4/ossa of sprvdun asJs.tpv ntognit puss saprlod taxoj gnu auatsurma ajgvdoja.tap aq of taaals atu mgt'1 slug i./ rrrr ueuarls(z9ZR.MH waif oaf 00f)any pools aruaas wrnurunu 116-91 dip puo.taq Watts.tire tof'patajdttroa aauo pappdwoa.1 jjnfssaaans uaaq a.wq sdats Xrnuuvjd Xrnuojlof ala fit pn pout.ipatpaapoa to djjns,ln.trpui mos aq lou:(ow•1 an:Xi.j uw patoaasn/!r so nounu8rsaq.1upanp:nuaas duug8ijj uouvuXisaq dbitaep uojd afraads f-3d asp tn.p.0 pawaoj(L-z atn8ii)stray aeuvtua,i asp rw uewgs spatnd du14•pant,( a tuoauai Cattalo!)lanai pun tapaotuy7.f/ru►mnwo3 01 pato jaJ srunstentd uold/tuauaj) sip paw of tapto u j :suoippuo,)-.t'vpa to taffrrfl aruaas,puss y?.jl now a faaads-c;fid sass,lvuasuprn Jo 8:niupavintunu alquvdwoauj . jwtat ustwunow3opyao3.iv.uyaoJg tavdwi.ja5Janpv p/matt torp pvtag . ;u oa la yivwtadns Jo Xntp avuuof a&trrj . 26-91 ?vuuof_eoq-8.q to amid oast);Xtnr/a.ftur . :sas_7 paargr:oJtj S3SNOdSd}J (NV III$ .LdV2IQ NO S.LNHWWOD 0 Z COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 additional planning steps are successfully completed as set forth above for mixed use overlay areas. 16-9k (411 bold and italic text above is part of New Mitigation Measure) cont The Draft Environmental Impact Report Is Legally Inadequate The lack of detail in the Specific Plan concerning an integrated project design and the significant deficiencies of the DEIR initially led our organization to the conclusion that the only way to secure the outcomes for the PC-3 Project Site sought by the General Plan and DEIR mitigation measures was to ask the Specific Plan be revised prior to any further consideration by the Town. Upon consulting with our experts,we concluded that a New Mitigation Measure,which modifies and conditions the Specific Plan,could be a path 16-10 forward to allow the Town to consider approval of the Project with the New Mitigation Measure in place and for the landowner to be able to sell parcels as they have indicated a desire to do. Our preliminary comments on the numerous defects in the DEIR are set forth below.It should be noted here,that the New Mitigation Measure proposed above would go a long way to resolve both the Project General Plan inconsistencies and the DEIR defects.Our planners have noted some of the DEIR mitigation measures and General Plan inconsistencies below,and we have also provided attachment 2,which outlines more items that are inconsistent for the polices and goals set forth for PC-3. The DEIR Improperly Defers Feasible Mitigation The lack of specificity in the Specific Plan,zoning and tentative map make it impossible to determine whether mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts are feasible and will be 1641 implemented. Examples include,but are not limited to the following: Mitigation Measures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3:to reduce significant unavoidable impacts to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change require the project applicant to implement a number of strategies,many of which are not possible to implement without an integrated design for at least some collections of parcels.Specifically,strategies such as"a walkable design/improved pedestrian network and destination accessibility"can only be achieved 16-12 with a detailed and integrated site design. Town policy consistency also requires attention to high quality streetscape,connectivity and avoidance of'strip-commercial developments'. The New Mitigation Measure described above would provide a feasible means of achieving required mitigation.The DEIR fails to mitigate air quality,GHG and climate change by deferring,which is unacceptable. Mitigation Measures 3.2-4,3.2-5,3.2-8 and 3.2-9:collectively are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to biological resources to less than significant. Yet,the wetland delineations are not complete and there is no certainty project redesign will comply 16-13 with these measures.The New Mitigation Measure described above would provide a feasible means of achieving required mitigation with a current wetland delineation for parcel 6,while identifying acceptable buffers and building setbacks from sensitive areas. 11 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-151 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES The DEIR uses the deferred methods of mitigation,which then forecloses the public and decision makers from reviewing and revisiting how resources will actually be protected,and how impacts will be mitigated for the project.The DEIR needs to be revised and re- 16-14 circulated to show how the above mitigation measures will be applied or how the New Mitigation Measure we are suggesting can be applied to the planning prerequisites to create a more integrated and revised Specific Plan that will mitigate impacts to natural resources at the site. The DEIR Fails to Identify and Address with Feasible Mitigation the Numerous Inconsistencies Between the PC-3 Project as Proposed and the General Plan: The 2025 General Plan's Vision Statement and Polices for PC-3 define the following I 1645 supporting concepts to guide implementation in Truckee and at the proposed development site: • The General Plan will reduce the dependence on the automobile in Truckee by fostering compact development and providing for alternate modes of transportation(1-7).The PC-3 Specific Plan fails to identify the methods 16-16 of transit that will create a walk-able/bike-able development at the project site.The Specific Plan and DEIR should be revised to include a transit plan for the project site.The planning prerequisites that we have outlined above as a part of our New Mitigation Measure will help to ensure consistency with the Towns General Plan policies and support the intended goals for PC-3. • Policy-3 Site design shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267, via Brockway Road and Soaring Way,and shall minimize visual impacts from Hwy 267 corridor(2-30).The Specific Plan and DEIR fail to illustrate how the proposed zoning and future development at PC-3 will mitigate the visual impacts of 1647 commercial,manufacturing and light industry along the Brockway/HWY 267 corridor.The New Mitigation Measure described above would provide for analysis that could create appropriate setbacks to preserve the scenic corridor near the development while still allowing ample development at the site consistent with the `Reduced Intensity Alternative'. • Policy-4 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(2-30).The Specific Plan lacks a true vision and design guidelines to direct consistent development at the site.The DEIR fails to address mitigation measures that would protect the site from not becoming a`strip-mall' 16-18 style development along the highway corridor.The New Mitigation Measure described above would bring the PC-3 Specific Plan into conformity with General Plan goals,policies and action items.The mixed use overlay designations along with the scenic corridor planning prerequisites would create reasonable scenic setbacks and provide a better connection between the development,residential and open space 12 2.0-152 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 parcels,while avoiding a strip-mall development. I 16-18 cont The DEIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate Significant Visual Impacts for the PC-3: The proposed zoning at PC-3 allows commercial,industrial and business related uses(BIZ, MI,CL,CRS,and CR zones)within a broad scenic area along highway 267. These proposed districts allow a variety of different uses and an allowed height of up to 50 feet within the"CL and CR"districts(pg 3.12 of the Specific Plan)and within the"M 1 and BIZ"districts(pg 3.26 of the Specific Plan). The Town's General Plan policy for PC-3 states "Site Design for PC-3 shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267,via Brockway Road and Soaring Way,and shall minimize visual impacts from the Highway 267 16-19 corridor." It is not clear how the actual structures are to be oriented,or how the entrance/servicing areas are to be located.The Specific Plan also fails to mention building mass or how internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation and parking is to be contained at the development site. The lack of detail limits the Town and public's ability to review the potential environmental impacts prior to construction. This is legally inadequate.The Specific Plan includes photographs of different structures that may be considered appropriate but a detailed diagram of building masses,parking,circulation and setbacks within each of the proposed parcels needs to be provided in a revised Specific Plan.A revised DEIR can then look at potential impacts with these uses,and provide more clarity and a better description of what the impacts may be.The Specific Plan and DEIR need to be revised to include these design details and specifics. The Draft EIR fails to address the visual impact of 50 ft high structures within the Highway 267 corridor. The visual simulations that are provided do not specifically state that the depicted building masses are at a height of 50 feet. It is questionable whether a massing of 50 ft high structures along Highway 267 could adequately be mitigated to a less than 16-20 significant impact to the visual character of the area. The lack of detailed design diagrams within the Specific Plan depicting the location of building masses,orientation,circulation and landscape screening makes the portrayal of potential change to visual and community character along the Highway 267 Corridor difficult to understand and analyze for adequacy. The visual impact and change to the community cannot be adequately determined from the DEIR.The Specific Plan and DEIR need to be revised to include the design specifics for development at PC-3. Furthermore,it is not clear if large floor plate businesses such as those being targeted would be allowed to establish signage and lighting that would be at a 50 foot height.Large floor plate development would obstruct the viewshed and character of the community with large 16-21 signage.How would this potential impact be mitigated?The DEIR needs to identify signage impacts and mitigation measures for the type of development being proposed. Additionally,it is not clear from the implementation strategies whether the proposed uses at PC-3 are really supportive and will not compete with other local uses nearby and within the downtown. The Specific Plan fails to identify a clear strategy for the relocation of light 16-22 industrial along the river to be relocated.How will relocation occur to the PC-3 Specific Plan areas?The Specific Plan needs to outline potential incentives and be revised to include a strategy for industrial relocation consistent with the Towns policies and process. 13 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-153 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Concluding Comments the Specific Plan and DEIR for a project of this scale and size is seriously lacking the kind of detail that is needed to offset large impacts to natural resources,commtmity character and visual resources at the PC-3 Project site.Our organization and experts have identified a number of inadequate mitigation measures that clearly will not limit the impacts that a project of this extent will have on the community and environment.We feel that a path forward for the project applicant and the Town would be adding the New Mitigation Measure,planning prerequisites and conditions of approval to the Specific Plan and DEIR. These items will help to create a better vision for the project.with an integrated site design, which mitigates the impacts that a project of this magnitude will have at the Gateway to Truckee. 16-23 As the only environmental advocacy organization focused to create smart development in Truckee we look forward to continue working with you to achieve the stated goals and purposes of the Specific Plan and General Plan for PC-3. We believe that development properly completed within the area can be an asset to the entire town and one that we could support if the above mentioned steps arc completed as a part of the revised Specific Plan and DEIR. our proposed mitigation measure is intended to assist you and provide a great opportunity to fulfill your goals and purposes and provide both economic and environmental benefits for the community. The following attachments are provided to assist you with understanding the New Mitigation Measure we are proposing.the inconsistencies with the General Plan and the PC- 3 project.a scenic analysis methodology.specific wetland resources at the site.a walking circle diagram and more information on the consultants working with us to analyze the impacts of the project. Attachments: • Attachment 1:Figure 1 Overlay Iksignation Diagram • Attachment 2:PC-3 General Plan Inconsistencies • Attachment 3:Scenic Sensitivity Analysis • Attachment 4:Wetland Resources at PC-3 • Attachment 5:Walking Circles • Attachment 6:Consultants CV's Resume 14 2.0-154 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 If you have further questions regarding our comments or new proposed mitigation measure please feel free to get in touch with us. 16-23 Sincerely_ cont atu,is Alexis 011ar.MS&GISP Executive Director Mountain Area Preservation 530-582-6751 Alexisrcnmapf.org CC:Terry Watt.Jared Ikeda&Shute,Mihaley&Weinberger 15 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-155 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES I . r r— 1 �.. is 6 _ r' • • / ' ''''';N ' \ ...4,bar•-- ,— - o �- ;' 4. ~ V - 3 ren w A x s X3 p I:11111141111111* / ' ' . E Iam..-, ."-'4:•,,,;,..„ ...-A > ____. i ._ 3 J \ N ■1 I 2°' II . , 0 ,imE Ili: S. o ; 55b Q ; $ - 2 $ R o = _ -1n DI n o i > fp 0 :i - 3 g €�, N 3 to F 3 r. i 3 s I 8„ I n 16 I 2.0-156 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Attachment 2 PC-3 Project Inconsistencies with Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Policies Vision Statement Supporting Concepts that are to guide implementation In Truckee • The General Plan will reduce sprawl by planning for projected growth.locating new development around existing developed areas.and by encouraging clustered development(1-7) • The environment is fundamental to the economy and quality of life in Truckee and the General Plan w ill protect and enhance this resource.The General Plan will protect important open space lands and natural resources,will work to increase the amount of permanently protected open space,and will strive to enhance public access to open space lands and public resources. • The General Plan will reduce the dependence on the automobile in Truckee by fostering compact development and providing for alternate modes of transportation(1-7) Land Use Element Guiding Principles • Locate significant new development around evicting developed areas.(2-2) • Locate the highest density and intensity of de%clopntcnt on infill sites within existing developed areas.(2-2) • Prevent"commercial"sprawl in Truckee. • Improve the character and visual quality of development in the Gateway Area.along the Brockway Road corridor,and along the Truckee River in the Downtown Study area. Policies to Guide Development of the Specific Plan for PC-3 • Policy-3 Site design shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267,via Brockway Road and Soaring Way.and shall minimize visual impacts from lwy 267 corridor.(2-30) • Policy--i The Specific Plan shall include standards for the design of retail shopping areas that avoid"strip commercial"site layout,and that are oriented and waled to the pedestrian realm.(2-30) • Policy-6"If land use or noise compatibility requirements of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan preclude or reduce the total number of housing that can be developed on PC-3,required workforce housing may be permitted to be located off-site".(2-31)Alternate off site area for atTordable housing needs to be included in FIR.and evaluate location and environmental impacts. 17 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-157 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES New Zoning for PC-3 • PC-3 is creating new zoning for the proposed development .build-nut and allowable square footage per zoning area needs to be defined."Residential units are allowed at a maximum density of 12 housing units per acre"(2-29). Ilow many residential units will be allowed? "An average FAR of 0.20 shall apply to commercial and industrial development"(2-29).Square footage of commercial'industrial necda to he clarified Goals for Land Use Element Action A6.1-Conduct and independent economic analysis prior to approval of the Specific Plans for PC-3. The PC-3 economic study was conducted in 2010.with economic analysis from 2008.With in the town of Truckee we have already approved the maximum allowable space for commercial development to date.The economic thresholds for the town and commercial space need to be revisited,since the data is front 4 years ago. Community Character Element 3-24 Brockway Road Corridor"The identification of an appropriate visual character for the development at PC-3.in keeping with the desired character of the corridor as a whole.is thus a critical concern of the goals,policies and actions of this element". Coal of Community Character-14 Enhance the character and the qualities of the Brockway Road Corridor as a gateway to Truckee. Policies P14.1 Preserve and enhance the open space character and qualities of the Bro kway Road Corridor by including appropriate buffering and screening from the road corridor.and interspersing development areas or nodes with green space. (3-48) Actions A14.1 Prepare streetseape design plan for the Brockway Rd corridor.incorporating the elements identified in Policies 14.1 (3-48) Economic Development Element Policy 8.1-Encourage new retail to locate in the Downtown. (6-13) actions Ati.2 Review all proposed commercial projects outside of Downtown Truckee for their potential to draw retail sales revenue away from the Downtown retail business and.if necessary.work with developers to re-configure projects so that they are complementary to. not competitive with.Downtown commercial activity.Establish a strategy to attract new retail establishments to Downtown Truckee.(6-14) IX 2.0-158 Final Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES ;Z' ." Attachment 3 Scenic Sensitivity Analysis Process to determine scenic sensitivity: A detail study process is needed to determine scenic sensitivity,appropriate design guidelines and regulations towards future development within the highway scenic buffer overlay. The following process has been adapted from the Caltrans'Standard Environmental Reference iwww.dot.cu.gov ser.vnll/sec3/conrmunrty•ch27vus chap2'viu.huni as a basis for this discussion. A Scenic Resource Evaluation must he performed.The evaluation process must incorporate existing community goals and values through reviews of applicable adopted local plans.and community involvement to achieve consensus for identifying sensitivities and preserving and enhancing community character. A change in visual character cannot be described as having good or bad attributes until it is compared with the viewer response to that change. Public opinion concerning the established visual character of the regional landscape,and the proposed project that could change that character are the basis for evaluating the contrast or change in the visual character. In order to establish a baseline from which proposed projects can be evaluated_the process must provide a field review to: • examine existing conditions and • the extent of visibility • determine viewpoints and viewer groups • determine visual features,qualities and scenic resources within those extents • vegetative or structural feature having local,regional.or statewide importance. • landmark trees or groups of trees providing a setting or focus of attention • vegetation masses that display outstanding features of form or age • unusual planting that has historical value • topographic features including unique,massive rock formations • historic building or architectural features • features specifically identified in applicable planning documents as having special scenic value • a unique focus or feature integrated with its surroundings or overlapping other scenic elements to form a panorama • an exceptional example of a visual scene displaying proportion,balance.rhythm.and variety-all of these are amenable attractions of a visual scene The Scenic Resource Evaluation must be provided in a technical report including photographs and graphic information necessary to substantiate findings. The features should he mapped or otherwise identified to communicate the baseline to all interested and involved parties. The baseline serves as a point from which scenic impacts from future developments may be determined,and from which appropriate mitigation measures can be identified. The Scenic Resource Evaluation becomes the basis for establishing design guidelines for any future development proposals. The guidelines must also be established through discussion with the community and especially with viewer groups that may be directly affected. Design guidelines must establish context sensitive design including: 19 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-159 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES • harmonizing development with existing topography and land uses: • Preserving and enhancing community character. • Meeting the needs of non-motorized travelers; • Preserving any historic resources that may be within the affected area • Protecting sensitive features that have been established through the Scenic Resource Evaluation. Discussion of design guidelines should further encompass identification of possible mitigation measures to bring the impact level to an acceptable level to the community. The measures should insure that the visual integrity of the landscape is maintained such that new introduced elements seem to-belong"and that there is a visual harmony as a whole. The guidelines should require preparation of photo-simulations to demonstrate the likely appearance upon completion of a proposed project. To assess visual impact and confomiance to design guidelines.all proposed projects must at a minimum include site plans showing building massing.parking vehicular and pedestrian circulation.entry points. maintenance and service locations.landscape screening.signage and lighting. 20 2.0-160 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 I Attachment 4:Wetland Resources at PC-3 jf, f Icg .. I f me 'r+1P.«w;v3y,0 k Y Google Earth 2013 •=Location of Photos at Proposed PC-3 Project Site 21 I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-161 1 L 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES I Attachment 4:Wetland Resource at PC-3 Photo#1 _ - of 1 „ y,. „ y t. , ' It i 11 t. iillipimpikr, - f f • 4., • Y, L. ....ii,. - _ .. .. 7 J r n V.• 3 y .) }. , "v -, -� ..- . •r ."j. it Photo # 1 22 I 2.0-162 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Attachment 4:Wetland Resource at PC-3 d 1 . 1 _ .__.. •.fir. . t.. c�- y • • AY 1 �' { i5 sr • Photo#2 23 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-163 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES I Attachment 5: 1/2 Mile Walking Circle at Proposed PC-3 Project Site i ,r—t.-.. MAP .0041 EIR comments r .4.4! Figure 2 .a." -` yak ► '''.- :'4, Walking Radius yy . els 4'n. , /44 - se .' tf...'.E ,, 114101.,,,.,,,,. .N...,..,.,.,,,...,..__ N v `: A RJL—� I--Nowt '. "' 1,`,dian�VA�.;•C...� r 016970 6130 990 1,lEz 24 I 2.0-164 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 Attachment 6:Consultants C V/Resume ,tared M.Ikeda -Lund Use Planner Jared Ikeda is a land use planner with more than forty years of professional experience in preparation of land use planning studies,community planning,environmental impact studies.urban site planning,landscape development plans.and recreation planning.He has been urvulved in a wide range of studies and projects for both public and private sector clients and has participated in and directed all phases of land planning.investigative studies and landscape development.He has served on the board of directors of a major international landscape architectural firm.been responsible for management of a 20-person professional office.management of specific project work.supervision and coordination of multi-disciplinary teams,as well as serving as a specialist within multi- disciplinary teams. Ile has served as a lecturer in the Department of Landscape Architecture at California State Polytechnic University,Pomona.His teaching activities focuses upon advanced landscape design and stresses use of computer technology including AutoCAD and ArcMap GIS software. He has prepared a number of visual impact and simulation studies using a variety of computer software including Sketchup and Google Earth Most recently he has been involved in the preparation of the Monterey County General flan Update from 1999 to 2004 and was responsible for studies and preparation of the Environmental Resource Management Element and the Circulation Element.He also directed consultant work on the Environmental Impact Report Experience A selected list of his experience includes: Prepared Envirmmental Impact Reports and Statements for a variety of residential development projects,wastewater treatment facilities,oil storage terminals,lugh voltage electrical transmission lines,and park and recreation facilities. • Directed the preparation of the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 20.000 acre Chino Hills Specific Plan for the County of San Bernardino.The Specific Plan enabled development of infrastructure and delineation of land use for a planned community of more than 89,000 people. the planning process encompassed a two-year effort.Mr.Ikeda was also responsible for the Citizen Participation Program. • Prepared the 1.as Virgenes.Triunfo,Malibu,Topanga Areawide Wastewater Collection and Treatment Plan EIRLEIS for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District!US EPA This RIRIEIS encompassed a region extending from the western boundary of the City of los Angeles west to the City,of Camarillo and south of die Ventura Freeway to the ocean.The study arca included the majority of the Santa Monica Mountains and the Malibu Coast.This study investigated_mapped,and analyzed all environmental conditions including possible growth inducement within an environmentally Sensitive region.The study focused upon the development of a wastewater collection.treatment and disposal system under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act.'lite study spanned a two year period with an extensive public participation program involving concerned groups and individuals from the onset of the study and through the public hearing and certification process. • Prepared a visual impact analysis and land restoration plan for the Colosseum Gold Mine.an open pit gold mine near the C'alifontia+Nevada border. The project utilized computer generated visual simulations. 25 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 2.0-165' 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES • Soviet Embassy EIS.Washington D.C. Client:US State Department Prepared the Environmental Impact Statement for the Soviet Embassy in Washington,D.C. for the U.S.State Department. • Mr.Ikeda has served as a consultant to Economics Research Associates in preparing an Economic Development Strategy for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties in Southern California.Mr.Ikeda analyzed and provided land use and real estate development opportunity information to the primary consulting lion. • Served as Principal-in-charge and provided direction for the preparation of the Specific Plan for the 2000 acre East Tustin Specific Plan(now known as the Tustin Ranch)for the City of Tustin and The Irvine Company.The plan is a balanced community calling for 8000 residential units of varying densities.40 acres of commercial uses; 120 acres of mixed use including hotel,office and commercial uses:up to eight schools and seven parks and a community golf course. • Served as a Principal Planner for the preparation of the San Juan Capistrano Master Open Space Plan.The study approach evaluated all open space resources within the City to determine the best utilization and plan for 160 acres of newly acquired open lands lw the City.Mr.Ikeda's role in this citywide study was to assist in the public participation program. computer mapping,and preparation of the final report.This project received an Honor Award from the Orange County Chapter of the American Planning Association for best comprehensive plan in 1991 • Participated as a consultant team for the preparation of the I.a Verne I[eights Specific Plan for Lewis!tomes of California.Mr.Ikeda's ink was to prepare computer simulations of visual impact oldie residential development and the fuel modification of the natural hillside vegetation to conform with the fire hazard safety ordinance of the City. Experience Principal:Ikeda Consulting.2005 to Present Board of Directors of Land watch Monterey County.2010 to Present Monterey County Redevelopment Agency,2004-20U5 Senior Admin Analyst:County of Monterey.Environmental Resoutrc Policy. 1999-2004 Lecturer:Cal Poly Pomona.Dept of Landscape Architecture 1997-1999 Vice-Presidentioflicer-in-Charge EDAW Inc..Irvine Office:1980 to 1987 Education Bachelor of Science in Environmental Design.California State Pnlytechnic University. Pomona. 1968. Honors Best Comprehensive Plan.Orange Co.Section.American Planning Association.San Juan Capistrano Master Open Space Plan,1992 Distinguished Alumnus Award. 1983,School of Environmental Design.California State Polytechnic University.Pomona. Merit Award.American Society of Landscape Architects.Santa.Ana River Open Space Study. 1973 Lectures&Publications Mr.Ikeda has served as a guest leciureur at UCLA,UC Irvine.and Cal Poly Pomona, Mr. Ikeda has also served as Chairman of a panel on Computers and Landscape Architecture for 26 2.0-166 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 the Southern California Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architecture Contributor to -Design wale Digrtal Mob"McGraw Hill.2000 27 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-167 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Attachment 6:Consultant CV/Resume Terrell Watt,AICP Terrell Watt Planning Consultants 1937 Filbert Street- San Francisco,CA 94123 tcrrvwatt+Ott.net Office: 415-563-0543 Cell: 415-377-6280 Since 1989,Terrell"Terry"Watt,AICP,has owned Terrell Watt Planning Consultants. Ms. Watt's firm specializes in planning and implementation efforts focused on regionally- significant projects that promote resource and working landscape conservation as well as sustainable development patterns and practices. Prior to fanning her own consulting group_ she was the staff planning expert with the environmental and land use law firm Shute. Mihaly& Weinberger. She is an expert in general and specific planning and zoning,open space and agricultural land conservation strategies and environmental compliance. Her skills also include facilitation and negotiation. public outreach, project management and negotiation. Terry is a frequent presenter at regional.national and statewide workshops and symposiums on general plans and sustainability best practices and case studies. She holds a Masters Degree in City and Regional Plan from the University of Southern California and a Bachelor's Degree in Urban Studies from Stanford University. TERRELL WATT PLANNING CONSULTANTS(1989 to the present). Planning Consulting Firm Owner Terry works with a wide variety of clients throughout California including non-profit organizations.government agencies and foundations. She volunteers up to half her professional time on select projects. Recent projects and roles include: • Consultant to the California Energy Commission with a focus on public outreach and input to the Federal and State agencies related to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (2011 ongoing). The DRECP is the largest conservation plan in California.covering 7 southern California counties. This planning process has produced a draft set of maps showing the conservation attributes for this large planning area for the purpose of describing potential priority development areas for renewable energy and conservation an:as both on public and private lands. Conservation on private lands is subject to willing seller interest. bun: ,www.drecn,oriv ▪ Planning Consultant to California Attorney General's Office - Environment Section focusing on climate change. CEQA and general plans. (2007- 2010). While working with the Environment Section,assisted with:key settlements(Stockton General Plan and Pleasanton Housing Element litigation):creation and maintenance of locally based best practices for local government planning to address climate change issues; and government outreach and consultation on general plans and climate action platts'energy elemetns'sustainability planning efforts. Post 2010 continue to provide focused consulting services to the Environment Section related to case settlement. • Project facilitator for the Martis Valley Opportunity Agreement (MVOA) (2011 - ongoing). The MVOA is an agreement by environmental and conservation groups 28 2.0-168 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 (Mountain Area Preservation.Sierra Watch,Truckee Tahoe Land Trust,Trust for Public Land)and a Business Group (Vail, Northman East West Partners and SPO that would result in"transferring"a portion of the general plan development allocation from 6500 acres of SPL property in the Martis Valley to a 750 acre parcel contiguous to existing development at the Northstar Ski Resort. The 6500 acre property would he permanently conserved as a result of the transfer of development approval in the form of a general plan amendment by the Placer County Board of Supervisors(anticipated in 2014). An early Agreement includes the escrow instructions and conservation easement for the 6500 acre site that would record once the County 13oard has approved the general plan amendment"transfer of development." • Measure M-2 Sales Tax and Environmental Mitigation Measure. (2009-ongoing),Co- project managerifacilitator of a 30+-member environmental coalition that through a unique partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority and state and federal wildlife agencies garnered significant funding for programmatic environmental mitigation (conservation land acquisition and stewardship) in Measure M2, Orange County Transportation Sales Tax. In November 2010.the OCTA Board allocated $42 million to purchase open space from willing sellers to provide early mitigation for transportation projects. Additional funding was allocated to habitat restoration. http::!www.octa.net/Measure-M%Environmental/Freeway-Mitiga tiort/Ovcrview • State Office of Planning and Research(2011 -ongoing). Volunteer advisorioutreach coordinator of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research "listening tour" on potential reforms to realign CEQA with the state's policy priorities of infill and renewable energy.(2011).Currently assisting OPR with an Infill and Renewable Energy Template as part of the 2013 Update of the General Plan Guidelines. • Marin Countywide General Plan and Environmental impact Report (2004 to 2007). Project Manager for the award winning Marin Countywide Plan Update and its Environmental Impact Report. This award winning plan and its EiR contain leading edge sustainability policies and implementation measures. including for climate adaptation and energy self sufficiency. It was the first General Plan and related environmental document to address climate change and incorporate recommendations from the Attorney General's office. http:%reinvcntingthegencrtlpl:ut.org models marin- county • Staff to the Mantis Fund, a joint project of live environmental groups and a Business Group (Highlands Group and DMB inc.). (2005 ongoing). Early efforts included Martis Fund formation including establishment of a 6-person Board with 4 representatives of the environmental groups and 2 representatives of the Business Group. The Fund has distributed over$4 million dollars since its inception to a range of conservation, stewardship and workforce housing projects. Funding comes from a permanent transfer fee on all real estate sales at Martis Camp, http:'r www.tnartisfund.orgiPDFsiMartis-Fund-Brochure.pdf • South Livermore Valley Development and Agricultural Conservation Plan. (2000 - 29 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 2.0-169 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2005) Planning Consultant to the City of Livermore to develop the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and related City-County' joint Area plans and General Plan Amendments. To date the plan has resulted in the development of a world class wine country with over 4,000 acres preserved in permanent easements. Easements have been purchased by the Tri-Valley Conservancy using mitigation funds collected by the City and County and turned over to the Conservancy for purchase of easements from willing sellers. www.trivalleyconservancy_org • Tejon Ranch Land Use and Conservation Agreement (2006 ongoing). Project coordinator for a dialogue process between environmental groups (Natural Resources Defense Council,Sierra Club,Endangered Habitats League. Planning and Conservation League. Audubon California)and The Tejon Ranch Company that resulted in a major Land Use and Conservation Agreement for the permanent protection of 240.000 acres (90%)of the 270,000 acre Tejon Ranch. Ongoing role overseeing implementation of the Agreement. including early role forming and managing the Conservancy formed by the Agreement. The Agreement provided the cornerstone of the Habitat Conservation Plan for a major portion of the Ranclt the Tejon Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. TUMSHP. approved in April 2013. latip:'www.teioneonservatcy.ore images,unloads,nsa esee.ndf • Newport Coast Land Use and Conservation Agreement (1990 - ongoing). Led a negotiated settlement between The Irvine Company and 8 environmental organizations resulting in the conservation of 90 percent of the Newport Coast and development concentrated on a portion of the 10.000 acre property adjacent to(and now annexed to) Newport Reach. • Green Valley. Fairfield Conservation and Development Agreement. An Agreement between landowners.the City and developers that resulted in formation of a land trust and a permanent source of funding from community facilities fees on all new residential and commercial development in the City. To dale the Land Trust,now called Solano Land Trust, has permanently protected over 22,000 acres of natural and agricultural lands by leveraging dollars raised through development fees tivith private donations. federal and state funding and grants. • ',dill Locator for California (2005-06). Participant on the advisory panel to the California Statewide Infill Study project conducted by UC Berkeley's Institute for Urban and Regional Development and sponsored by 13TH. 1ICD and Caltrans. The outcome of this project is a California Infill Parcel locator tool to pinpoint sites for potential infill to inform the potential for infill development in existing cities and urban areas of California. http..?./communityinnovation.berkeley.edWreportsiFulure_of hifill_Vol_1.pdf • 1.A Infill Project. Project coordinator for the California lntill Estimation Methodology Project funded by an Environmental Justice Grant from Caltrans and jointly sponsored by the City of l,os Angeles.County of Los Angeles and Environment Now. 30 2.0-170 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) • COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 AWARDS • Lambda Alpha International-Golden Gate • State and National APA Awards for Mann County General Plan Chapter • Carla Bard Award for Individual Achievement • American institute of Certifleo Planners fAICP) • Environment Now Award for Measure M Support • American Planning Association(APA) • CA State Association of Counties Distinguished Service Award • Tahoe Fund Founding Board Member I 111 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-171 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Response to Letter 16: Alex 011ar, 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 (Parcel 2) is now shown as a Lifestyle Commercial (CL) 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 2.0-172 Final Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 Tract Map do no 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 9 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 the requirements of this Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-173 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 know 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 2.0-174 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-175 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 2.0-176 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 2.0-177 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 460,777 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 2.0-178 Final Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 PC-3. Thero osed zoningdistricts, and the allowed uses within each district, were P P 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.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. 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 16-9g: 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-179 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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. 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, 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 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 2.0-180 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 II 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 II are required. It is further noted that Parcel 6 is now designated as Open Space, 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. 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-181 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 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 2.0-182 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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 DR.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 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-183 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 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 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 2.0-184 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0 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. 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 information provided by the commenter is included in this Final EIR. No additional response is required. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-185 2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES This page left intentionally blank. 2.0-186 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 This section includes minor edits and changes to 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 initiated edits to clarify language and implementation of mitigation measures. 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 strik^out for-deleted-text. 3.1 REVISIONS 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: SURROUNDING LAND USES The Truckee-Tahoe Airport, a general aviation facility, is the major land use east of the Plan Area. Areas north, west and south of the Plan Area are characterized by a mix of low and medium density residential, commercial and recreational uses. The Ponderosa Golf Course borders a portion of the Plan Area directly to the west. Surrounding land uses are shown in greater detail in Figure 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. 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-1 3.0 ERRATA 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 2.0-6: Roadway Improvements The Plan Area requires different roadways sections to respond to varying circulation needs of the existing traffic patterns and uses proposed within the Plan Area. The following roadway improvements are proposed as part of the Specific Plan. Soaring Way: Soaring Way, east of Joerger Drive, would be improved to include curb and gutters, in addition to a five-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk on each side of the roadway, separated by landscaping and a snow storage buffer. The proposed roadway section of Soaring Way, west of Joerger Drive, would be expanded to accommodate a westbound lane, a through/left turn pocket to Joerger Drive,and a right turn pocket into the proposed CRS zoning district south of the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersection. This section would also include two five-foot wide Class II bike lanes, along with curb/gutter, and a five- foot wide sidewalk. Hope Court: Hope Court currently consists of two 16-foot wide travel lanes with aggregate base shoulders. The Specific Plan proposes to add a detached 10-foot wide Class I bike trail that would continue to the easterly limits of the Plan Area. Martis Drive: Martis Drive would consist primarily of new roadway construction. The proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way would include two 12-foot wide travel lanes,Type "E" curb and gutter, and a five-foot wide sidewalk along the easterly side. Additionally,a Class I bike path is proposed on the westerly side, and would continue to the northerly limits of the Plan Area. Brockway Road: The proposed Brockway Road section west of the Hope Court/Brockway Road intersection would include the addition of a detached Class I bike path on the northerly side of Brockway Road from Martis Drive, and crossing at Hope Court. Brockway Road, east of the Hope Court intersection, would transition as is approaches SR 267 to accommodate a westbound through lane, designated left turn lane, northbound through lane, designated right turn lane, and two five-foot wide Class II bike lanes. Additionally, curb and gutter is proposed on the easterly side with a five-foot wide sidewalk. 3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 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. Internal Connection Bridge: A potential internal roadway connection may be made between Parcels 4 and 6, 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 Parcels 4 and 6, the internal roadway would need to span the ephemeral drainage channel that runs north-south between SR 267 and Brockway Road, along the western edge of Parcel 6. 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 2.0-8: 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 Parcel 2 of the proposed project. The project would connect to the existing sewer main line, and would include an internal network of conveyance lines. Figure 2-4 was updated to include labeling for townhomes located to the west of the Plan Area. Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-3 3.0 ERRATA I m N }yam '• I� ``r� f� .i ! 7 � +t -,,:, `t r f' ti. E. , ' 1 f, "'� 1•. Iq•G s r i CI { r •A,4.:'' /J m Q. al s L.T. ,per 1. ^. i� is i i ERRATA 3.0 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 offroad construction equipment ••- - ' ' • • ' - . • - - " - Tiered Engine that ore 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-5 3.0 ERRATA good repair and maintained accordinq 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: • frontage into the Open Space preservation arca. This requires a slight design modification of Parcel 9, which is designated for CG 2 uses. The net effect will be 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 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 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 3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 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 A"easure ' 9; Prior to the final approval, the project proponent preserved and development is prohibited with a 50 foot buffer arca, 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 arca 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: x 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 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. -• . •. . •. - ' ... . .. recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native dignity, on the property and in a location that is not subject to further Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-7 3.0 ERRATA .. - - -. • The Town of T.+ckce or its authorized representative rejects the loodowoor, 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 3.6-4-3.6-2: 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 34-3 3.6-3: Prior to the commencement ofgrading, the project 9 9 g. proponent shall abandon the existing well after obtaining the appropriate well abandonment permits. Mitigation Measure 34-3 16-4: 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. 3.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 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 munici pa l.shtm I. On December 8, 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency •. • .. .. 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 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 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 Unum measures and other storm water quality concerns. The SWMP was submitted to the Lahontan RWQCB and was approved in March 2008. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-9 3.0 ERRATA .. - -. -. - - -- 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: 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: P iic Education and Out ach on Storm Water Impacts x>--illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control x Post Construction Storm Water Management in New Development x—Redevelopment and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations. The SWMP was submitted to the Lahontan RWQCB and was approved in March 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 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 3.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 111 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 3.7-3: 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: oc 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. oc Information demonstrating that the project design would result in drainage flow conditions below pre-project flow rates and volumes. oc 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. oc 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. oc 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-11 3.0 ERRATA 18.30.130.8.3.6 . 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. 0o 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. 0o 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. 0o 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. 0o 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 No changes were made to Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR. 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 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. The Town has elected to include this Follow-Up Traffic Analysis in the Final EIR in its entirety, rather 3.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 than attempt to show underline and strikethrough text throughout the Transportation and Circulation Section of the Draft EIR. By including this Follow-Up Traffic Analysis in its entirety, the Final EIR revisions are clearer to the reader and the Town's decision makers, and key changes to the traffic generation rates and result transportation impacts are more easily identified. The purpose of this memorandum is to present the revised trip generation results for the PC-3 Joerger Ranch Development Project, along with the revised traffic assignment through the key site access intersections and the revised intersection improvements at these key locations. This analysis reflects that the land use quantities for the project were recently revised as a part of the response to comments received during the Draft EIR public review period. Specifically, the parcel sizes in the CL Zone (Parcels 4, 5, and 6) were reduced by roughly half, and the floor area ratio for the shopping center was reduced by half. As a result, a total of about 168,000 square feet of potential development floor area was eliminated from the development. The traffic analysis included on the following pages demonstrates 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. 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. I I Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-13 3.0 ERRATA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2690 Lake Forest Road,Suite C P.O.Box 5875 Tahoe City,California 96145 IMM=I - (530)583-4053 FAX: (530)583-5966 EMAIL: Info@lsctahoe.com TRANSPORTATION www.lsctrans.com CONSULTANTS, INC. MEMORANDUM DATE- February 10,2014 TO. Denyelle Nishimori,Town of Truckee Becky Bucar, Town of Truckee Ben Ritchie. DeNovo Planning Group FROM: Sara Hawley and Jason Briedis.LSC SUBJECT: PC-3 Joerger Ranch EIR—Follow-Up Traffic Analysis The purpose of this memorandum is to present the revised trip generation results for the PC-3 Joerger Ranch Development Project,along with the revised traffic assignment through the key site access intersections and the revised intersection improvements at these key locations.This analysis reflects that the land use quantities for the project were recently revised as a part of the response to comments received during the DEIR public review period Specifically, the parcel sizes in the CL Zone(Parcels 4, 5,and 6)were reduced by roughly half,and the floor area ratio for the shopping center was reduced by half. As a result,a total of about 168,000 square feet of potential development floor area was eliminated from the development The revised land use assumptions are shown in the attached Table A A discussion of impacts to the SR 267 Bypass is included,as well as a summary of the changes to the DEIR mitigation measures at the key site access intersections. Revised Trip Generation The trip generation analysis was revised based on the revised floor areas,utilizing the same planning assumptions and base trip generation rates applied in the DEIR.The revised trip generation analysis is summarized in Table B.As indicated in the lower portion of the table.an estimated 15,799 daily one-way vehicle trips and 1.397 PM peak-hour trips(620 entering and 777 exiting)would occur at the site driveways However, not all of these trips would be"new" trips to the area.The number of internal trips was subtracted from the total trips generated in order to determine the number of external trips generated by each PC-3 planning area. As shown in Table C,a total of approximately 13,399 daily external one-way trips are associated with the project during the PM peak hour,consisting of 527 inbound trips plus 679 outbound trips.These trips are not all new to the adjacent roadway network 3.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 PC-3 Follow-Up Traffic Analysis Page 2 February 10,2014 Revised Trip Distribution and Assignment No changes were made to the distribution pattern for project-generated traffic,or to the assignment of site-generated trips to the various travel paths.The assignment of project- generated traffic was established using the same methodology applied in the DEIR.Consistent with the DEIR,about 30 percent of PC-3 retail trips made to/from the south on SR 267 are expected to be intercepted trips(trips already on SR 267 that would be shortened by the provision of new trip attractions in the proposed project,such as a Northstar resident shopping at PC-3 rather than at an existing commercial site in Truckee). Under existing year conditions, this equates to approximately 71 PM peak-hour intercepted trips(35 inbound and 36 outbound) made to/from the south(Martis Valley/Northstar areas).Similarly,under future cumulative year conditions,approximately 69 PM peak-hour trips(35 inbound and 34 outbound)made between PC-3 retail uses and points to the south are intercepted.These reductions are shown in the lower right corner of Table C. Approximately 14 percent of PC-3 retail trips made to/from the neighborhoods along Brockway Road would shift from another shopping destination(consistent with the DEIR),resulting in reduced traffic volumes at select off-site intersections and roadways.Of these trips,6 PM peak- hour trips(3 inbound and 3 outbound)are expected to be intercepted trips under existing year conditions,and 12 PM peak-hour trips(6 inbound and 6 outbound)would be intercepted under future cumulative conditions.These reductions are also shown in the lower right corner of Table C. Overall,about 10 percent of external trips generated by the site are estimated to be intercepted trips. Resulting Project Impact—On External Roadways Subtracting the number of pass-by and intercepted trips from the total external trips yields the number of new trips generated on external roadways.As indicated in the lower right corner of Table C,an estimated 759 new PM peak-hour trips(305 inbound and 454 outbound)would be generated on the external roadway network with the proposed project under existing 2012 conditions.Similarly,an estimated 755 new PM peak-hour trips(302 inbound and 453 outbound)would be generated on the external roadway network with the proposed project under future cumulative 2032 conditions.Compared to the volumes forecast for the previous land use quantities presented in the DEIR,the external trip generation has been reduced by about 30 percent. The 2012 and 2032"project net impact"on summer PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the study intersections are shown in Tables D and E,respectively.Adding these volumes to the"no project"volumes yields the 2012 and 2032 with project"volumes presented in Tables F and G, respectively. Finally,the project is estimated to result in a net increase of approximately 312 PM peak-hour trips(177 northbound and 135 southbound)on the SR 267 Bypass under 2012 summer conditions.Similarly,the net increase under 2032 conditions is estimated to be approximately 419 total two-way PM peak-hour trips(241 northbound and 178 southbound). Revised Comparison Between Proposed PC-3 Project and Assumptions in General Plan The proposed PC-3 project was compared to the assumed PC-3 project in the General Plan. The PC-3 land use assumptions in the current Truckee TransCAD model were revised several times subsequent to adoption of the General Plan.The PC-3 land use assumptions in the 2025 General Plan,in the current Truckee TransCAD model,and in the proposed project are listed in Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.0-15 3.0 ERRATA PC-3 Follow-Up Traffic Analysis Page 3 February 10,2014 Table H.As indicated,the proposed project has fewer multi-family residential units.less commercial floor area,and more light industrial use than included in the General Plan. Conversely,the proposed project has more commercial floor area and less light industrial use than assumed in the current Truckee TransCAD model.Note that the proposed'Research& Development Center"use is categorized under"Light Industrial",which is the land use type in the TransCAD model with similar trip generation rates. The total PM peak-hour trip generation at the PC-3 access points was reviewed under all three land use scenarios.As shown in the table,the proposed project has a lower level of trip generation than that assumed in either the General Plan or the current TransCAD model. In addition,the external trip generation of the proposed PC-3 project can be compared to that assumed in the current TransCAD model. As indicated,the proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of approximately 755 PM peak-hour trips on the external roadway network.A review of the intersection PM peak-hour turning movements in the current TransCAD model indicates that about 1,300 external trips are generated by the PC-3 project site. Thal is, the proposed project is estimated to result in a smaller impact on external roadway volumes than the PC-3 project assumed in the TransCAD model. Revised Level of Service Analysis at Key Intersections Level of Service(LOS)was evaluated at the following key site access intersections, based on the HCM 2010 methodology and the revised traffic volumes: • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access • Brockway Road/Martis Drive • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access Table I summarizes the results for 2012 conditions with the project. As shown,the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way and the Soaring Way/Joerger Dnve/Site Access intersections are estimated to exceed the applicable LOS thresholds,consistent with the conclusions in the DEIR.However,the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access and Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersections would operate at acceptable levels in 2012,based on the revised(reduced)traffic volumes.Table J summarizes the results for 2032 conditions with the project. By 2032,all four intersections are estimated to exceed the applicable LOS thresholds,consistent with the findings in the DEIR. Revised Intersection Improvements The intersection improvements at the key site access intersections needed to reflect the impacts under the updated land uses are as follows: SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way 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 intersections included in the Town's traffic impact fee program. 3.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 PC-3 Follow-Up Traffic Analysis Page 4 February 10, 2014 Provision of capacity-enhancing improvements to the existing signalized intersection'would also improve the LOS to an acceptable level.This would not be consistent with Truckee General Plan Policy P7.1,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. Brockway Road/Hope CourtJSite Access With full buildout of the PC-3 project in 2012,this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS.Although no intersection LOS mitigation measures are necessary in 2012,the peak-hour traffic volumes warrant eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes,as well as a westbound right- turn lane along Brockway Road. In addition,a primary at-grade pedestrian crossing is proposed to be provided on the eastern leg(crossing Brockway Road)of this intersection.The presence of a crosswalk across three or four lanes of traffic at an unsignalized intersection is problematic. For instance,when the first car stops at the crosswalk,the driver of the"second carr 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.Providing the crosswalk at a mid-block location may not be feasible,given that the crossing is intended to link the Class I facility along Brockway Road to the Class I facility along Hope Court.Note that a roundabout is the recommended LOS mitigation measure at this intersection in 2032,as the unsignalized intersection(with additional turn lanes)would not provide adequate LOS. It is assumed that the roundabout would be designed to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian crossings. As shown in Table J,the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection is expected to exceed the LOS threshold in 2032.Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches would provide an acceptable LOS under all scenarios with the proposed project.As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5,improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. Brockway Road/Martis Drive With full buildout of the PC-3 project in 2012,the Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS Although no intersection LOS mitigation measures are necessary in 2012,an eastbound left-turn lane and a westbound right-tum lane are warranted along Brockway Road for turning vehicles entering the project site.This intersection would exceed the LOS threshold in 2032 with the PC-3 project.Extending the existing central two-way left-turn lane(TWLTL)along Brockway Road to the east of this intersection to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Martis Drive onto Brockway Road,and providing separate left-and right-turn lanes on the southbound Martis Drive approach would be needed in 2032.As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5,improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. ' 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 Final Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-17 3.0 ERRATA PC-3 Follow-Up Traffic Analysis Page 5 February 10. 2014 Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2012. Consistent with the DEIR,provision of a single-lane roundabout would provide an acceptable LOS at this intersection. It is assumed that the roundabout would be designed to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian crossings. As shown in Table J,this intersection is expected to exceed the LOS threshold in 2032. Consistent with the DEIR,implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches would provide a good LOS under all scenarios with the proposed project.As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5,improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. Impact on SR 267 Bypass The summer PM peak-hour traffic volumes per lane in the peak direction(northbound)over the SR 267 Bypass in 2012 and 2032 with the project were reduced to approximately 943 and 1,571 vehicles per hour,respectively.The conclusions regarding the adequacy of the existing two-lane Bypass were not affected.That is,the two-lane configuration of the Bypass is expected to adequately accommodate future cumulative conditions including traffic generated by PC-3 as currently proposed,as well as buildout of other Truckee TransCAD model and Martis Valley Community Plan land uses. Changes to DEIR Mitigation Measures In summary,the revised land use assumptions and follow-up analysis generally do not affect the conclusions and mitigation measures at the key site access intersections,with the following exceptions' SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way—The extent of the improvements to achieve an acceptable LOS was reduced. Specifically,with a dual-lane roundabout in 2012,no auxiliary lanes would be necessary.Alternatively,the capacity-enhancing improvements to the existing signalized intersection no longer include dual left-turn lanes on the eastbound Brockway Road approach in 2012 and 2032,thereby reducing the extent of roadway widening required. Brockway Road/Martis Drive—Consistent with the DEIR,an eastbound left-tum lane and a westbound right-turn lane are warranted along Brockway Road for vehicles turning into the site in 2012. Different from the DEIR,extension of the TWLTL to the east of this intersection is not necessary in 2012 from an LOS standpoint,although the TWLTL may be needed to provide adequate lane continuity with the adjacent Hope Court intersection.Consistent with the DEIR. the TWLTL and separate turn lanes on the Martis Drive approach are needed in 2032 for an acceptable LOS. 3.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 TABLE A:PC•3 Joerger Ranch•Land Use Quantities 1122/14 Assumed Parcel Size Partes Zone Desorlpton ITE Land Use Coder ITE Land Use Mur (Acres} FAR Quantity Under I 8 2 BIZ BUSINESS INNOVATION ZONE 1397 02 12171 KSF 760 Research 8 Oevelopment Center 50% 60.86 KSF 770 Buamess Park 50% 60.85 KSF 3 RM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 348 12 42 DU 220 Apartment 100% 42 DU 4 8 5 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL 3 16 0.2 27 53 KSF 814 Specialty Retail 100% 27.53 KSF 6 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL ♦43 0.2 38.59 KSF 814 Specialty Rated 70% 27 01 KSF 932 High-Turnover(S4-Down)Restaurant 30% 11.58 KSF 7 OS OPEN SPACE 2.73 Ns - Park n Ride LotJTradnead Parking 12 Spaces 8 Mt MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL 5.56 0.2 48.44 KSF 130 Indualnal Park 70% 33 91 KSF 760 Research 8 DevelopmenI Center 30% 14 53 KSF 9 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 1 66 02 14.46 KSF 814 Specialty Retell 76% 10 12 KSF 832 High-Turnover(Ss-Down)Restaurant 30% 4 3a KSF 10 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 1.20 0.2 1045 KSF 814 Specta8y Reta�. 100% 10.45 KSF 11 8 12 M1 MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL 3.93 0.2 34 24 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 23.97 KSF 760 Research 8 Development Center 30% 10.27 KSF 13 M1 MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL 4.08 0.2 35.54 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 24.88 KSF 760 Research&Development Center 30% 10.86 KSF 14 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 3.25 0 2 28 31 KSF 814 Specialty Raw 70% 19.82 KSF 932 High-Turnover(St-Down)Roslaurant 20% 5.66 KSF 946 GesrSennce Station wrtn Cone Markel 8 Car 10% 8 VFP wash CR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 11.89 0 2 101 94 KSF 820 Shoppuq Center 51% 51 84 KSF 850 Supermarket 49% 50.00 KSF Not. FAR•Floor Area Rano.KSF•1.000 quare reel d floor area ou•ovnung cine.VFP•Vehicle Furlong Povuon. PC-3 T1A Addend2014.ah Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-19 3.0 ERRATA I 71 :,4 g sp.! g R'= TIRa R 27A ".mR RAR g ! 1 1118 12R w r flyz - mex ee% ! ryn :=Flt flw� 1/?� t; 1 1,�—s- 7.14g _ R Rag - c.'l. 2AR - ..“'..• __R FRA'1 1' in ;, I7 OF, x i�"_ Alf @ ;aa FBA ass pl 1 lb Ili! ag € g .4; tis !t ttt tt ft f R fl »g a : : g g ;V. g o N .: � a .'.P N o o .w� w !la Is 2 S SS 11 A3 S Si SI !Li If I = R o _m - r e r- e„s a 0 0 �� 2 R^ Ae A m m "na ” e =M1 Re =� = R� R� S'ry W8 I 8 11 fl s Rg= a VI >a: VeA: s s«n asa fly- aaa 1 aa� " �.x - rig; s.. s ^„4A „sa ?tea I 11 II I 5 I I i I I J I A 4 Ig filflif g ill g 111 111111 11110111! IIiI! h W i i f iA '111 Il1 ithi ql. -11 ii it! id ii' ill 5 ` ' Y � t R h � YR$1 IFRJ t Ij ux ii$� $ : ' � $3 $ pal $$ � �1! i m A s ie a s 8i ii i s 5 ¢tllk � �u = ' _ _ W g ” 1 4 4 gg 4 gA 3.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 } ! acs R R Rua « 999 .9A _ 999 Aaa ssa $!p ! ^-,.5i2; t .11 1 sr saw - c sca ASA • _ca 9.G 9•:: 335 p 3^45 +4p ; JJ S 99s _ s 9Ra 9 •-. .99. . --- •-. 9 255 ! 4^3 ! 4+: I pk! ! ! b!!! a SEE !SI A gza ;la z=;: #3; I ss s OS g sa OS cs as CH CO illItiJ1Ifl E #95� 9 a it- « Sits 999 « 989 9=9 999 45.1 ! lii �1a 931;:i931;:i - 9 998 c A99 .=a a 9:8 9cm 2•9 !sa E hi Oil } 3k4 I ! t!E a 555 !!p $ ita Iaa Us 1 11 u i I a et is u u Vit' '-_t t I F ; :cp a e a;p a sits 981 R RS; «Sa 999 EEE !. $85 • s 998 _ 99s sec 9 sea Sex s•R IEE E ^Rx I. _ A Rai 9 ... 9A: d ... .«. SSA 0$t ! II I bei ! ! * a'_! EVE p 595 Ra! !R:I ! , hi 4 11 111 I I .lI, il. J 1. i. lib) OilU oOil Mill I pup a3 gags $' YR$i as $ Y?$ 8$9 6a$ a! p 11 4i ! 11 u Id g 8 ; ; e a I ! Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-21 (£-fid)ueid ogpads g3ueJ.ta2Jaof—uodag 23eduWi ie2uauauoalnug ieuid ZZ-0'£ I N N N� ppp N gZ mNN NNfp� NN N S � (Qe/j1 DD D '7!4(�� D D C y �F �el DDDR 1pL R 9 D 9P }c n N ei l �sQ� �x�Qp yyt l i Y Z 4 ; -;. R e l =y;;= i O' m b-N ttt'{.. Rl ti* 4 6SN SSC L «:.'"r S i3 -. ..x BS- .$DN'y s s s M w$3. s 6� DD DC!11m m S �S P�+^�1 SL;X`DD9DDT�p` O D Z ID 11 Ila$ iif'ai!!a18g if w 11p1 Bil4i 9i'Ai;¢ $$bgi is -:3 i ,tilas:BC -� dl X Y - “ Si:;D$x11 y LI 1 0 03 m I m n n •y -1 2 2 m m e y 7 .0 0 0 e y N O.O.P x'ii i EU I u o O O jy u u v P+o O O o d$ 3 y z 1, _ D Y Pu 7 ..oi r-,rg000 o o 0;e15g xV fI y .u I +OP,mo oouNoi:iug., y 1 O O DI J D 0 �,N 1 uoo-w,-„"�'.o o.moo =o�;, iOl H 7 o-ga�oows000To.y i , 3 G G i 3 , r a O N N t P O w O O P N O.0 0.O 0.0 31N as .-i:40.110..000000.0. 3 a ,►1 t PCP 0.b+ s m s i i`. f i 3 w ill -o$Y b o 0 o u u o%e e.g oy t 2 g, t o`��o a ` d p , O:2,4 r. $o]ooeo$00000 a oL.sua..xO..Pooet+oO000b9 Z c, ; ou►,'uN oo$o..000 coon w OoP1^jtiureepo.0000t00000 O 3 ooe`,'odoo y...,3.oOOoo m 0,2gOO4t.Nwo41000000 y N :ti .... . tot i NEI Poaovwf„ y.bt!eoovot i 1 Y I �N 1 +0 0��.'j G O O N S �+ � y N 1 y 0 0�g�r O O P�0 0 0 0�� 3 y u II O y g O O g N P$N O j N O S a g o e S&Nr:O e.•.i 0 o 0 0 0 0 yl o-sa►e..ge:1 O..VSOONiOO 1Y$a� h i l a!It 3 O a r O/G 5 5 i N O I P I I O e Z Y NO i N a V 1 Y r N N N Y N I • •W• ua OT ERRATA 3 d, I $ aid;::m:mZili.M xnrn ; ar:$Eli iieUri ii,iWiggin.$ ir.::eeemoe$7.V.4,S '3:-..ao I '/ eleeo1":Xinoi$oV--'geo ig Hneeeon9merFiERvoomn- I g„000-EF.F."1nm2-onF..n ! E,oe.oy�nn^_�o�8,$pp„eo"a I M1� fi iiNDeOBC,yH�o13omtioo$ :e.7.,n1 „OsO Y o M-iuM1i P= nN s*".O Q II nO.ONty OtaV i0*,N'^Qi M1~ c it ii 'Ao°00-F,F,T2ViEF—in's- b so 000..k2r-liUr•-•oFF, 0 wc w OO pp�pp p y h e p e^ii f p i n O' V Hgg N M n- ! E o;e m J1 o ry N s o M1^L I-i S o i E.4o5o=o2�e^o�i.„M1.F'"O�o Q 'i:o4o�oaR�;o1NnV.>.1R='"R„o r Fii � YY O ee o f El i iI iiF 'z E--O�N O O- I r2$ I N N P i f O o N-O-- !O- I I I C 1. OO �V W a Oew00.Or.Ha... .0Y 700 W s H On00t ogxzzo Hs 01�y^rY.sO J O EEp• rQ�(p2 QM1eRoeveRtoi^ps Noo^ I rut, 4 R1. ,�O'xoo2u,!.. `S$^.400x 7M12 3 F F 1 7 a�i i o$r ^ =$=a- 1 = 3 L€ h a R g n a o E i-2 e!a a w- '2? V z 4 g2jr • N - e % Sgo8ois8oM1..?:.s :o- 1,lR S 1 i,12. 4-1:'4-2,na„ � 800 , u r ` M1 f+ 4 4 E g E C 8 8i Zb 5 03 e pa „B s � yy 3 �� :0 ti F� 3RD A gg"r O zdiii—i �lA E4E it O Ilii i�� Igtel t- ii..g Xl zma'3i w >`i g JAS „$ glips>i �7Sii S� 0 5 _acmg¢ 1 fill 11 y yy gp� • ftu 11 m W K¢K S Q._ w N _o W C C 1¢R - R a cYY^^^m ¢;so^-^ oY S N NN O m�m a�N�✓i a 2 � NN N p m mG7 NNNmmm i 2 _,..„,,,,,,,,,,o_....,,... I Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-23 (rJ O W IV Q 41. 'Irl t N `= trlO 5• TABLE H:PC-3 Joerger Ranch•Comparison of Current Project,General Plan,and Truckee Model O Truckee P Prcyect Land Use Assumptions Total PM Peak-Hour Net Increase in PM 5 Model Multi-Family Commercial Light Industrial Trip Generation at Site Peak-Hour Trips on CD TAZs Source (DU) (KSF) (KSF) Access Points External Roadways r-t- W 80.6612,and General Plan 355 360 140 2.310 NA Current Truckee TransCAD Model 47 161 243 1,725 1,300 'S3 Current Proved' 42 285 179 1,397 755 IM n X Difference(Current Project Minus General Plan) -313 -75 39 -913 NA fD G Difference(Current Project Minus TransCAD Model) •5 124 -64 -329 -545 '1' Note: TAZ=Traffic Analysis Zone,DU W a = lring unit.KSF=1.000 square feel of floor area(rounded to x nearest 1.000),NA-Not Available. ,^ Note I Potential trarlhead parking lot on Parcel 7 a not reflected In the square lootages. Gas station on Parcel 14 is assumed to be roughly 3 KSF O Source LSC Transportation Consultants,Inc PC-3 tend waits CD I 93 m 0 5 TABLE I: PC-3 2012 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Mitigation Summary Unm,tgated LOS --- -------- Mtbgated LOS With Protect With Pro(act Ummitgated Oelay Delay Delay n Intersection Control Type ` (sedveh)(Veh-Hrs) LOS Mitigation Measure (sedveh) LOS Provide Exdusivo Turn Lanes for All Movements 1p SR 267?Brockway Road r Soaring Way Signal OVF — F from Brockway Road and Soaring Way No 34.1 C O0eniWM ng is necessary on SR 267;OR - Construct Dual.Lane Roundabout _ 21.1 r► C Brockway Road I Hope Court Slop Controlled 58.5 1.2 F N/A Brockway Road!Mams Onve Skip Controlled 57.0 1.9 F N/A O Soaring Way l JoergUnbolted Dr!Sile Access Stop nbolted 147.9 4.9 F Construct Single-Lane Roundabout 7.1 A CD BOLD lext mdlcates Om LOS standard hes teen exceeded. OW.Ooeeow Osloo norm.a Bray v..r.art 200 stood.or on..oia c ctn.5..coarey rataalea lire Neu nvantobty NOTE I LM of rota to.meat reSKsve a motet for to err YrVs.c:nn r"l NOTE 2 Lots of roto.for rwtl.Dai6 ant 00w two, W.1rs.ctve a matt.ht ar ole mweerm Sate LSC hrmott.api Ce, ads,tar IC:7 LOSS In 1D 't▪] w CTJ 70 � a v Goa 0 W w CD N C CT 'sf Cr1 CO m TABLE J: PC-3 2032 Intersection LOS Mitigation Summary s. a o With Project = Unmitigated Delay 3 Intersection Control Type Mitigation Measure (seclveh) LOS CD = Summer LOS _ SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way Signal Two-Lane Roundabout with Right-Tum Bypasses on All 104.0 F ApRroaches g Multi-Lane Roundabout-Additional Analysis Required'; (3) {3) LI OR Da n Improve Traffic Signal Capacity by Widening SR 267 to ^ Two Thru-Traffic Lanes in Both Directions. Provide 30 8 C 7 Separate Left-Tum.Right-Turn,and Through Lanes on T3 Eastbound and Westbound Approaches. O� Brockway Road I Hope Court Stop Controlled Construct Single-Lane Roundabout with Single-Lane 16.5 C r... Approaches I Provide Separate Southbound Left-and Right-Turn Lanes C Brockway Road f Martla Drive Stop Controlled and TW L TL on Brockway Road for Two-Stage Left-Turn 39.3 E CD from Martis Drive. 't NSoaring Way/Joerger Dr/Village South access Stop CentroNed Const pct Single-Lane Roundabout with Single-Lane 8.1 A "f Approaches. Xi W BOLO text Indicates that LOS standard has been exceeded OVF=Overflow Overflow Indicates a delay greater than 200 seconds per vehicle.which cannot be accurately calculated usrrg I-CM methodology n NOTE I:Level or service to• naltzed,nlersectnns a reported epaled for the total nNrsKiion N NOTE 2- Leve *wince,of sce for roundabouts and Ir other unsignal;zed intersections is reported for e worst movement '13 NOTE 3: The Synctvo So!ware package I Tra/fcwre Verson 8 Bald 905.20131 does not provide an analysis for roundabout confpvauons with more Pon two crculatrg tares CD A Source LSC TrartaporWtort Consultaetk inc PC3 LOS.atr `JI n -0 B1 -v n w ERRATA 3.0 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 seven or fewer parcels, but prior to any further parcel subdivision or issuance of any gradinq or building permits on the project site, 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 1 of project construction and prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. Mitigation Measure 3.11-18: 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 1 Map totaling seven 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. 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 seven 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. 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 seven 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 seven 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 C1R-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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-27 3.0 ERRATA Mitigation Measure 3.11-1F: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for any future development projects within the project site, each development applicant shall prepare a traffic study to the Town that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Town that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development project would not trigger an unacceptable level of service at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for a project that would generate traffic that triggers an exceedance of the acceptable LOS at this intersection, the project proponent shall construct a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1G: Following recordation of a Phase I Map totaling seven or fewer parcels, but prior to any further parcel subdivision or issuance of any gradinq or building permits on the project site, 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 seven 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/loerger Drive/Site Access intersection. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1!: Prior to the issuance of grading 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. The following changes are made to Mitigation Measure 3.11-4b on page 3.11-65: Mitigation Measure 3.11-48: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for individual development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant(s) pay the Town of Truckee traffic impact fee to cover its share of cost to perform improvements to the: co SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road intersection, 0o Donner Pass Road/l-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp intersection, co Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail intersection, cc SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection, 0o SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps intersections, and co 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. 3.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ERRATA 3.0 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 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 existin 21" sewer interceptor that crosses Joerger Drive. line in Joerger Drive at the north end of the Plan Area. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-29 3.0 ERRATA 3.13 VISUAL RESOURCES No changes were made to Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR. 4.0 OTHER CEQA SECTIONS No changes were made to Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR. 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. I I 3.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING 4.0 PROGRAM 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 PROGRAM 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: 00 Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same S g order that they appear in that document. 00 Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. 00 Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring. 00 Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place. Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-1 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MONITORING VERIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: To reduce Area Source Emissions, the project Impact 3.1-1: Project operations Truckee Prior to have the potential to cause a applicant shall implement the following: Community issuance of violation of an air quality • Only natural gas burning fireplaces/hearths(i.e. no wood burning Development building standard or contribute fireplaces/hearths shall be allowed). Wording relating to this Department permits,and substantially to an existing or restriction shall be included within the project's CC&R's. and the throughout projected air quality violation NSAQMD project • Only low VOC paint and architectural coatings (interior and operations. 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. 3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (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 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-3 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (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. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5: To reduce short-term construction related Impact 3.1-2: Project Truckee During emissions, the contractor shall be required to implement the following construction has the potential to Community construction standard NSAQMD measures: cause a violation of an air quality Development and ground- standard or contribute a) Alternatives to open burning of vegetative material will be used Department disturbing substantially to an existing or unless otherwise deemed infeasible by the District.Among suitable and the activities. projected air quality violation alternatives are:chipping,mulching,or conversion to biomass fuel. NSAQMD 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. fJ 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. 3.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (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. I) 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: cc 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-5 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MONITORING VERIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Thirty days prior to commencement of Impact 3.2-1: The proposed Truckee Thirty days project has the potential to have construction, the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to Community prior to start of direct or indirect effects on perform a preconstruction survey to ensure that there are no occupied nests, Development construction special-status bird species including but not limited to raptors,if construction occurs during the nesting Department 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. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3:Prior to construction,all Plum as ivesia located in impact 3.2-4: The proposed Truckee Prior to start of project has the potential to have areas of the site proposed for ground disturbance will be hand excavated and Community construction direct or indirect effects on immediately relocated to a pre-determined replanting site. The replanting Development special-status plant species site will contain similar suitable habitat conditions, within the study area or Department 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. Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: Prior to any activities that would result in impact 3.2-5: The proposed Truckee Prior to ground project has the potential to have removal,fill, or hydrologic interruption of the drainage/wetland area, the Community disturbing direct or indirect effects on project proponent shall provide a wetland delineation to the USACE for Development activities verification and a wetland determination. if the USACE determines that the _ 3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) wetlands drainages are jurisdictional and that the project activities would result in a Department within 200 feet fill,the project proponent shall secure an authorization of the fill through the of wetlands or Section 404 permit process and Town Minor Use Permit. If the USACE drainage areas. 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 Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-7 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (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 Mitigation Measure 3.2-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Truckee Prior to project has the potential to project proponent shall incorporate the following measures into project Community issuance of a introduce or spread noxious plans and specifications: Development grading permit. weeds Department 00 Certified, weed free, imported erosion-control materials (or rice straw in upland areas)will be used. Gr) The project proponent will coordinate with the county agricultural commissioner and land management agencies to ensure that the 3.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.1 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFiCATTON RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) appropriate BMPs are implemented. 0o 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 Mitigation Measure 3.2-10: Prior to the final approval, the project Truckee Prior to final project has the potential to proponent shall redesign the project to ensure that the open space areas, Community map approval. conflict with an adopted habitat except for the hydrologic features, include an appropriate trail linkage to Development conservation plan, natural adjacent trail/recreation facilities (i.e. Martis Valley, Sportspark/Legacy Department community conservation plan, Trail).This redesign would be required to ensure consistency with this Policy recovery plan,or local policies or 9.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the 2025 Truckee General ordinances protecting biological Plan. resources CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, Impact 3.3-1: Project Truckee During implementation has the potential historic sites,and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during the Community construction course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters to cause a substantial adverse Development activities. change in the significance of a (165 feet) of the discovery, the Town of Truckee shall be notified, and a Department historical or archaeological qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional resource as defined in CEQA Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be Guidelines§15064.5 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. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: If paleontological resources are discovered Impact 3.3-2: The proposed Truckee During project has the potential to during the course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within Community construction directly or indirectly destroy a 50 meters(165 feet)of the discovery, the Town of Truckee shall be notified, Development activities. and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-9 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) unique paleontological resource of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is considered significant, it Department 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. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3:if human remains are discovered,all work shall Impact 3.3-3: The proposed Truckee During project has the potential to be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the Community construction disturb human remains, County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Development activities. including those interred outside Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Department of formal cemeteries 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. GEOLOGY AND SOiLS Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Impact 3.4-3: The proposed Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to result project proponent shall ensure that project plans adequately address Engineering issuance of in substantial soil erosion or the grading, erosion, sediment, and pollution control requirements of the Department Grading loss of topsoil Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB).if one acre or more of land permits and will be disturbed, the project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent during (N.O.1.) with appropriate fees and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan construction (SWPPP) to the RWQCB. The SWPPP shall include non-structural and activities. 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. 3.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure 3.6-1:Prior to bringing hazardous material onsite,the Impact 3.6-1: The proposed applicant and/or business owner shall submit a Hazardous Materials Nevada County Prior to project has the potential toEnvironmental bringing Business Plan (HMBP) to Nevada County Environmental Health Division create a significant hazard Health Division hazardous (CUPA)for review and approval. If the inventory of reportable hazardous through the routine transport, materials include fuels stored in Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) that material onsite use, or disposal of hazardous exceed 1,320 gallons (in containers >55 gallons) the applicant and/or materials or through the business owner must file documents required by the California Aboveground reasonably foreseeable upset Storage Tank Act(APSA). if one of the AST's is larger than 20,000 gallons or and accident conditions the accumulative storage capacity exceeds 100,000 gallons a Spill Prevention involving the release of and Countermeasures Plan(SPCC)will be required.If during the construction hazardous materials into the process the applicant and/or business owner or his subcontractors generates environment hazardous waste,the applicant and/or business owner must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste,obtain an EPA lD#and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law). Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the impact 3.6-3: The proposed Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to result project proponent shall appropriately dispose of all materials on the project Engineering issuance of in impacts from being included site that are cited within the Phase 1 ESA. This includes drums/containers, Department Grading on a list of hazardous materials equipment,parts,metal and wood debris,and other refuse. permits and sites compiled pursuant to during grading Government Code Section Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Prior to the commencement of grading, the activities. 65962.5 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. Final Environmental impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-11 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 3.7 1: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: The project applicant shall prepare a site Truckee Prior to the specific and construction phase-specific storm water pollution prevention project has the potential to Engineering issuance of violate water quality standards plan (SWPPP) in conformance with the California Stormwater Quality Department Grading or waste discharge requirements Association Construction Handbook(Construction Handbook),in compliance permits and during construction with the requirements of the State General Construction Activity Storm during grading Water Permit(CGP), and in compliance with project guidelines for erosion activities. 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 3.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONiTORfNG TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) graded areas shall be protected during the winter months using appropriate methods. Impact 3.7-2: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to project applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a storm water Engineering issuance of management plan (SWMP) consistent with the Town's Municipal Code and violate water quality standards Department Grading or waste discharge requirements Storm Water Quality Ordinance. The SWMP shall,at a minimum,include the permits during operation following: co 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. 0o Information demonstrating that the project design would result in drainage flow conditions below pre-project flow rates and volumes. 0o 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. 0o 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 Final Environmental impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-13 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) the applicable storm water facilities to prevent intrusion of development-related pollutants to groundwater. 0o 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 18.30.105.8. 0o 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. 0o 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. 0o 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 11 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 3.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.11 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) (December 2007). Mitigation Measure 3.7-4:Project drainage improvements will be required impact 3.7-4: The proposed Truckee Prior to the project has the potential to alter to provide detention/retention storage and LID measures that will prevent Engineering issuance of increases in storm runoff rates and volumes during storm events up to and the existing drainage pattern in a Department Grading manner which would result in including the 100 year 24-hour storm event Included in this mitigation permits substantial erosion, siltation, measure is the requirement that onsite retention shall be provided for the 20- flooding,or polluted runoff 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. LAND USE,POPULATION,AND HOUSING Mitigation Measure 3.8-1:A minimum of 97 workforce housing units shall impact 3.8-4: implementation of Truckee Concurrent the proposed project may induce be constructed and offered for sale or rent within the Plan Area, in Community with approval substantial population growth accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.216.050 of the Truckee Development of future and may confliect with the Development Code, concurrently with or prior to completion of the Department development requirements of the Town's development project or phase thereof. As used in Chapter 18.216, within the Plan Workforce Housing standards "concurrently"means that a proportionate share of workforce housing units, Area. 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. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-15 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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(8) 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. NOISE Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Construction activities shall adhere to the impact 3.9-2:Construction of the Truckee During all requirements of the Town of Truckee with respect to hours of operation, project may generate significant Community construction muffling of internal combustion engines, and other factors which affect noise construction noise generation and its effects on noise-sensitive land uses. Development activities. Department co Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. 00 Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. 00 Utilize"quiet"air compressors and other stationary noise- generating equipment where appropriate technology exists. ao 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 3.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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. Mitigation Measure 3.9-3: Loading docks and truck circulation routes Impact 3.9-4: The project will Truckee Prior to should be located at a minimum of 160 feet from future onsite residential result in on-site stationary noise Community approval of uses to the greatest extent feasible. if these activities are located closer than Development subsequent 160 feet when tentative maps are prepared and individual development Department development in projects are proposed, a qualified acoustical consultant shall determine the Plan Area. 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 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. Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-17 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MONITORING VERIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Prior to the approval of improvement plans, Impact 3.10-1: The proposed the project proponent shall incorporate the following requirements into Truckee Prior to project has the potential to improvement plans/drawings: Engineering approval of increase demands for fire Department subsequent protection services or require Hydrants and Fire Flow development in the construction of fire 1. Hydrants shall be spaced a maximum distance of 500 feet apart in the Plan Area. department facilities which may residential areas,so that no point on any road is more than 250 feet cause substantial adverse from a hydrant physical environmental impacts 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. 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 3.0-18 Final Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) 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. S. 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 he 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 30'of all structures. 2. A 15 foot fuel modification zone shall be required on both sides of all roads and driveways. Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-19 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TiMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) Impact 3.10 4: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.10-4: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of Truckee Prior to project has the potential to occupancy, the project proponent shall construct, or provide adequate Community issuance of the increase demands for park and funding for the construction of the following offsite trail connections: Development first certificate recreational facilities or require Department of occupancy. the construction of park and 1. The proposed onsite Class I bicycle path that runs north along the recreational facilities which may western edge of Martis Drive shall be extended offsite to provide cause substantial adverse connectivity to the Truckee River Legacy Trail. The alignment and physical environmental impacts design parameters of this offsite trail connection shall be determined through consultation with Town staff 2. The proposed onsite Class 11 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 1 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. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 3.11-IA: Following recordation of a Phase 1 Map Impact 3.11-1: Project totaling seven or fewer parcels,but prior to any further parcel subdivision or Truckee Timing is implementation would result in a issuance of any grading or building permits on the project site, the project Engineering dictated by significant impact to local applicant shall construct a center turn lane on Donner Pass Road to allow Department traffic intersections and roadways two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire Drive. conditions and the individual Mitigation Measure 3.11-1B: Installation of a traffic signal at the Bridge mitigation Street/Donner Pass Road intersection is included in the Town's Traffic measures 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 seven 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 3.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) contributing to this improvement 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 seven 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. 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 seven 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 1 Map totaling seven 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: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for any future development projects within the project site, each development applicant shall prepare a traffic study to the Town that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Town that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development project would not trigger an unacceptable level of service at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for a project that would generate traffic that triggers an exceedance of the acceptable LOS at this intersection, the project proponent shall construct a Final Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-21 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1G: Following recordation of a Phase i Map totaling seven 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 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-IH: Following recordation of a Phase i Map totaling seven 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 3.11-11: Prior to the issuance of grading 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. Mitigation Measure 3.11-4A: The propose proponent shall construct impact 3.11-4: Under cumulative Truckee Timing is separate left-and right-turn lanes on the southbound Martis Drive approach conditions, project for the Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection. The timing of this Engineering dictated by implementation would worsen improvement shall be determined by the Town of Truckee. Department traffic already unacceptable levels of conditions and service at study intersections Mitigation Measure 3.11-4B: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the individual and roadways. individual development projects within the Plan Area, the project mitigation applicant(s)pay the Town of Truckee traffic impact fee to cover its share of measures cost to perform improvements to the: 0o SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road intersection, 0o Donner Pass Road/l-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off Ramp intersection, co Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail intersection, 3.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) co SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection, co SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps intersections,and co 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. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2: The project proponent shall prepare a Impact 3.11-7: Project Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by Town Truckee Prior to implementation may result in Engineering construction staff,prior to construction. traffic impacts during Department activities. construction UTILITIES Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Prior to the approval of building plans for Impact 3.12-1: Project Commercial and Industrial uses within the Plan Area, the project proponent Truckee Prior to implementation has the potential Sanitary approval of to exceed wastewater treatment and/or business owner shall provide the TSD and T-TSA with appropriate District and building plans. requirements of the applicable details of the uses and wastewater generated within the commercial and/or Tahoe-Truckee Regional Water Quality Control industrial area. Project proponents and/or business owners shall present Sanitation facility layouts with tabulated fixture unit counts and other T-TSA billing factor counts. The methodology used to develop these fixture,factor, and Agency 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 Final Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.0-23 4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MONITORING VERIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY TIMING (DATE/INITIALS) VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: In order to reduce potential for Impact 3.13 3: Project nighttime lighting impacts,future development applications within the Plan Truckee Prior to implementation may result in Area shall prepare and submit an exterior lighting plan for review and Community issuance of light and glare impacts approval by the Town of Truckee Community Development Department. The Development building lighting plan shall include standards for all exterior light fixtures proposed in Department permits. 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 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. 3.0-24 Final Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) RESOLUTION 2015-10 EXHIBIT "D" SEPTEMBER 2013 JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3) PUBLIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DRAFT EIR) Exhibit B, Page 2 PUBLIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) SCH# 2012052073 SEPTEMBER 2013 Prepared for: Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 4630 Brand Way Sacramento, CA 95819 (916) 580-9818 De Novo Planning Group A Land Ilse Planning, Design, and F..nvironmental Firm PUBLIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) SCH#2012052073 SEPTEMBER 2013 Prepared for: Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee,CA 96161 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 4630 Brand Way Sacramento,CA 95819 (916) 580-9818 TABLE OF CONTENTS 111 DRAFT EIR Chapter Page Number Executive Summary ES-1 1.0 Introduction 1.0-1 1.1 Purpose and Intended Use of the EIR 1.0-1 1.2 Type of EIR 1.0-1 1.3 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies 1.0-2 1.4 Environmental Review Process 1.0-2 1.5 Organization and Scope 1.0-4 1.6 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation 1.0-6 2.0 Project Description 2.0-1 2.1 Project Location 2.0-1 2.2 Project Setting 2.0-1 2.3 Project Goals and Objectives 2.0-3 2.4 Project Description 2.0-3 2.5 Uses of the EIR and Required Agency Approvals 2.0-13 3.1 Air Quality 3.1-1 3.1.1 Existing Setting 3.1-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting 3.1-7 3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1-11 3.2 Biological Resources 3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting 3.2-1 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting 3.2-7 3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.2-13 3.3 Cultural Resources 3.3-1 3.3.1 Environmental Setting 3.3-1 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting 3.3-10 3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.3-13 3.4 Geology,Soils,and Minerals 3.4-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TOC-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.4.1 Environmental Setting 3.4-1 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting 3.4-8 3.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 3.5 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 3.5-1 3.5.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 3.5-1 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting 3.5-7 3.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.5-13 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.6-1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting 3.6-1 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting 3.6-5 3.6.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.6-14 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.7-1 3.7.1 Existing Setting 3.7-1 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting 3.7-5 3.7.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.7-15 3.8 Land Use, Population,and Housing 3.8-1 3.8.1 Environmental Setting 3.8-1 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting 3.8-7 3.8.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.8-12 3.9 Noise and Vibration 3.9-1 3.9.1 Environmental Setting 3.9-1 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting 3.9-7 3.9.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.9-11 3.10 Public Services and Recreation 3.10-1 3.10.1 Existing Conditions 3.10-1 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting 3.10-5 3.10.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.10-15 3.11 Transportation and Circulation 3.11-1 3.11.1 Environmental Setting 3.11-1 3.11.2 Analysis Methods 3.11-6 3.11.3 Project Travel Characteristics 3.11-11 TOC-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.11.4 Regulatory Setting 3.11-26 3.11.5 Thresholds of Significance 3.11-28 3.11.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.11-29 3.12 Utilities 3.12-1 3.12.1 Wastewater Services 3.12-1 3.12.2 Water Service 3.12-7 3.12.3 Solid Waste 3.12-14 3.12.4 Energy and Telecommunications 3.12-17 3.13 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 3.13-1 3.13.1 Environmental Setting 3.13-1 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting 3.13-2 3.13.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.13-5 4.0 Other CEQA-Required Topics 4.0-1 4.1 Cumulative Setting and Impact Analysis 4.0-1 4.2 Growth-Inducing Effects 4.0-14 4.3 Significant Irreversible Effects 4.0-16 4.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 4.0-17 5.0 Alternatives 5.0-1 5.1 CEQA Requirements 5.0-1 5.2 Alternatives Considered in this EIR 5.0-2 5.3 Environmental Analysis 5.0-6 6.0 Report Preparers 6.0-1 Table Page Number Table ES-1:Summary of Zoning,Acreage,and Development Potential ES-3 Table ES-2:Comparison of Alternative Project Impacts to the Proposed Project ES-8 Table ES-3: Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures ES-10 Table 2-1:Summary of Zoning,Acreage,and Development Potential 2.0-5 Table 2-2: Specific Plan Implementation Measures and Action Items 2.0-10 Table 2-3: Intersection/Roadway Frontage/Class I Bike Trail Improvements 2.0-11 Table 3.1-1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.1-5 Table 3.1-2: State and National Attainment Status 3.1-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TOC-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.1-3: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data (Truckee- Fire Station) 3.1-6 Table 3.1-4: Consistency Analysis 3.1-9 Table 3.1-5: Operational Emission Thresholds 3.1-12 Table 3.1-6: Operational Emissions(Unmitigated) 3.1-12 Table 3.1-7: Operational Emissions (Mitigated) 3.1-14 Table 3.1-8: Construction Emission Thresholds 3.1-16 Table 3.1-9: Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) 3.1-17 Table 3.1-10:Soil Hauling Construction Phase Emissions(Maximum Daily lbs/day) 3.1-18 Table 3.1-1: CARB Minimum Separation Recommendation on Siting Sensitive Land Uses3.1-22 Table 3.2-1: Special-Status Species Documented within 5-Mile Radius of Project Site 3.2-5 Table 3.3-1: Projects Undertaken Within the Project's Vicinity 3.3-5 Table 3.3-2:Archaeological Sites within the Project's Vicinity 3.3-7 Table 3.4-1: Comparison of Richter Magnitudes and Modified Mercalli Intensities 3.4-3 Table 3.4-2:Soil Erosion Factors 3.4-5 Table 3.4-3: Linear Extensibility(Expansion Potential) 3.4-6 Table 3.5-1: Construction GHG Emissions(Unmitigated Metric Tons/Yr) 3.5-15 Table 3.5-2: Operational GHG Emissions (Mitigated Metric Tons/Yr) 3.5-16 Table 3.5-3: Operational GHG Emissions 2010 BAU (Unmitigated Metric Tons/Yr) 3.5-16 Table 3.6-1:Airport Compatibility Zones 3.6-18 Table 3.7-1: Dams Discharging to the Truckee River Upstream of the PC-3 Specific Plan 3.7-4 Table 3.7-2: CWA Listed Section 303(d)Water Quality Limited Segments Downstream 3.7-5 Table 3.8-1: Housing and Population Census Data: 2000 and 2010 Benchmarks 3.8-5 Table 3.8-2: PC-3 Policy Consistency Analysis 3.8-14 Table 3.8-3: Commercial and Industrial Development Potential & Employment Generation 3.8-16 Table 3.9-1:Typical Noise Levels 3.9-3 Table 3.9-2: Existing Ambient Noise Monitoring Results 3.9-5 Table 3.9-3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels 3.9-6 Table 3.9-4: Consistency Analysis 3.9-7 Table 3.9-5:Town of Truckee Noise Compatibility Guidelines 3.9-9 Table 3.9-6: Noise Standards by Receiving Land Use Truckee Development Code 3.9-10 Table 3.9-7: Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure 3.9-12 Table 3.9-8: Predicted Existing and Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels 3.9-14 Table 3.9-9: Construction Equipment Noise 3.9-15 Table 3.9-10:Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment 3.9-17 Table 3.9-11: Predicted Future and Future Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels 3.9-21 TOC-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.10-1: Multi-Family Attached Student Yield Rates 3.10-19 Table 3.11-1:Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes without Project 3.11-5 Table 3.11-2: PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Existing Conditions- No Project 3.11-7 Table 3.11-3: Roadway LOS Analysis- 2012 Without Project 3.11-9 Table 3.11-4: Land Use Element 3.11-11 Table 3.11-5: PC-3 Joerger Ranch-Trip Generation Analysis 3.11-15 Table 3.11-6: PC-3 Joerger Ranch-External Trip Generation 3.11-18 Table 3.11-7: PC-3 Joerger Ranch- External Trip Generation-Summer PM 3.11-21 Table 3.11-8: PC-3 Existing 2012 Trip Assignment-SR 267 Bypass vs. Brockway Road 3.11-22 Table 3.11-9: Project Net Impacts of 2012 Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes- Placer County 3.11-24 Table 3.11-10: Project Net Impacts of 2032 Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes- Placer County 3.11-24 Table 3.11-11:Winter 2012 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes with Project 3.11-25 Table 3.11-12:Comparison of Current Project,General Plan,and Truckee Model 3.11-25 Table 3.11-13: 2012 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS- No Project and Plus Project 3.11-31 Table 3.11-14: Roadway LOS Analysis-2012 Without Project 3.11-35 Table 3.11-15: Roadway LOS Analysis-2012 With Project 3.11-37 Table 3.11-16:Traffic Performance on SR 267 Bypass in 2012 3.11-40 Table 3.11-17: Glenshire Dr/Donner Pass Rd Intersection LOS with Center Turn Lane 3.11-42 Table 3.11-18: 2012 Intersection LOS Mitigation Summary 3.11-49 Table 3.11-19: 2032 Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes without Project 3.11-53 Table 3.11-20: 2032 Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes with Project 3.11-53 Table 3.11-21: 2032 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary(No Project and Plus Project 3.11-55 Table 3.11-22: Roadway LOS Analysis- 2032 without Project 3.11-59 Table 3.11-23: Roadway LOS Analysis- 2032 with Project 3.11-61 Table 3.11-24:Traffic Performance on SR 267 Bypass in 2032 3.11-63 Table 5-1: Summary of Zoning, Acreage, Development Potential and FTEE Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative 5.0-4 Table 5-2: Summary of Zoning, Acreage, Development Potential and FTEE Under the Industrial Uses Only Alternative 5.0-5 Table 5-3:Comparison of Alternative Project Impacts to the Proposed Project 5.0-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TOC-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures Note: Figures are located at the end of the chapters. Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map Figure 2-3 Aerial View of Project Site Figure 2-4 Surrounding Land Uses Figure 2-5 General Plan Designations Figure 2-6 Proposed Zoning Districts Figure 2-7 Tentative Map Figure 3.2-1 Land Cover Types Figure 3.2-2 Wetlands and Documented Special Status Species within the Project Site Figure 3.2-3 Special Status Species within 5-Mile Radius Figure 3.4-1 Faults Map Figure 3.4-2 Soils Map Figure 3.6-1 Airport Safety Map Figure 3.7-1 Truckee River Overall Watershed and Primary Sub-Basins Figure 3.7-2 Drainage Features and General Topography in the Vicinity of the Project Site Figure 3.7-3 Aerial Photograph Showing Existing Drain Pipes and Local Drainage Features Pertinent to PC-3 Figure 3.7-4 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure 3.9-1 Noise Measurement Sites Figure 3.9-2 Truckee-Tahoe Airport Noise Contours Figure 3.11-1 Intersection Land Configuration and Traffic Control Figure 3.11-2 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Project Figure 3.11-3 Project Net Impact During 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Figure 3.11-4 Project Net Impact During 2032 Summer PM Peak Hour Figure 3.11-5 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Figure 3.11-6 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project Figure 3.11-7 2032 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Figure 3.11-8 Conceptual Layout,Two-Stage Left Turn Lane, Donner Pass Road Figure 3.13-1 Visual Simulation View 1 Figure 3.13-2 Visual Simulation View 2 Figure 3.13-3 Visual Simulation View 3 TOC-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.13-4 Visual Simulation View 4 Appendices Appendices are located on the CD in the back cover of the Draft EIR Print Copies. Appendix A—Initial Study and Comments Received Regarding the Notice of Preparation Appendix B-Air Quality Calculations Appendix C- Noise Study Appendix D1-Traffic Impact Analysis Report Appendix D2-Traffic Analysis Technical Appendices Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TOC-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS I This page left intentionally blank. I I TOC-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES 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 in Section 2.0. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following provides a brief summary and overview of the proposed project. Section 2.0 of this EIR includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including maps and graphics. The reader is referred to Section 2.0 for a more complete and thorough description of the components of the proposed project. 111 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 66.61 acre Plan Area, each with specified targeted uses and site development standards. The six zoning districts and their locations are depicted in Figure 2-6. In addition to the development of the six zoning districts, the Specific Plan proposes a large lot tentative map that subdivides the six zoning districts into 14 individual parcels as depicted in Figure 2-7. This is intended to create a convenient multi-use development and to stimulate financing opportunities within portions of the Plan Area. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is shown on Figure 2-7. The specific designations for the proposed zoning districts are as follows: Regional Commercial (CR) The CR zoning district is located on the south side of Soaring Way and is approximately 11.7 acres in size. The targeted land uses for this zoning area include commercial and retail services that emphasize buildings larger than 5,000 S.F. and can host a variety of retail uses, such as a grocery Draft Environmental Impact Report- loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-1 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY market; general merchandise (large floor plate); home furnishings/appliances; office space (large floor plate); and casual dining restaurants. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Regional Support Commercial (CRS) The CG-2 zoning district consists of three areas totaling approximately 6.1 acres located at the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersection. The CRS zoning district is intended to attract businesses that support the CR zone by focusing on services that promote the small town outdoor recreational atmosphere of Truckee. The targeted uses for the CRS zoning district include: outdoor recreational equipment sales; bike sales and rentals; health and fitness facilities; casual dining restaurants; and recreational vehicle sales. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Lifestyle Commercial (CL) The CL zoning district is located on the north side of Brockway Road and consists of approximately 7.6 acres. The CL zoning district is intended for businesses that promote a varied mix of land uses that currently exist within the Brockway Road corridor, including unique and locally owned retail, service and recreation uses with outdoor display, activity and/or dining areas. The targeted uses for the CL zoning district include: home furnishings with indoor and outdoor displays;wine tasting facilities and beverage garden; casual dining restaurants with outdoor dining; garden supplies and nursery sales. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Manufacturing/Industrial (Business Park) (M1) The M1 zoning district consists of three areas east of SR 267 totaling approximately 13.6 acres.The M1 zone is designed to encourage relocation of industrial and manufacturing uses from the Truckee River Corridor and to allow manufacturing/industrial uses. The targeted uses for the M1 zoning district include: fitness center and indoor sports activities and training facilities; manufacturing and warehousing; auto/recreational dealerships; repair and maintenance centers; specialty food and spirit production facilities; research and development facilities; and transportation centers. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Business Innovation Zone (BIZ) The BIZ zoning district consists of two areas west of SR 267 totaling approximately 14.0 acres.The BIZ zoning district is intended to provide land area to attract new innovative manufacturing and research & development businesses to the Truckee area and create a campus style business environment focusing on eco-friendly and emerging green industries.The targeted uses for the BIZ zoning district include: manufacturing of custom furniture and household products; specialty food and spirit production and distribution; research and development facilities; green technology including material production, design, and research. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. ES-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES Residential Multi-Family (RM) The multi-family zoning district is approximately 3.5 acres in size and located west of proposed Martis Drive, fronting on the Ponderosa Golf Course. The RM zone is intended to provide a variety of higher density, attached and/or detached housing opportunities in close proximity, for both employees and employers of the various commercial and industrial land uses allowed in the Specific Plan. Open Space (OS) The OS zoning district is primarily intended to protect natural resources in the Plan Area and establish a buffer zone and setbacks from SR 267. The Open Space parcel at the Hope Court / Brockway Road intersection is intended to provide an opportunity for a trailhead to access the Northstar trail segment, park & ride, public art and a portion of the remaining area for use by a public or nonprofit organization. Parking for the trailhead and park & ride will consist of 8 - 12 parking spaces. Table ES-1 provides a summary of the acreage and development potential for each of the zoning districts identified above. TABLE ES-1:SUMMARY OF ZONING,ACREAGE,AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Zoning Designation Acreage Development Potential Regional Commercial (CR) 11.69 101,843 sf Regional Support Commercial (CRS) 6.07 52,881 sf — i 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 In order to meet the requirements of Chapter 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code, the project includes 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-3 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS Roadway Improvements The Plan Area requires different roadways sections to respond to varying circulation needs of the existing traffic patterns and uses proposed within the Plan Area. The following roadway improvements are proposed as part of the Specific Plan. Soaring Way: Soaring Way, east of Joerger Drive, would be improved to include curb and gutters, in addition to a five-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk on each side of the roadway, separated by landscaping and a snow storage buffer. The proposed roadway section of Soaring Way, west of Joerger Drive, would be expanded to accommodate a westbound lane, a through/left turn pocket to Joerger Drive, and a right turn pocket into the proposed CRS zoning district south of the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersection. This section would also include two five-foot wide Class II bike lanes, along with curb/gutter, and a five-foot wide sidewalk. Hope Court: Hope Court currently consists of two 16-foot wide travel lanes with aggregate base shoulders. The Specific Plan proposes to add a detached 10-foot wide Class I bike trail that would continue to the easterly limits of the Plan Area. Martis Drive: Martis Drive would consist primarily of new roadway construction. The proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way would include two 12-foot wide travel lanes, Type "E" curb and gutter, and a five-foot wide sidewalk along the easterly side. Additionally, a Class I bike path is proposed on the westerly side, and would continue to the northerly limits of the Plan Area. Brockway Road: The proposed Brockway Road section west of the Hope Court/Brockway Road intersection would include the addition of a detached Class I bike path on the northerly side of Brockway Road from Martis Drive, and crossing at Hope Court. Brockway Road, east of the Hope Court intersection, would transition as is approaches SR 267 to accommodate a westbound through lane, designated left turn lane, northbound through lane, designated right turn lane, and two five-foot wide Class II bike lanes. Additionally, curb and gutter is proposed on the easterly side with a five-foot wide sidewalk. Joerger Drive: Joerger Drive would remain relatively unchanged from its current condition. The Specific Plan proposes to add curb and gutter and a five-foot wide sidewalk on the westerly side. Intersection Improvements Brockway Road/Soaring Way/SR 267: The existing intersection at Brockway Road/ Soaring Way / SR 267 is currently signalized with northbound and southbound through lanes with additional left turn lanes onto Soaring Way from the north and onto Brockway Road from the south. Traffic from Brockway Road approaches a through/left turn lane and a designated right turn lane. There is one (1) eastbound through lane to Soaring Way and one (1) westbound lane approaching from Soaring Way. Improvements to this intersection have been identified in the General Plan as a "future community need" independent of the traffic impacts resulting from the Specific Plan. ES-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES On the Brockway Road side of the intersection, widening of the roadway is proposed in order to shift the designated right turn lane to the south and accommodate an additional lane. This additional lane would allow the existing through / left turn lane to be separated into a designated left turn only and designated through lane. Additionally, Class II bike lanes are proposed in both easterly and westerly directions. Curb &gutter and a 5' wide concrete sidewalk is proposed on the south side of Brockway Road to facilitate pedestrian safety up to the signalized intersection. No modifications are proposed on the north side of the intersection. On the Soaring Way side of the intersection, widening is proposed to allow for a designated right turn lane with a through/left and eastbound lane. On the Brockway Road side, Class II bike paths would be provided in each direction and curb, gutter and sidewalk are proposed on the south side to convey pedestrians along the Brockway Road and Soaring Way corridor. The south side of the intersection is proposed to include a right turn only lane to minimize delay onto Soaring Way. Signalization upgrades along with lane widening is proposed to accomplish these intersection upgrades. Brockway Road/Hope Court: The existing three-leg "T" intersection at Brockway Road and Hope Court is proposed to be improved to a four-leg intersection, adding a commercial driveway entrance to the north to access the Lifestyle Commercial (CL) zoning area. Striping and minor widening will create two (2) left turn pockets both east and west bound on Brockway Road into the Commercial Lifestyle (CL) zoning area and onto Hope Court. Additionally, this intersection has two pedestrian and bicycle crossings as the Class 1 bicycle trail crosses the commercial driveway approach fronting the Commercial Lifestyle "CL" zoning area and then crosses Brockway Road to the northerly side of Hope Court. A solar powered push button activated LED Flashing Pedestrian Crosswalk sign is proposed on each side of Brockway Road. Brockway Road/Martis Drive: This intersection currently exists and no widening is proposed. Minor striping within Brockway Road and the addition of curb and gutter on Martis Drive and the Class 1 bicycle path crossing is proposed to complete this intersection. Soaring Way/Joerger Drive: The Soaring Way / Joerger Drive intersection would be improved to provide additional turn pockets and an additional leg to the south to access the Regional Commercial (CR) and Regional Support Commercial (CRS) zoning areas. Currently, Soaring Way is uncontrolled with both an eastbound and westbound lane. Vehicles heading south from Joerger Drive approach the intersection and existing stop sign. The intersection is proposed to be a four- way intersection with stop signs. Motorists on the westerly side of the intersection on Soaring Way would have a through / left turn pocket as well as a designated right turn only pocket for entering the "CRS" zoning area. Some minor widening on Joerger Drive would accommodate the addition of a designated right turn only pocket along with a through / left pocket and northbound lane. The easterly side of the intersection on Soaring Way would be striped to include a designated left turn and through / right pockets. The southerly leg of the intersection would have a southbound lane a through / left pocket for motorists heading up Joerger Drive, or left on Soaring Way and a designated right turn pocket as well. I Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-5 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bicycle Network and Design A 10-foot wide separated Class 1 bicycle path is proposed on the northerly side of Brockway Road from the westerly boundary of the Plan Area running easterly and crossing Brockway Road and along the northerly side of Hope Court to the easterly boundary of the Plan Area and in conformance with the Truckee General Plan.This would provide a significant link to connect to the future Martis Valley Trail to the southeast and to the Truckee Regional Park to the northwest. A Class 1 bicycle path is also proposed to be constructed on the westerly side of Martis Drive to the northern limits of the Plan Area,which would allow for a future extension to connect to the Legacy Trail to the north. In addition to the Class 1 bicycle trail segments, Class II bicycle paths are integrated into the various roadway sections, including each side of Brockway Road, Soaring Way and along Joerger Drive fronting the Plan Area. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE Wastewater (Sewer) Wastewater collection and conveyance would be provided by the Truckee Sanitary District (TSD). Wastewater treatment would be provided by the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency (T-TSA). Sewage in the project vicinity is currently collected primarily by gravity flow throughout adjacent developed areas, and is transported in a sewer main line at Joerger Drive for conveyance to the treatment plant located east of the project area. The project would connect to the existing sewer main line, and would include an internal network of conveyance lines. Water Supply Water service in Truckee is provided by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD), a publicly owned utility providing electric and water service since 1927. The District operates three water systems in the Truckee area: the Hirshdale System, the Truckee System, and the Donner Lake System.The Truckee System serves the Plan Area. Existing transmission, distribution and treated water storage facilities would serve both existing and future demand from the planned development. This basic infrastructure has developed by TDPUD in accordance with the Water System Master Plan and the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Water mainlines are located within the adjacent roadways and would be extended throughout the Plan Area for domestic water distribution and fire suppression. Electric Service The Plan Area lies within the service area of the TDPUD. Existing electrical transmission lines and service distribution lines lie adjacent to and within the Plan Area. Electrical service facilities would be extended from existing TDPUD infrastructure and would be upgraded as necessary to adequately serve the Specific Plan, and would be designed to accommodate full buildout of the Plan Area. ES-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES Natural Gas Natural gas service is provided to the Truckee area by Southwest Gas Corporation. Existing natural gas transmission lines and service distribution lines lie adjacent to and within the Plan Area. Natural gas facilities would be extended from existing Southwest Gas infrastructure in Martis Drive, and would be upgraded as necessary to adequately serve the Specific Plan at full buildout. Refer to Section 2.0, Project Description, for a more complete description of the details of the proposed project. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED This Draft EIR addresses environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that are known to the Town of Truckee, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR discusses potentially significant impacts associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation/circulation, utilities, and aesthetic/visual resources. The Town received 16 written comment letters on the NOP for the Draft EIR. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on June 6, 2012 to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. All participants at the public scoping meeting wishing to submit comments on the Draft EIR elected to submit comments in writing. Aspects of the proposed project that could be of public concern include the following: • Generation of air quality emissions • Timberland conversion impacts • Traffic generation • Compatibility with surrounding land uses • Visual impacts • Water quality • Noise generation • Climate change impacts • General Plan consistency • Provision of adequate utility services • Airport land use compatibility • Fire protection standards Draft Environmental Impact Report- loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-7 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 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 four alternatives in addition to the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan project. • No Project(No Build)Alternative • Reduced Intensity Alternative • Industrial Uses Only Alternative Alternatives are described in detail in Section 5.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Table ES-2 summarizes the comparative environmental effects of implementing each alternative. TABLE ES-2:COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE No PROJECT REDUCED INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL USES ONLY ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE Air Quality Less Less Less Biological Resources Less Less Equal Cultural Resources Less Less Equal Geology and Soils Less Less Equal Greenhouse Gases Less Less Less Hazards and Hazardous Less Less Equal Materials q Hydrology and Water Less Less Equal Quality Land Use.Planning& Equal Equal Greater Population Noise Less Less Less Public Services Less Less Less Transportation and Less Less Less Circulation Utilities Less Less Equal Visual and Aesthetic Less Less Equal Resources GREATER=GREATER IMPACT THAN THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT LESS=DECREASED IMPACT THAN THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT I•%=GREATER IMPACT WITH REGARD TO SOME ASPECTS OF IMPACT AND DECREASED IMPACTS IN OTHER ASPECTS EQUAL=No SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN IMPACT FROM THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ES-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES As shown in the table above, the No Project 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 Reduced Intensity Alternative is the next environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The environmental impacts of the proposed project, the impact level of significance prior to mitigation,the proposed mitigation measures and/or adopted policies and standard measures that are already in place to mitigate an impact, and the impact level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table ES-3. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-9 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE ES-3: PROJECT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION AIR QUALITY 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. Impact 3.1-1: Project operations have the Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: To reduce Energy Source Emissions, the project applicant potential to cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an S shall implement the following: SU existing or projected air quality violation • 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 CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION 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. • 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. • 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: CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant Ni-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-11 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION 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 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. Mitigation Measure 3.1-5: To reduce short-term construction related emissions, the contractor shall be required to implement the following standard NSAQMD measures: Impact 3.1-2: Project construction has the PS LS potential to cause a violation of an air quality a) Alternatives to open burning of vegetative material will be used unless standard or contribute substantially to an otherwise deemed infeasible by the District Among suitable alternatives are: existing or projected air quality violation chipping,mulching,or conversion to biomass fuel. b) Adequate dust control measures will be implemented in a timely and effective CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable IS-less than significant Ni-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE 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 offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent a public nuisance. 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 CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-13 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE watered until a suitable cover is established. I) 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 Hoard 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 must utilize "Diesel Oxidation Catalyst and Tiered Engine that are certified to effectively reduce NOx emissions by 40%. 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. Impact 3.1-3: The proposed project has the LS None required. potential to have carbon monoxide hotspot CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE impacts Impact 3.1-4: The proposed project has the potential for public exposure to toxic air I.S None required. contaminants Impact 3.1-5: The proposed project has the LS None required. potential for exposure to odors BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Thirty days prior to commencement of construction, the potential to have direct or indirect effects on project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a preconstruction survey special status bird species 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 PS from the preconstruction survey that there are occupied nests, then the project LS 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. Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on LS None required. special-status mammal species Impact 3.2-3: The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on LS None required. special-status fish species Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to project approval, the project proponent shall Impact 3.2-4: The proposed project has the incorporate all documented Plumas ivesia located along the Brockway Road frontage potential to have direct or indirect effects on PS LS into the Open Space preservation area. This requires a slight design modification of special-status plant species Parcel 9,which is designated for CG-2 uses.The net effect will be a reduced impact to this CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-15 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WiTNOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE species.There will be no new impact created by this design modification. 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. 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 drainages are jurisdictional and that the project activities would result in a fill, the project proponent shall secure an Impact 3.4-5:The proposed project has the authorization of the fill through the Section 404 permit process and Town Minor Use potential to have direct or indirect effects on PS LSPermit. If the USACE determines that the drainages are not jurisdictional and that the wetlands 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. in accordance with Development Code Section 18.30.050.F, a Minor CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION 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 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. 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). 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 flagging and shown on the construction drawings. The fencing shall be installed before construction activities ore initiated and shall be maintained throughout the construction period. The following paragraph shall be CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant Ni-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Ioerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-17 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION 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 non vegetative 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 3.2-6: The proposed project has the potential to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or LS None required. migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites Mitigation Measure 3.2-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Impact 3.2-7: The proposed project has the PSLS potential to introduce or spread noxious proponent shall incorporate the following measures into project plans and CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable IS-less than significant Ni-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MiTIGArioN weeds 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 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. 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. Impact 3.2-8: The proposed project has the potential to conflict with an adopted habitat (Note: Implementation of this mitigation measure would eliminate the need for conservation plan, natural communityPS Mitigation Measure3.2-4 through 3.2-7.). LS conservation plan, recovery plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological Mitigation Measure 3.2-10: Prior to the final approval, the project proponent shall resources 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. CULTURAL RESOURCES CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-19 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF RESULTING INVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE Mitigation Measure 3.3-1:If cultural resources(i.e.,prehistoric sites,historic sites,and Impact 3.3-1: Project implementation has the isolated artifacts and features)are discovered during the course of construction, work potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or shall be halted immediately within 50 meters(165 feet) of the discovery, the Town of archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Truckee shall be notified,and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Guidelines§15064.5 Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. PS The Town of Truckee shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the LS 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. Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: If paleontological resources are discovered during the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a course of construction,work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters(165 feet)of unique paleontological resource the discovery,the Town of Truckee shall be notified,and a qualified paleontologist shall PS be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.if the paleontological resource LS is considered significant, it should be excavated by a qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, ur other applicable institution, where they could he curated and displayed for public education purposes. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: If human remains are discovered during the course of Impact 3.3-3: The proposed project has the potential to disturb human remains,including construction,work shall be halted at the site and any nearby area reasonably suspected those interred outside of formal cemeteries 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.lithe remains are of PS Native American origin,either of the following steps will be taken: LS • 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 CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable IS-less than significant NI-Nu Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION 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: o The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendent o The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. o 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. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 3.4-1: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to LS None required. potential adverse effects involving rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking Impact 3.4-2: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to LS None required. potential adverse effects involving ground failure or landslides CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-21 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE Impact 3.4-3: The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permit the project potential to result in substantial soil erosion proponent shall ensure that project plans adequately address grading,erosion,sediment, or the loss of topsoil 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 PS protection,stabilized construction entrances,and sediment traps. LS 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. Impact 3.4-4: The proposed project has the LS None required. potential to result in risks from expansive soil Impact 3.4-5: The proposed project has the potential to have soils incapable of supporting NI None Required. alternative waste water disposal systems GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE. Impact 3.5-1: Project implementation has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that PS implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-4. LS may have a significant impact on the environment or the potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MMGATI0N MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 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 Impact 3.6-1: The proposed project has the Storage Tanks(AST)that exceed 1,320 gallons(in containers>55 gallons)the applicant potential to create a significant hazard and/or business owner must file documents required by the California Aboveground through the routine transport,use,or disposal Storage Tank Act (APSA). if one of the AST's is larger than 20,000 gallons or the of hazardous materials or through the PS LS reasonably foreseeable upset and accident accumulative storage capacity exceeds 100,000 gallons a Spill Prevention and conditions involving the release of hazardous Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) will be required. If during the construction process the materials into the environment 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). impact 3.6-2: The proposed project has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous LS None required. materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Impact 3.6-3: The proposed project has the proponent shall appropriately dispose of all materials on the project site that are cited potential to result in impacts from being within the Phase I ESA. This includes drums/containers, equipment, parts, metal and included on a list of hazardous materials sites PS wood debris,and other refuse. LS compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to the commencement of grading, the project proponent shall abandon the existing well after obtaining the appropriate well CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-23 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE abandonment permits. Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: 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. Impact 3.6-4: The proposed project has the potential for the project to result in a safety hazards for people residing or working on the LS None Required. project site as a result of public airport or public use airport Impact 3.6-5: The proposed project has the potential for the project to result in safety LS None Required. hazards for people residing or working on the project site as a result of a private airstrip Impact 3.6-6: The proposed project has the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted LS None Required. emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan Impact 3.6-7: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to a LS None Required. risk of loss,injury or death from wildland fires HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE 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 Impact 3.7-1: The proposed project has the controls (BMPs for water quality), the means of waste disposal, implementation of potential to violate water quality standards orPS approved local plans, control measures of post-construction sediment and erosion, LS waste discharge requirements during monitoring and maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water management construction 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.OSO.C.4 and the Lahontan RWQCB. Exposed graded areas shall be CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-25 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL/MPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION protected during the winter months using appropriate methods. Impact 3.7-2: The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project potential to violate water quality standards or applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a storm water management plan(SWMP) waste discharge requirements during consistent with the Town's Municipal Code and Storm Water Quality Ordinance. The operation SWMP shall,ata 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 PS 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 CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable IS-less than significant Ni-No impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION 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 18.30.105.8. • 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. Impact 3.7-3: The proposed project has the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or LS None Required. interfere substantially with groundwater recharge CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant Ni-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-27 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION 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 Impact 3.7-4: The proposed project has the shall be provided for the 20 year 1-hour storm runoff volume from impervious areas.The potential to alter the existing drainage pattern PS design of detention/retention storage,LID facilities and other drainage facilities shall be LS in a manner which would result in substantial erosion,siltation,flooding,or polluted runoff 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. Impact 3.7-5: The proposed project has the potential to otherwise substantially degrade PS Implementat Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-4 LS water quality Impact 3.7-6: The proposed project has the potential to place housing or structures that would impede/redirect flows within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal LS None Required. Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map Impact 3.7-7: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death LS None Required. involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam,seiche, tsunami,or mudflow LAND USE,POPULATION AND HOUSING CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable IS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE Impact 3.8-1: The project may result in the LS None required. physical division of an established community impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project may conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency LS None required. with jurisdiction over the project adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect Impact 3.8-3: Implementation of the proposed project may conflict with an applicable habitat NI None required. conservation plan or natural community conservation plan impact 3.8-4: Implementation of the proposed Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: A minimum of 97 workforce housing units shall be project may induce substantial population constructed and offered for sale or rent within the Plan Area, in accordance with the growth and may contliect with the requirements of Chapter 18.216.050 of the Truckee Development Code, concurrently requirements of the Town's Workforce with or prior to completion of the development project or phase thereof. As used in Housing standards 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 PS the Town to an equal or greater extent and the completion of the workforce housing LS units is secured by a performance bond or other similar security. The 41 residential multifamily 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. CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-29 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE 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(8)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. Impact 3.8-5: Implementation of the proposed project may displace substantial numbers of NI None required. people or existing housing NOiSE Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project may generate unacceptable traffic noise levels at LS None required. existing receptors Mitigation Measure 3.9-1:Construction activities shall adhere to the requirements of Impact 3.9-2: Construction of the project may the Town of Truckee with respect to hours of operation,muffling of internal combustion generate significant noise 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 PS and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for LS 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 CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE equipment where appropriate technology exists. • The project sponsor shall designate a"disturbance coordinator"who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The project 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 3.9-3: Construction of the project may LS None required. result in vibration impacts 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 Impact 3.9-4:The project will result in on-site exposure to residential uses to the levels established in the Town of Truckee stationary noise PS Development Code. Noise reduction measures shall be determined and established by a LS 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. CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-31 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WiTHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE 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 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. Impact 3.9-5: The project may be exposed to LS None required. airport noise at proposed receptors Impact 3.9-6: The project may result in LCC None required. cumulative ambient noise impacts PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Impact 3.10-1: The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Prior to the approval of improvement plans, the project potential to increase demands for fire proponent shall incorporate the following requirements into improvement protection services or require the plans/drawings: construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical Hydrants and Fire Flow environmental impacts 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. PS 2. Additional hydrants will be required in the areas with commercial LS development. 3. All hydrants shall be of the thy 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 ypm for a 2-duration with 20-psi residual in residential areas. CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant Ni-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE 6. Fire flow in commercial areas is a minimum of 2000 qpm, 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. 3. Roads and driveways shall have a minimum unobstructed height of 13'6". 4. Roads and driveways shall hove 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. CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-33 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE 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 30'of all structures. 2. A 15-foot fuel modification zone shall be required on both sides of all roads and driveways. Impact 3.10-2: The proposed project has the potential to increase demand for police services or require the construction of police LS None required. department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts Impact 3.10-3: The proposed project has the LS None required. potential to increase demands for school CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION services or require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts Impact 3.10-4: The proposed project has the Mitigation Measure 3.10-4: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, potential to increase demands for park and the project proponent shall construct,or provide adequate funding for the construction recreational facilities or require the of the following offsite trail connections: construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical 1. The proposed onsite Class 1 bicycle path that runs north along the western environmental impacts 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. PS 2. The proposed onsite Class Ii bicycle path that runs north along Joerger Drive LS 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 Impact 3.10-5:The proposed project has the potential to have adverse effects on other LS None required. public facilities TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 3.11.1A: The project applicant shall construct a center turn lane Impact 3.11-1: Project implementation would PS on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire LS result in a significant impact to local Drive. The turn lane shall be constructed during Phase 1 of project construction and CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-35 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE intersections and roadways prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. Mitigation Measure 3.11-18: 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. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement 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. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement Mitigation Measure 3.11-ID: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. The project shall restripe the existing pavement to provide a TWLTL on West River Street east of Mciver Crossing. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1E: The project proponent shall construct improvements to the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-S (which indicates construction of a roundabout or additional through and turning lanes). 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. 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:The project proponent shall construct a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Soaring Way/)oerger Drive/Site Access CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable IS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-36 Draft Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION intersection. Mitigation Measure 3.11-11: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. Impact 3.11-2: Project implementation may result in a significant impact to intersections PS LS queuing Implement Mitigation Measures 3A1-1A through 3.11-1H Impact 3.11-3: Project implementation may result in impacts to the SR 267 Bypass under LS None required. near-term and cumulative conditions Impact 3.11-4: Under cumulative conditions, Mitigation Measure 3.11-4A:The propose proponent shall construct separate left-and project implementation would worsen already right-turn lanes on the southbound Martis Drive approach for the Brockway unacceptable levels of service at study Road/Martis Drive intersection. The timing of this improvement shall be determined by intersections and roadways. the Town of Truckee. Mitigation Measure 3.11-48: The project applicant(s)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, PS • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp intersection, LS • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail intersection, • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection, • SR 267/1-80 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 CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-37 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE Summit. Impact 3.11-5: The project may conflict with existing/planned transit services,or create a LS None required. demand for transit above that which is provided or planned Impact 3.11-6: The project may conflict with existing / planned bicycle and pedestrian LS None required. facilities, and would provide connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities Impact 3.11-7: Project implementation may PS Mitigation Measure 3.11.2:The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Traffic LS result in traffic impacts during construction Management Plan for review and approval by Town staff,prior to construction. UTILITIES Impact 3.12-1:Project implementation has the Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Prior to the approval of building plans for Commercial potential to exceed wastewater treatment and Industrial uses within the Plan Area, the project proponent and/or business owner requirements of the applicable Regional Water PS shall provide the TSD and T-TSA with appropriate details of the uses and wastewater LS Quality Control generated within the commercial and/or industrial area. The business is subject to receiving a "Will Serve"letter for the specific use/business. Impact 3.12-2:Project implementation has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment and/or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which LS None required. could cause significant environmental effects, or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves or may serve the project that is does CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SI1-significant and unavoidable ES-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) � r r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF RESULTING SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT • SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments Impact 3.12-3: The proposed project has the potential to require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing LS None required. facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects Impact 3.12-4: The proposed project has the potential to have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing LS None required. entitlements and resources Impact 3.12-5: The proposed project has the potential to he served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to LS None required. -• accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs Impact 3.12-6: The proposed project has the potential affect compliance with federal,State, LS None required. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste Impact 3.12-7: The proposed project has the potential to be served by a service provider LS None required. without appropriate capacity to accommodate the project's needs VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable IS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-39 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE Impact 3.13-1: Project implementation has the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas or substantially NI None required. damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway Impact 3.13-2: The proposed project has the potential to substantially degrade the existing LS None required. visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: in order to reduce potential for nighttime lighting Impact 3.13-3: Project implementation may impacts,future development applications within the Plan Area shall prepare and submit result in light and glare impacts 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 PS Area. The lighting plan shall comply with Chapter 18.30.060 of the Town of Truckee iS Development Code. The lighting plan may be included in the application's 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. OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS Impact 4.1: The project may contribute to CC implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3 SU cumulative impacts on the region's air quality Impact 4.1: The project may contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources LCC Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 LCC including habitats and special status species Impact 4.3: The project may contribute to LCC implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3. LCC CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE cumulative impacts on known and undiscovered cultural resources Impact 4.4: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on geologic and soils LCC None required -- characteristics Impact 4.5: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on greenhouse gases and LCC Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3 LCC climate change Impact 4.6: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts related to hazards and LCC None required LCC hazardous materials Impact 4.7: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts related to flooding or the LCC Implement Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-4 LCC degradation of water quality Impact 4.8: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on communities or LCC None required. -- contribute to substantial population growth Impact 4.9: The project may contribute to the cumulative exposure of existing and future LCC None required, noise- sensitive land uses or to increased noise resulting from cumulative development Impact 4.10: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services and LCC Implement Mitigation Measures 3.10-1 through 3.10-4 LCC recreation Impact 4.11: The project may contribute to LCC Implement Mitigation Measures 3.11-4A and 3.11-4B LCC CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SII-significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ES-41 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE RESULTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE LEVEL OF WITHOUT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE cumulative impacts on the transportation network Impact 4.12: The project may contribute to LCC None required. cumulative impacts on utilities Impact 4.13:The project may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual LCC None required. character of the region CC-cumulatively considerable LCC-less than cumulatively considerable LS-less than significant NI-No Impact PS-potentially significant S-significant SU-significant and unavoidable ES-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) INTRODUCTION 1.0 1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR The Town of Truckee, as lead agency, has determined that the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) is a "project" within the definition of CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action,which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment(CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]). 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. The Town of Truckee, as the lead agency, has prepared this Draft EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3). 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 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 by the Town to determine whether to approve, modify, or deny the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) and associated approvals in light of the project's environmental effects. The EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate full development, all associated infrastructure improvements, and permitting actions associated with the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3). All of the actions and components of the proposed project are described in detail in Section 2.0 of this Draft EIR. 1.2 TYPE OF EIR 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 (PC-3) because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the project, as described in greater detail in Section 2.0. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.0-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.3 KNOWN RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES The term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project(CEQA Guidelines Section 15381).The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this project: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - Encroachment permits for improvements within the SR 267 right-of-way; • Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) - Approval of construction- related air quality permits pursuant to NSAQMD rules and regulations. For the purpose of CEQA, a "Trustee" agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). The following agencies are considered Trustee Agencies for this project, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project: • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Lahontan Region - Waste Discharge Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, SWPPP, and Water Quality Certification or waiver, under Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). • United States Army Corps. Of Engineers - Permitting of federal jurisdictional areas pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; • California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code; 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY 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. DRAFT EIR This document constitutes the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of the project's direct and indirect impacts on the environment, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, 1.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) INTRODUCTION 1.0 growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This 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 this EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the Town of Truckee will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to begin the public review period. PUBLIC NOTICE/PUBLIC REVIEW Concurrent with the NOC, the Town of Truckee will provide a public notice of availability(NOA)for the Draft EIR, and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties.Consistent with CEQA requirements,the review period for this Draft EIR is forty- five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft EIR will be accepted in writing only. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to: Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period. CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION The Town of Truckee will review and consider the Final EIR. If the Town of Truckee finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete", the Town Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA.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 in contemplation of environmental considerations. Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the Town Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the project. A decision to approve the proposed 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 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 Program will be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.0-3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.5 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Discussion of the environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR was established through review of environmental and planning documentation developed for the project, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the Town of Truckee, applicable local and regional planning documents, and responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the project's environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed project. CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR,and identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR. CHAPTER 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, related infrastructure improvements, and a list of related agency action requirements. CHAPTER 3.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of environmental topic areas as identified below. Each subchapter addressing a topical area is organized as follows: Environmental Setting.A description of the existing environment as it pertains to the topical area. Regulatory Setting. A description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the project. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Identification of the thresholds of significance by which impacts are determined, a description of project-related impacts associated with the 1.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) INTRODUCTION 1.0 environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact. The following environmental topics are addressed in this section: • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Population • Noise • Public Services and Recreation • Transportation and Circulation • Utilities and Service Systems • Visual Resources CHAPTER 4.0 - OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS Chapter 4.0 evaluates and describes the following CEQA required topics: impacts considered less- than-significant, significant and irreversible impacts, growth-inducing effects, cumulative, and significant and unavoidable environmental effects. CHAPTER 5.0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the project. Chapter 5.0 provides a comparative analysis between the environmental impacts of the project and the selected alternatives. CHAPTER 6 - REPORT PREPARERS This section lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name,title, and company or agency affiliation. APPENDICES This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR, as well as technical material prepared to support the analysis. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1.0-5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.6 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION The Town of Truckee received sixteen comment letters on the NOP. A copy of each letter is provided in the appendix of this Draft EIR and the commenting agency/citizen is listed below. • Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District(June 25, 2012) • AT&T(June 1, 2012) • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Calfire) (June 4,2012) • David Stearn (June 25, 2012) • Sarah Kane and Bryan Blochowiak (June 24, 2012) • Laurel and Tom Lippert(June 25, 2012) • Mountain Area Preservation Foundation (June 25, 2012) • Nancy Richards(June 9, 2012) • Nevada County Transportation Commission (June 14, 2012) • California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (May 25, 2012) • Russ Jones(June 22, 2012) • Truckee Donner Public Utilities District(May 31, 2012) • Truckee Donner Public Utilities District(June 14, 2012) • Truckee Airport Land Use Commission (June 11, 2012) • Truckee Fire Protection District(June 20,2012) • Truckee Sanitary District(June 11, 2012) 1.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Area, also referred to as the Planned Community-3 (PC-3) Specific Plan Area (hereinafter "Plan Area"), is located along the southern boundary of the Town of Truckee, within Nevada County, immediately north of the Placer County line. The Plan Area is located approximately three miles southeast of downtown Truckee, and immediately west of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport. The Plan Area is located on approximately 66.61 acres of land located on both sides of State Route (SR) 267 and on both sides of Brockway Road and Soaring Way at the point these roads intersect with SR 267. The Plan Area boundary encompasses four parcels (APNs 19-620-01, 19-620-02, 19-620-31, and 19-620-04) The Plan Area's regional location is shown in Figure 2-1, and the project vicinity is shown in Figure 2-2. 2.2 PROJECT SETTING EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Plan Area is largely undeveloped and is dominated by an open meadow on a relatively level valley floor. The open meadow is largely comprised of Great Basin sagebrush scrub. Existing stands of mature Jeffery pines and lodgepole pines that reach over 50-60 feet in height are clustered in the southern and southeastern portion of the Plan Area. The center of the Plan Area is marked by the intersection of SR 267 and Brockway Road/Soaring Way. These roads bisect the Plan Area on elevated earth berms, reaching a high point at their intersection, approximately 25 feet above the valley floor. The Plan Area contains a single business structure (Truckee River Winery) and it's associated small parking lot near the western boundary. There is also an existing well house located along an ephemeral drainage in the western portion of the Plan Area. Figure 2- 3 shows an aerial view of the Plan Area. SURROUNDING LAND USES The Truckee-Tahoe Airport, a general aviation facility, is the major land use east of the Plan Area. Areas north, west and south of the Plan Area are characterized by a mix of low and medium density residential, commercial and recreational uses. The Ponderosa Golf Course borders a portion of the Plan Area directly to the west. Surrounding land uses are shown in greater detail in Figure 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Truckee Airport Road. A very similar land use pattern exists along Business Park Drive, a local connector road between Truckee Airport Road and Soaring Way. An established single family residential area surrounding the Ponderosa Golf Course lies to the northwest of the Plan Area. Interstate 80, the Truckee River and the Union Pacific railroad are located approximately one half mile north of the Plan Area, just beyond the Truckee-Tahoe Airport. To the south, the nearby area is characterized by residential and commercial uses on either side of SR 267 for approximately one-quarter mile. Further south, uses along SR 267 quickly transition to the open space of the Martis Valley beyond the Town of Truckee and Placer County boundary. EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING The 2025 Truckee General Plan designates the Plan Area as Planned Community 3 (PC-3). The 2025 Truckee General Plan contains the following policies to guide development of PC-3: PC-3 Policy 1: Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Services for employees, such as day care facilities and food sales, shall be encouraged. PC-3 Policy 2: The Specific Plan shall include design standards to provide for architectural consistency of development on the site, in accordance with the Town of Truckee design guidelines. PC-3 Policy 3: Site Design shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267, via Brockway Road and Soaring Way, and shall minimize visual impacts from the Highway 267 corridor. PC-3 Policy 4: The Specific Plan shall include standards for the design of retail shopping areas which avoid "strip commercial" site layout, and that are oriented and scaled to the pedestrian realm. PC-3 Policy 5: Specific Plan design standards shall include requirements for parking areas which promote attractive streetscapes, recognize the need for snow storage and removal, and reduce the visual impacts of large, unscreened parking lots through distributed landscaping, landscaped berms, and other measures. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Town of Truckee Design Guidelines. PC-4 Policy 6: The Specific Plan shall include provisions for supplying, on-site, the required housing for 50 percent of the very-low, low- and moderate-income workforce associated with development of the site. If land use or noise compatibility requirements of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan preclude or reduce the total amount of housing that can be developed on PC-3, required workforce housing may be permitted to be located off-site. PC-3 Policy 7: All development on PC-3 shall support community character goals and policies for the Brockway Road Corridor. 2.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 PC-3 Policy 8: Ensure that the mix of land uses in the PC-3 Specific Plan will generate an amount of traffic that, in addition to buildout of the General Plan (considering all planned circulation improvements), would not result in the need for four lanes on Highway 267 between Interstate 80 and the Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. Figure 2-5 depicts the 2025 Truckee General Plan land use designations for the Plan Area and the surrounding areas. The entire Plan Area is zoned Planned Community(PC) on the Town of Truckee Zoning Map. 2.3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the project shall be discussed. The project proponent's application package has identified the following goals and objectives for the proposed project: 1. Prepare the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan as a comprehensive land use planning tool to guide development of the approximately 66.7-acre project site; 2. Create Commercial, Retail, Business Park, Light Industrial and Manufacturing land use opportunities to serve local residents and tourists alike; 3. Target land uses that strengthen Truckee's local economy by capturing uses that do not physically fit elsewhere within the Town; 4. Capture specific land uses that support, but do not compete with, the downtown commercial retail areas; 5. Accommodate the possible relocation of certain existing types of commercial and industrial businesses located along the Truckee River corridor; 6. Establishes zoning, design standards and guidelines for buildout of the plan area. 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LAND USES AND ZONING 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 66.61 acre Plan Area, each with specified targeted uses and site development standards. The six zoning districts and their locations are depicted in Figure 2-6. In addition to the development of the six zoning districts, the Specific Plan proposes a large lot tentative map that subdivides the six zoning districts into 14 individual parcels as depicted in Figure 2-7. This is intended to create a convenient Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION multi-use development and to stimulate financing opportunities within portions of the Plan Area. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is shown on Figure 2-7. The specific designations for the proposed zoning districts are as follows: Regional Commercial (CR) The CR zoning district is located on the south side of Soaring Way and is approximately 11.7 acres in size. The targeted land uses for this zoning area include commercial and retail services that emphasize buildings larger than 5,000 S.F. and can host a variety of retail uses, such as a grocery market; general merchandise (large floor plate); home furnishings/appliances; office space (large floor plate); and casual dining restaurants. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Regional Support Commercial (CRS) The CG-2 zoning district consists of three areas totaling approximately 6.1 acres located at the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersection. The CRS zoning district is intended to attract businesses that support the CR zone by focusing on services that promote the small town outdoor recreational atmosphere of Truckee. The targeted uses for the CRS zoning district include:outdoor recreational equipment sales; bike sales and rentals; health and fitness facilities; casual dining restaurants; and recreational vehicle sales. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Lifestyle Commercial (CL) The CL zoning district is located on the north side of Brockway Road and consists of approximately 7.6 acres. The CL zoning district is intended for businesses that promote a varied mix of land uses that currently exist within the Brockway Road corridor, including unique and locally owned retail, service and recreation uses with outdoor display, activity and/or dining areas. The targeted uses for the CL zoning district include: home furnishings with indoor and outdoor displays; wine tasting facilities and beverage garden; casual dining restaurants with outdoor dining; garden supplies and nursery sales. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Manufacturing/Industrial (Business Park) (M1) The M1 zoning district consists of three areas east of SR 267 totaling approximately 13.6 acres.The M1 zone is designed to encourage relocation of industrial and manufacturing uses from the Truckee River Corridor and to allow manufacturing/industrial uses. The targeted uses for the M1 zoning district include: fitness center and indoor sports activities and training facilities; manufacturing and warehousing; auto/recreational dealerships; repair and maintenance centers; specialty food and spirit production facilities; research and development facilities; and transportation centers. Multi-family housing, live/work housing, and workforce housing units are allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. 2.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION In order to meet the requirements of Chapter 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code, the project includes 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. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS Roadway Improvements The Plan Area requires different roadways sections to respond to varying circulation needs of the existing traffic patterns and uses proposed within the Plan Area. The following roadway improvements are proposed as part of the Specific Plan. Soaring Way: Soaring Way, east of Joerger Drive, would be improved to include curb and gutters, in addition to a five-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk on each side of the roadway, separated by landscaping and a snow storage buffer. The proposed roadway section of Soaring Way, west of Joerger Drive, would be expanded to accommodate a westbound lane, a through/left turn pocket to Joerger Drive, and a right turn pocket into the proposed CRS zoning district south of the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersection. This section would also include two five-foot wide Class II bike lanes, along with curb/gutter, and a five-foot wide sidewalk. Hope Court: Hope Court currently consists of two 16-foot wide travel lanes with aggregate base shoulders. The Specific Plan proposes to add a detached 10-foot wide Class I bike trail that would continue to the easterly limits of the Plan Area. Martis Drive: Martis Drive would consist primarily of new roadway construction. The proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way would include two 12-foot wide travel lanes, Type "E" curb and gutter, and a five-foot wide sidewalk along the easterly side. Additionally, a Class I bike path is proposed on the westerly side, and would continue to the northerly limits of the Plan Area. Brockway Road: The proposed Brockway Road section west of the Hope Court/Brockway Road intersection would include the addition of a detached Class I bike path on the northerly side of Brockway Road from Martis Drive, and crossing at Hope Court. Brockway Road, east of the Hope Court intersection, would transition as is approaches SR 267 to accommodate a westbound through lane, designated left turn lane, northbound through lane, designated right turn lane, and two five-foot wide Class II bike lanes. Additionally, curb and gutter is proposed on the easterly side with a five-foot wide sidewalk. Joerger Drive: Joerger Drive would remain relatively unchanged from its current condition. The Specific Plan proposes to add curb and gutter and a five-foot wide sidewalk on the westerly side. Intersection Improvements Brockway Road/Soaring Way/SR 267: The existing intersection at Brockway Road/ Soaring Way / SR 267 is currently signalized with northbound and southbound through lanes with additional left turn lanes onto Soaring Way from the north and onto Brockway Road from the south. Traffic from 2.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION through / left pocket for motorists heading up Joerger Drive, or left on Soaring Way and a designated right turn pocket as well. Bicycle Network and Design A 10-foot wide separated Class 1 bicycle path is proposed on the northerly side of Brockway Road from the westerly boundary of the Plan Area running easterly and crossing Brockway Road and along the northerly side of Hope Court to the easterly boundary of the Plan Area and in conformance with the Truckee General Plan.This would provide a significant link to connect to the future Martis Valley Trail to the southeast and to the Truckee Regional Park to the northwest. A Class 1 bicycle path is also proposed to be constructed on the westerly side of Martis Drive to the northern limits of the Plan Area,which would allow for a future extension to connect to the Legacy Trail to the north. In addition to the Class 1 bicycle trail segments, Class II bicycle paths are integrated into the various roadway sections, including each side of Brockway Road, Soaring Way and along Joerger Drive fronting the Plan Area. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE Wastewater (Sewer) Wastewater collection and conveyance would be provided by the Truckee Sanitary District (TSD). Wastewater treatment would be provided by the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency (T-TSA). Sewage in the project vicinity is currently collected primarily by gravity flow throughout adjacent developed areas, and is transported in a sewer main line at Joerger Drive for conveyance to the treatment plant located east of the project area. The project would connect to the existing sewer main line,and would include an internal network of conveyance lines. Water Supply Water service in Truckee is provided by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD), a publicly owned utility providing electric and water service since 1927. The District operates three water systems in the Truckee area: the Hirshdale System, the Truckee System, and the Donner Lake System.The Truckee System serves the Plan Area. Existing transmission, distribution and treated water storage facilities would serve both existing and future demand from the planned development. This basic infrastructure has developed by TDPUD in accordance with the Water System Master Plan and the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Water mainlines are located within the adjacent roadways and would be extended throughout the Plan Area for domestic water distribution and fire suppression. Electric Service The Plan Area lies within the service area of the TDPUD. Existing electrical transmission lines and service distribution lines lie adjacent to and within the Plan Area. Electrical service facilities would be extended from existing TDPUD infrastructure and would be upgraded as necessary to adequately serve the Specific Plan, and would be designed to accommodate full buildout of the Plan Area. 2.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 No. Implementation Measures and Action Items Timing Responsible Party Truckee Engineering Department. Create a managing legal entity responsible for implementation of public infrastructure,including final Prior to Phase 1 4 design drawings,construction,collection,retention,and Final Map Developer distribution of cost assessments,and reimbursement of Recordation construction costs. Create an Owners Association to establish specific expectations and responsibilities for maintenance(non- Prior to Phase 1 5 Final Map Developer public entities),affordable housing,shared parking, Recordation access,snow storage,drainage,landscaping,etc. Prior to any land Phase 1 Final Map Recordation:Recordation of Large Lot use approval or 6 subdivision for 14 parcels. building permit Developer issuance TABLE 2-3:INTERSECTION/ROADWAY FRONTAGE/CLASS l BIKE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS No. Improvements Timing Responsible Party 1 Brockway Road/Hope Court Intersection and Prior to Certificate of Parcel 9 associated Brockway Road improvements Occupancy of first building Brockway Road/Martis Drive Intersection and Prior to Certificate of 2 Parcels 1-5 associated Brockway Road improvements Occupancy of first building Prior to Certificate of 3 Soaring Way/Joerger Drive Intersection Parcels 8-14 Occupancy of first building Prior to Certificate of 4 Highway 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way Occupancy,as required to Parcels 1-6&8- Intersection(see Note#1) mitigate impact(see Note 14 #1) Prior to Certificate of Class I Bike Path along Brockway Road and Hope 5 Court(including crosswalk) Occupancy of first building, Parcels 1-6 or addition Prior to Certificate of 6 Martis Drive and Class I Bike Path along Martis Occupancy of first building, Parcels 1-5 Drive or addition(see Note#2) Prior to Certificate of 7 Joerger Road frontage improvements Parcels 8-9 Occupancy of first building 8 Soaring Way frontage improvements plus Prior to Certificate of Parcel 14 sidewalk and landscaping(south side) Occupancy of first building Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION No. Improvements Timing Responsible Party 9 Soaring Way frontage improvements plus Prior to Certificate of Parcels 10-12 sidewalk and landscaping(north side) Occupancy of first building As required by respective utility agency(s)to Parcels 1-6&8- 10 Utilities within right-of-way and offsite utilities adequately serve each 14 proposed project 11 Transit Stop-Brockway Road Upon Construction of Martis Parcels 1-6 Drive 12 Transit Stop-Soaring Way Upon Development of Parcel Parcels 8-14 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. 2.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 2.5 USES OF THE EIR AND REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS This EIR may be used for the following direct and indirect approvals and permits associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed project. TOWN OF TRUCKEE The Town of Truckee (Town) will be the Lead Agency for the proposed project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15050. Actions that would be required from the Town Council and Town staff include, but are not limited to the following: • Certification of the EIR; • Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Adoption of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan; • Approval of tentative and final maps; • Improvement plans; • Grading plans;and • Building permits. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY APPROVALS The following agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project: • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Lahontan Region - Waste Discharge Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, SWPPP, and Water Quality Certification or waiver, under Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). • United States Army Corps. Of Engineers — Permitting of federal jurisdictional areas pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Encroachment permits for improvements within the SR 267 right-of-way; • Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) - Approval of construction- related air quality permits pursuant to NSAQMD rules and regulations. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code; Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 2.0-13 IIIIII Eli 11111 •89 F - /:: f t L d a,Apo i . `+ 1 J 3 Spanish Springs L i r • 'r 1 Sun Valley Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 0': r ; 'ter ,,,/ t.. ''!'' I •. •i .siiit er.• ount Location y ".,Sparks Figure 2-1 . Regional Locat o _ , Verdi-Mogulh` // �, ,ro "'3x a old` -. , i . . ir'= Project .. . .: Location Storey Nevada County' Washoe Count ..; \. Count-y— -A ...Malakoff Digging SP •• ,,. 3g ill f,4:',4•4 •j i' :~ -""'k. °,:. f- , Truckee v � - :, _ —i * r ;,#;' 1, Donner Memorial SP i :I r� Dayton ., _ •Kings Beach L d n--� J ''• i I•S„, r. Washoe.Lake.SP 1.1 t f F 4" Dollar Point-1 Lake Tahoe Nevada SP - .'1 ,,' • ,., I Carson a ty g. .,..4.,!"- •5 1.-a :- lacer Count J .. . 1, Y Carson •CI _y `-Count •.-.... .•�/, 4 , . Flip.s Al. i,1,,r„ Lake • • . - v �' ` ".~ • fy. ,�i Tahoe Indiari(,Hills r I ,� 4;04, �„+ Sugar Pine Point SP Johnson Lane :4�. :, Mormon Stqi,i P I Foresthtll as..- .,, 9 209 (' tolfi/Lcidr DL Bliss Se Kingsbury �/ 'tenDougias eEmeraldBaySP r0 iii t�Y' �`'•f South Lake Tahaeit* "� {.C O U n t y , ,Georgeown v f4�. !* I.alio.L-eal1 ul e , 0 2.5 5 10 C.�rrirh t •}rrr I,r� .dry o ile Gardnerville Ranchos I r r t l t r t l L2... . - r____ L �, Miles 1 El Dorado county i -,,r�� 9 1 so,000 Ir r LI 1r.r 50 1 Mesa Vista '�. r Dale sourceCahtorni i Information L Srr rt r .l . a S atia a fibra .:1 3sM.:. 1"-' L0) 1 Map date:May 4.2011 Library G Ia eug Park Pollock Pries ` �'Pl erVilie ', ,- • ' - ' A pine o tl n # y • � - BFi� • l _� --- ^� • �� C r' ,Grover Hot Spring;Stato Park Diamron�d1Springs ` , Kirkw••• , / ••• p ' 1 T' ,--,i n_t _" Ar �Markl �le 1_ -�95 =I 111111 MI - •....,= ' - \.....,, _ie../ r:„.....,____,_4t___.,,' ,../.2......_...„_, . ."/".'''- - Of 4••••• Mer.7..rr . . . _ , -:r_ ..,-,---- / e „+. Sh �W �/ .f' AA. •i Ridge?. •. • IN4..; r rack Rii / ;, ; r` .. j•er9eOf r i..10, 1 r` iRivew ftj... •, �j,e�� R1 � r 7rtickee Rive' „s, ` • Town of Truckee ' ^. 10 •l, /.4 S'''''',.. 6Si aer Resrnnal Park, a _,i cr e‘Qa",Q ate` Estates Or 4*, iIfel�bm+mrslsn wrreirr O' ,N q..• OC,W>^ She ldtrlJ "� ' •4•,i • .' * ..1. 1:0 d '.6, F -e.v - aro yRd f onderosa r1, � - ��:II', ,r l '.. 1". e: twit.Ilarfwla myo'''' Golf,Course0 olf�r rE `" 3"4'` .,,chi.% •- • 14111. ' Jeife'ry.pineRd ��h'�`� w ,`�i ,r a Torre Pin �g Truckee - Tahoe Airport t' arp,,} `' Marils i \ a .6. cori f :_#. Creek rr s,• Lake x 0 � iP41411",%1 '"'MIIIL bates eSSpJri♦ NEVADA COUNTY a rimmem l ra, . Dr4' S' t Istr4•r. s.�.�.s.��sw+�A ' —". 1•� �eY ��idWe'Pine=RTd" "` y ' 47. P L A C E R Co U N T Y z '6.1V-„„rets NibN 44431t.' > �� y 7, \'' '. ir - G u ', ��;i�'r Mi Rd , ,... ... T elfin Or E •r 1 r•.. 1Iv=rSpur o t- t;.* �,,ya� , . ' It - , "C'''Iltillp , '„AO! Project Boundary N Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) t Town of Truckee A Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map 1—_-] County Boundary I J r r•roi Data sours ArcGIS Onaa BM4G Aarwts.ESRI Street nap Nathanson. zi.■e■ Nevado County GIS Pacer County G15 Map tlale- May 4 2012 1 28.000 t. � �a r 11 y 4 % - _ . +� 1 ¢« ♦ . 4� +�. *1•y �, 'fir a4;�, '�: . �;_• 4 1.••: n .�' R r46. L i .1.....7 •, • . ‘Z¢r9 {•t •ThNAY + VI .••. f. • '`:+4.`m' 4114 „ ' 4, , 3y�. ` ` tt. NT y. r *dill � d t '. ."3 **%„„ . 44,N k�� ♦ 41 �� h .y..- fit �'� ••••'."-" it .:4. ' . *� ."4......"..., = j ♦ • 3 it .t TJ e: �1 lit); ..%•.1140.11iir ..„ IX . NAlli . '4t. ' 'ItAir !IT•79-444tilt ''' N'; • • f Welli tihp, , ,/ el.,4 „ > Mti titt114 • •- NSF; y M ,�_�� i ' •+ 4.4E 1.3 • • �7C .. a _ 11•',',- � 17i i ._i l w,7 Y._ h ;kik �Hi ' ilipt. ,..ici:111pe.. iNs. • . ,,, ---.; .e. ,, t 44.. _ .I. g•r..... '0, - . ' grily y l K t � '. ., t) o - .per.t Ilk 4 ra Is*,i 4iitt,,,,. . - A! .0eilti,:ist.,,k.40.F:: gr ‘,. . 1 ' Nip I ...t;t0,14-,. - �.. ilirjA' - 416. -41t4r4.... • 'V' 11 ``•� l i .. .-wa s •' „'.�' •,eif wit' lie---ltik _ .Y :, � �•• „ .." l�� / � "!�"' � V► � S� � �may` VT:-.;1111F.I �` Joerger Ranch Specific Plan{PC-3) �� Figure 2-3. Aerial View of Project Site 2,0 soy Oata sour ArcGIS Onla,e PING Asnak ESRI Slroelm.p Non',Amenca -- - ----- ■O■ Nevada County GIS Map dale May 14 2012 f 8,(10Cl iiiiii A r .� 7 -- ' - ‘14": i •r-r • r �. ,' Park and w �..;... x� F+ '�.� a "..`L 4,,,s• _ . ' _ r•, ;'' Sports Fields `--,-,v4„ ' rr�` . `A} ;, • y' � ,,�., . . '*+x, i'N �a. `• : `-r•4...•, t 1 F �a 4.- -�' '. • *. - • *'ft r•.• !'„" =- a r. -- -r !f,., .a.. �-.'., `:'' •Townhomes F +�"� • - , '` V :.r . % '"4- 43. 4�1' , 9+ • �" Single Family f ate--ti' ; `R w - ,'` c 4. •> Senior. �` j N '...- •Resider tial F ��`s sk,; Housir►a . aq /a •. ' ` s , t+ .:-.z- R1..._ `�' ` Cr_ • ,. •ti. ' $ �,, ."17, a :40i,, u, iir9F9 4 • tom:, b. a Urfa _ _41;� z. ., i' ' '''4n.....1'''"��'� 3; ' 'i i".�ir ~ � '+.'- f Golf Course' i> yy 1 .¢ k i f'' � � `::ot„1 • IFF �i' �' \. ^ 3 '` ,, uiijr - ' •.Hotel- ` tM.• f • L- ”.r ,'r' - .� '41;4.„.. i :Truckee-Tahoe I-S ,. ci, y, `. Single-Fair-lily aAirport --4 Al .i'!"..41,..•• y�.. of .�ts( -` '11447-i c �•¢ -�•�.a►' � Residential .- ,� � k Apartments "h ==F , crR .t 'r = .. AirportNon q> ''�.1' �3`' ' .• ',L '+ ' Aviation Use �• r ;• � r ►. •� Churchit • '•'' ' ,*•�- t v—I -- "` •; •� 1� C • � 1• - ,fi t., �. 'fr. i I I I 'SG'PiN e9. �, - 2 .►.�. 4.:„ ,, f; y -.� �i ,=, . �, s. , h., aSs_I r' Storage, �''�Q Town s 7a` , ,� .4.4:*� , ,`•fit. 4 ...._14 y-�, ,� �' *ha _.IIL v 'Hall ir'wee Al ' • " ,�►. � + , Townhomes / " Commercial• • 7 .."561:41411 •U.. `.. w - - .-1...4-,_.:-,�.,-;.-' r` .fi.. .. .s.. ..• • �. NIP, `�' Gas Station Office; . �. ,. 1�_,. . + �►'. *. .moo 3; •�► . ?ti„�Cp t� y `fir <' "� ti . .�. Mini-Mart' -�. . v key' "it^� 'civ�� _ N Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) AFigure 2-4. Surrounding Land Uses 0 500 1.000 Feel Data sow.ArcGIS Ontr,e BING Asne4.SSRI Sbretlnap North Manta MEN Novara County GIS Map eats May 3.2012 1-12.000 y r /a a 4.ae ‘s4 di Kik .4.. ` a/ a •�;Y., r , 0,,,,c, . ...... . _, }/a a'�_ko. YESTASDRN ,14„ _ ala Q PC3 �S ( c Town of Truckee -'-'• „7/ a •y._ 1 County Boundary \ 1- Town of Truckee Land Use Designations 3 BRac ` '',r Residential 1-2 du/acre , �Qc� \• // , - High Density Residential 6-12 du/acre 1 +� x Commercial 267) J Industrial l ' ,.'' Public -"` ek.Otr `x';' i® Planned Community qH� Plan Area P� 4..1'. r / r // z' I Open Space Recreation • � Resource Conservation/Open Space 411LI:cl • Placer County Land Use Designations !` '` ff ��General Commercial `rl Low Density Residential 1-5 DU.lAc. "�f 'Medium Density Residential 5-10 DUJAc. Town of Truckee r ,.ru+....�l� =e'='ems '_"m"'°a"m` c�,,-.tifitrsi'Y'1.�nrn;�s�.�1.iininm{T; Open Space 'Piacer County• ' e • ' •( • (r - - a • � Professional Office . . . _ : • a a . a .s� • - /// l �,/ �J • Public/Quasi-Public ^• �_ a . . . • Nevada County Land Use Designations '`�` • • • • e • • • • •r. • r . . . . . . . . • Business Park En Community Commercial N A Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) Industrial prA Open Space Figure 2-5. General Plan Designations 0 500 1.000 - Public I i i r I Feel Data sure,Town o1 Truck**GIS.Nevada County GIS.Placer Comfy I OM. GIS.SSRI St'nrnap Noref funenco Yap date Yey 14 2012 1'12.000 oier ... 44141114 C OA Y .. '''.• . *• *arm%t*1. No!' + T 'i I.CKEE I O ♦ Lf ir. • ss • o , 410,li AMP ao - - -.. II BIZ \ i;Rivf e S.O3AC -. BIZ �`'-- — ~ • le i 4411,1"Or • IIP M 6.56 AC 111; CRS 1 1•2.1 Ar, 193 AC 1104 ? ,. ,osc CRS �.-- 1 SOARING NA•r — + .-t IR2 Ac \. ' RM ,.----- M �� 1.4N AN: t \ ./.- 4 09 AC Ic , ‘ 111,1‘ �+} ' .+� \ 325,04 GR y3 10 AC , sa. I CL •" w t CL , c $at : , 1 r l 1 3.1EAc CPQ ♦ N/G, .y+ ow ► Q ykq y •� .1441111 w ..Lam— _ '��P r 1013 AC 263 I' ■ w s — - \ +x,'' '" 4,1 s ilk iiilin . 0ir. ._ I -I Rr r.ImNi eownecMt(CIO - A` ` '+� --:++.4Al v itt l' 1. 4 L 4.01%i . .1 lj�r4 . Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) I... :'I REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL ICR8) O uvemisca►■ERcralal N Figure 2-6.Proposed Zoning Districts Inn MAN1%AC1IRO.G/MouSrRIK Ohl P_ANAREA Q•e (-1 SUSS 1ESA WgVA'IDk ZONE MCI •• •• QWN OE iRUCAEE BO.J RY d F-1 V1.I4AMILr 4ESCEMTVLL(10.41 :. ISOLATED WA'ERS I—) YEN SPACE IDB) a..�.KO A Mon.rc.:.n.our. ••• ..n..r s.nira..a vias.,wemu.r ma ii#6.74i,zipiv%PAS- . _ik •. •,..,- wi,.... - I; . _ ______ 111 411 Woo, •IN .. • • 7. .4 riellipelkAvN0E19_A4W4roki C T 16 . 11111!,.. „...... la -....Trill .41116•66 li 4.couN TY „., _.............7 -.1 • iii ...., 4r ZUGKEE t.. , . WIN a . \ ..i. * •.?....t We°• -- . • , • . 40.... - 1 ..,•.."' , 1:6 t'e,.7 11 . ,....". /•,e°• . . ' 111.,1, 44....; • ...Tif,..- Now, i ...iiNtt. . • . . •, et \-.. • ' ' . , • ... TRUCK EE-AFTANI-40E19-A611LPOR.:1.91.76 RR! •Iii, •• • ... I i .j°ERGER RD e . TRUCKEE-044TAHOI(9-441-LOA68T DISTRICT . - — • - .NV- - It !IIIIIIII'' ' - „dial:, Atp•K, ••••••••• .. ... --- .PARCEL 10 . 41511 „ • '.-4114 • 120 AG iCRK) _._ . ARCIEL . , i••• SOARING . .. WAY p. . ,, TRUCKEE-TAM& A1E1'00119 041STRI,Ca.T 1 t A IQ C. L (' ' e•c, . ' 41^41 VII. • • 4 414t . A - .• . inn iie •• ANUN--..- 41106 ` '4 '•)L.(4134 *14ki‘ %I 1, .4161:4.'TAI-1 cfrgio. 4 ar 411f4A it ly OSA 5 L,TOti \ : CO. ICA/i1/4 ANN I 1017 - - • • 70-26 c.,9,°'. -,.. 1111101PPI/11.1°.:11. ' ' .. — . • iii Emil at- I`..141`:'LIVER EAll RECACNAL%ATOM'COMMERaAL(CR", ! ,:4:: • ,' • , ,•• :a CHMARK Hai wsocs_suz--:t1F--,.. -' ASPEN MEAD° R.. APN 19-620- .W1.186. At . . les • t:.... A AND 404 ,. PINYON ‘.,, _1S5 ASSN. WARD IIIM NO a Air illik441.4441 kit*" : - *Ii.r. En uFEsynEcousa.Pcum ax; Joerger Ranch Specritc Plan(PC-31 N ME W1NIFACW`PINt 4 t oiwrowd.no Figure 2-7 Tentative Map ..-- = nksiNE A's INNOVATION AWE'lW. •••••• ••••• TOWN OF TRUME DOUICARY 1--1 MA.yi FNjtY 0E510E4114 Cl mita MUTED EWERS \--- =11PEN SPACE it.S. o.........1103 EN.P.ME••••••11 4 EA.FI•E..C. ..... M M M %ow.v.E..C 5.1.291.5•••...Us,'31117 3.1 AIR QUALITY CRITERIA POLLUTANTS The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS). Each criteria pollutant is described below. Ozone (03) is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. While 03 in the upper atmosphere is beneficial to life by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, high concentrations of 03 at ground level are a major health and environmental concern. 03 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. These reactions are stimulated by sunlight and temperature so that peak 03 levels occur typically during the warmer times of the year. Both VOCs and NOx are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. VOCs are emitted from sources as diverse as autos, chemical manufacturing, dry cleaners, paint shops and other sources using solvents. The reactivity of 03 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of 03 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to 03 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain,coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. When CO enters the bloodstream, it reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and tissues. Health threats are most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Exposure to elevated CO levels can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone (03) and acid rain, and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NOx). NOx plays a major role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce 03. NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major emission sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers. Sulfur dioxide (S02) affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children and the elderly. SO2 is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops, historic 3.1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 buildings and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large parts of the country. This is especially noticeable in national parks. Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters. Particulate matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and VOCs are also considered particulate matter. Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials,damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death. Respirable particulate matter (PM10) consists of small particles, less than 10 microns in diameter, of dust, smoke, or droplets of liquid which penetrate the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, or in combination with other gases. Particulate matter is caused primarily by dust from grading and excavation activities, from agricultural uses (as created by soil preparation activities, fertilizer and pesticide spraying, weed burning and animal husbandry), and from motor vehicles, particularly diesel-powered vehicles. PMIo causes a greater health risk than larger particles, since these fine particles can more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system. Fine particulate matter (PM2,5) consists of small particles, which are less than 2.5 microns in size. Similar to PM10, these particles are primarily the result of combustion in motor vehicles, particularly diesel engines, as well as from industrial sources and residential/agricultural activities such as burning. It is also formed through the reaction of other pollutants. As with PM10, these particulates can increase the chance of respiratory disease, and cause lung damage and cancer. In 1997,the EPA created new Federal air quality standards for PM2s. The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children. Particulate matter also soils and damages materials, and is a major cause of visibility impairment. Lead (Pb) exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion of Pb in food, water, soil or dust. Excessive Pb exposure can cause seizures, mental retardation and/or behavioral disorders. Low doses of Pb can lead to central nervous system damage. Recent studies have also shown that Pb may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-3 3.1 AIR QUALITY ODORS Typically odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person's reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word "strong" to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals and schools. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3.1-1 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and 3.1-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and particulate matter between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter (PMio)• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established new national air quality standards for ground-level ozone and for fine particulate matter in 1997.The 1-hour ozone standard was phased out and replaced by an 8-hour standard of 0.075 PPM. Implementation of the 8-hour standard was delayed by litigation, but was determined to be valid and enforceable by the U.S.Supreme Court in a decision issued in February of 2001. TABLE 3.1-1:FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME STATE STANDARD FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD Ozone 1-Hour 0.09 ppm(180µg/m3) -- 8-Hour 0.070 ppm(137µg/m3) 0.075 ppm(147µg/m3) PM to 24-Hour 50µg/m3 150µg/m3 Annual 20µg/m3 -- PM 2.S 24-Hour -- 35µg/m3 Annual 12 ug/m3 15.0µg/m3 Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm(10mg/m3) 9 ppm(10 mg/m3) 1-Hour 20 ppm(23 mg/m3) 35 ppm(40 mg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm(57µg/m3) 53 ppb(100µg/m3) 1-Hour 0.18 ppm(339µg/m3) 100 ppb(188µg/m3) 24-Hour 0.04 ppm(105µg/m3) -- Sulfur Dioxide 3-Hour -- -- 1 Hour 0.25 ppm(655µg/m3) 75 ppb(196µg/m3) 30-Day Avg 1.5µg/m3 -- Lead Calendar Quarter -- 1.5µg/m3 3-Month Avg. _ 0.15 pg/m3 SOURCE:CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD,2012 1 Notes:ppm=parts per million,ug/m3=Micrograms per Cubic Meter In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern.TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination. Attainment Status In accordance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An "attainment" designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A "nonattainment" designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event,as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An "unclassified" designation signifies that the data do not support either an Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-5 3.1 AIR QUALITY attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. The U.S. EPA designates areas for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO),and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)as "does not meet the primary standards," "cannot be classified," or "better than national standards." For sulfur dioxide (502), areas are designated as "does not meet the primary standards," "does not meet the secondary standards," "cannot be classified," or "better than national standards." However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. Nevada County has a state designation of nonattainment for Ozone and PM10, and is either attainment or unclassified for all other state criteria pollutants. Nevada County is designated either attainment or unclassified for all national standards. Table 3.1-2 presents the state and national attainment status for Nevada County. TABLE 3.1-2:STATE AND NATIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATE DESIGNATIONS NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS Ozone Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment(Eastern County) PMio Nonattainment Unclassified PM2.s Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Carbon Monoxide Unclassified Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified Sulfates Attainment N/A Lead Attainment N/A Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified N/A Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified N/A SOURCES:CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD(2012). N/A=NoT APPLICABLE Nevada County Air Quality Monitoring There is an air quality monitoring site at the Truckee Fire Station.This site monitors 1-hour and 24- hour ozone, as well as PM2.5. Data obtained from the monitoring site between 2007 and 2009 is shown in Tables 3.1-3. TABLE 3.1-3:AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA(TRUCKEE-FIRE STATION) POLLUTANT CAL FED. DAYS EXCEEDED YEAR MAX CONCENTRATION PRIMARY STANDARD STATE/FEDSTANDARD Ozone(03) 0.09 ppm(180 2011 0.058 0/(N/A) Ozone (0) µp/m3) -- 2010 0.065 0/(N/A) 2009 • /(N/A) 2011 0.053 0/0 Ozone(03) 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm 2010 0.053 0/0 (8-hour) (137 pg/m3) (147µg/m3) 2009 • '/' Particulate Matter(PM,o) 50µg/m3 150 pg/m3 Not collected at this site. (24-hour) Fine Particulate 2011 68.9 (N/A)/0 Matter(PM25) -- 35µg/m3 2010 31.7 (N/A)/0 (24-hour) 2009 34.4 (N/A)/0 SOURCES:CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD(ADAM)AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES,2013. 3.1-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 3.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL Clean Air Act The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions. The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction. The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as special consideration of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. is needed to have full comprehension of the local pollution control problems. As a result, the EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP)that explains how each state will implement the 111 FCAA within their jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will implement to control air quality within their jurisdiction. CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing the California SIP. Transportation Control Measures One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures as a part of making progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources, some are typically also created to address mobile or transportation sources. These are known as transportation control measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated air pollution. These goals are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use. Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit. Air Quality Standards National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are determined by the EPA. The standards include both primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. Primary standards are established with a safety margin. Secondary standards are more stringent than primary standards and are intended to protect public health and welfare. States have the ability to set standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. As such, California established more stringent ambient air quality standards. Draft Environmental Impact Report- Ioerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-7 3.1 AIR QUALITY Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates (PM10) and lead. In addition, California has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by federal standards.The state and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 3.1-1. STATE CARB Mobile-Source Regulation The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the state. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, the CARB's motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, the CARE has adopted regulations which required auto manufacturers to phase in less polluting vehicles. California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state's air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards. Tanner Air Toxics Act California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, ARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPA's list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the ARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, ARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM)for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold,the measure must incorporate BACT to minimize emissions. The AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. ARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on- road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). In February 2000, ARB adopted a new public-transit bus-fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses. These rules and standards provide for (1) more stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines; (2) zero-emission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies; and 3.1-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 (3) reporting requirements under which transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule. Upcoming milestones include the low-sulfur diesel-fuel requirement, and tighter emission standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks (2007) and off-road diesel equipment (2011) nationwide. LOCAL 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. Fugitive Dust Control Rule 226-Dust Control Rule 226 is intended to reduce and control fugitive dust emissions to the atmosphere. This rule applies to public and private construction activities, including dismantling/demolition of structures, processing/moving materials (sand, gravel, rock, dirt, etc.), and operation of machines/equipment. The rule requires the preparation of a dust control plan the uses of reasonable precautions to prevent dust emissions. Such precautions may include, cessation of operations, cleanup, sweeping, sprinkling, compacting, enclosure, chemical or asphalt sealing, and use of wind screens or snow fences. Town of Truckee General Plan The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan identifies specific goals and policies regarding air quality. Table 3.1-4 analyzes the project's consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. While this EIR analyzes the project's consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee would ultimately make the determination of the project's consistency with the General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-9 3.1 AIR QUALITY TABLE 3.1-4:CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENT? ANALYSIS Conservation and Open Space Policy 13.1:Require The development will be consistent with multi-family residential,commercial,industrial. the Town's Particulate Matter Air Quality subdivisions and other discretionary development to Yes Management Plan.See the bottom of this maintain consistency with the goals,policies and table for a consistency analysis of relevant control strategies of the Town's Particulate Matter Air policies from the plan. Quality Management Plan. Conservation and Open Space Policy 13.2:Existing non-paved roads within new development and subdivision,and existing off-site non-paved roads that serve new development and subdivisions shall be paved to the extent necessary to offset emissions generated by the development and subdivision traffic to the degree feasible.New non paved roads shall not Yes Onsite roadways are proposed to be paved. be allowed for new development and subdivisions except for single family residences,secondary residential units and duplexes on existing lots.New paving shall take into consideration the policies under Goal COS-11 concerning minimization of impacts to water quality and groundwater recharge that may result from increases in paved areas. Conservation and Open Space Policy 13.3:Require all construction projects to implement dust control Mitigation measures are included that measures to reduce particulate matter emissions due require compliance with NSAQMD Rule to disturbance of exposed top-soils.Such measures 226(Dust Control Plan)and that require would include watering of active areas where Yes the implementation of various standard disturbance occurs,covering haul loads,maintaining NSAQMD recommended measures clean access roads,and cleaning the wheels of specifically intended to reduce PMio during construction vehicles accessing disturbed areas of the construction. site. Conservation and Open Space Policy 15.5:Encourage new private and public development to maximize Mitigation has been incorporated that opportunities for use of passive or natural heating and requires incorporation of energy-saving cooling and encourage sites with solar opportunities Yes features in the design and construction of to be designed with natural heating and cooling onsite uses. principles. Town of Truckee Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan Objective 1:New development will mitigate to the Mitigation has been incorporated maximum extent feasible its particulate matter prohibiting the inclusion of wood-burning emissions from solid fuel burning devices and re- Yes appliances and requiring that onsite entrained road dust. roadways be paved. Objective 5:Innovative technologies for heating and Mitigation has been incorporated that building energy conservation practices will be requires incorporation of energy-saving encouraged to reduce reliance on solid fuel burning Yes features in the design and construction of devices and other heating devices which generate onsite uses and to prohibit the inclusion of particulate matter emissions. wood-burning appliances SOURCE:DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP(2011). Town of Truckee Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan On July 15, 1999, the Truckee Town Council adopted the Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (Resolution No. 99-39). The goal of the AQMP is to assist the NSAQMD in achieving and maintaining compliance with National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter. The AQMP establishes annual emission goals for the Town and, on an annual 3.1-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 basis, requires the preparation of a report that analyzes local air quality monitoring data for particulate matter and the Town's compliance with national and state ambient air quality standards. A key control strategy of the AQMP is to limit emissions from solid fuel burning appliances associated with residential development. larger development projects are also required to fully offset predicted increases in emissions. The AQMP defines larger development projects as consisting of "100 or more single-family residential lots, 200 or more multi-family residential units, 40,000 square feet or more of office, commercial, and/or industrial floor space, or any equivalent combination thereof" (Town of Truckee 1999). Table 3.1-4 above provides a discussion of the proposed project's consistency with applicable objectives of the AQMP. Town of Truckee Municipal Code Title 7 of the Town of Truckee Municipal Code establishes emission limits for wood-burning devices (i.e., stoves and fireplaces). Accordingly, emissions from such devices should not exceed the emission requirements for an EPA-certified Phase II woodstove. More than one wood-burning device can be installed if the total emissions do not exceed 7.5 grams per hour or an existing device is being replaced. A building permit from the Building & Safety Division must be obtained for the installation of any new wood-burning device. Title 18 of the Town's Municipal Code includes requirements for preparation of a dust suppression plan for grading projects, restrictions on grading and earth moving activities during windy periods, application of dust control measures, and restrictions pertaining to open burning and clearing of vegetation. Restrictions on construction equipment idling and required maintenance of construction equipment are also included in the Town's Municipal Code. 3.1.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with air quality if it will: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Cause a violation of any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); 1 • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. I Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-11 I 3.1 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 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 (Significant and Unavoidable) The proposed project would be a direct and indirect source of air pollution, in that it would generate and attract vehicle trips in the region (mobile source emissions) and it would increase area source emissions and energy consumption. The mobile source emissions would be entirely from vehicles, while the area source emissions would be primarily from the use of natural gas fuel combustion, hearth fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Thresholds of significance illustrate the extent of a source's impacts and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. The 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 PMio• There is no threshold established for PM2 s. TABLE 3.1-5: OPERATIONAL EMISSION THRESHOLDS ROG NOx PM10 PS(Z.5 Level A s24 lbs/day 524 lbs/day 79 lbs/day N/A Threshold Level 25-136 lbs/day 25-136 lbs/day 80-136 lbs/day N/A Threshold Level C 2137 lbs/day >_137 lbs/day z137lbs/day N/A Threshold SOURCES:NORTHERN SIERRA AQMD(2011) The California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEModr" (v.2011.1.14) was used to estimate project- level operational emissions for the proposed project. Table 3.1-6 shows the emissions, which include mobile source, area source, and energy emissions of criteria pollutants that would result from operations of the proposed project. TABLE 3.1-6: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS(UNMITIGATED) ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust I PM2.5 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Summer(maximum daily lbs/day) Area 40.92 0.44 0.00 4.78 0.00 4.78 Energy 0.32 2.93 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 Mobile 175.90 507.84 153.58 12.66 166.25 5.73 12.66 18.39 Total 217.14 511.21 153.58 12.66 171.25 5.73 12.66 23.39 3.1-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 ROG NOx Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 PMIO PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Winter(maximum lbs/day) Area 40.92 0.44 0.00 4.78 0.00 4.78 Energy 0.32 2.93 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 Mobile 176.40 512.13 153.58 13.25 166.84 5.73 13.25 18.98 Total 217.64 515.50 153.58 13.25 171.84 5.73 13.25 23.98 Annual(tons/year) Area 6.06 0.04 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 Energy 0.06 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Mobile 24.78 76.81 17.02 1.92 18.94 0.85 1.92 2.77 Total 30.90 77.38 17.02 1.92 19.44 0.85 1.92 3.27 SOURCES:CALEEMOO(v.2011.1.1) As shown in the table above, operational ROG, NOx and PM10 emissions exceed the Level C threshold of significance. The NSAQMD 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. In addition to the thresholds of significance established by the NSAQMD,the project is also subject to the requirements of the Town of Truckee Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan. As described in Chapter 7- Control Strategies, #3- Large Project Emissions Offsets, of the Truckee Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan, PM emissions from large projects, which are defined as projects that result in 100 or more single family residential lots, 200 or more multi- family residential units, 40,000 square feet or more of office, commercial, and/or industrial floor space, or any equivalent combination thereof, shall be offset by 100% of the emissions of PM generated. The California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM (v.2011.1.14)was used to estimate project- level operational emissions for the proposed project with the implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation inputs included the following: Area Source: • only using natural gas burning fireplaces/hearths • low VOC paints and cleaning supplies. Energy Source • Exceed Title 24 by 15% • Install high efficiency lighting(indoor and outdoor) • Install high efficiency appliances(refrigerator,fans,washers) Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-13 3.1 AIR QUALITY Mobile Source: • Increase residential density to 12 units/acre • Increase walkability design (four intersections to four per square mile) • Improve destination accessibility (distance to downtown/job center-two miles) • Increase transit accessibility(distance to transit station-.25 miles) • Improve pedestrian network (project site and connecting to offsite-50% streets/intersections with improvement) • Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules (10%employee work 9/80) Table 3.1-7 shows the project-level operational emissions, which include area, energy, and mobile source emissions that would result from operations of the proposed project with mitigation. TABLE 3.1-7: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS(MITIGATED) ROG NOx Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 1 PM2.5 Total Summer(maximum daily lbs/day) Area 15.17 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 Energy 0.29 2.60 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 Mobile 166.20 474.71 136.12 11.44 147.56 5.08 11.44 16.51 Total 181.66 477.35 136.12 11.44 147.83 5.08 11.44 16.78 Winter(maximum lbs/day) Area 15.17 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 Energy 0.29 2.60 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 Mobile 165.63 477.41 136.12 12.03 148.15 5.08 12.03 17.10 Total 181.09 480.05 136.12 12.03 148.42 5.08 12.03 17.37 Annual(tons/year) Area 2.76 0.01 0.00 , 0.01 0.00 0.01 Energy 0.05 0.47 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Mobile 23.31 71.66 15.09 1.74 16.82 0.75 1.74 2.49 Total 26.12 72.14 15.09 1.74 16.87 0.75 1.74 2.54 SOURCES:CALEEMOD(v.2011.1.1) As shown in the table above, emissions are reduced with the implementation of mitigation measures; however, 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 impact relative to this topic. 111 3.1-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 AIR QUALITY 3.1 MITIGATION MEASURES 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 seosons 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. • 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. • Safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian paths/sidewalks connecting proposed residential uses to nearby trails and commercial land uses. Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-15 3.1 AIR QUALITY • 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 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Nevada County is currently designated as "non-attainment" for ozone and PM1o. Construction activities would result in temporary short-term emissions associated with vehicle trips from construction workers, operation of construction equipment, and the dust generated during construction activities. These temporary and short-term emissions would generate additional ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) as well as PMloand PM2.5. Table 3.1-8 provides the threshold of significance for ROG, NOX, and PM,o.There is no threshold established for PM2.5. TABLE 3.1-8: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION THRESHOLDS ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Level A 524 lbs/day s24 lbs/day 79 lbs/day N/A Threshold Level B Threshold 25-136 lbs/day 25-136 lbs/day 80-136 lbs/day N/A Level C 2137 lbs/day 2137 lbs/day 2137 lbs/day N/A Threshold SOURCES:NORTHERN SIERRA AQMO(1011) 3.1-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 The California Emission Estimator Model (CaIEEMod)TM (v.2011.1.14) was used to estimate construction emissions for the proposed project.Table 3.1-9 shows the construction emissions for the construction years 2014 and 2015 TABLE 3.1-9: CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS(UNMITIGATED) ROG NOx Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive i Exhaust PM2.5 PM10 PM10 Total , PM2.5 1 PM2.5 Total Summer(maximum daily lbs/day) 2014 20.90 165.84 27.00 7.80 34.79 13.26 7.80 21.06 2015 14.90 76.13 4.77 4.85 9.19 0.22 4.85 5.05 2016 14.22 44.42 4.77 2.26 7.03 0.22 2.26 2.47 2017 13.59 40.44 4.77 1.99 6.76 0.22 1.99 2.21 2018 13.01 36.80 4.77 1.75 6.52 0.08 1.72 1.79 2019 5.28 31.54 4.14 1.38 5.53 0.07 1.35 1.42 Winter(maximum lbs/day) 2014 20.92 165.88 27.00 7.80 34.79 1 13.26 7.80 21.06 2015 15.12 76.27 4.77 4.87 9.20 0.22 4.87 5.07 2016 14.42 44.54 4.77 2.27 7.04 0.22 2.27 2.49 2017 13.76 40.50 4.77 2.00 6.77 0.22 2.00 2.22 2018 13.17 36.82 4.77 1.76 6.53 0.08 1.73 1.80 2019 5.42 31.49 4.14 1.39 5.53 0.07 1.36 1.43 Annual(tons/year) 2014 1.19 8.82 0.86 1 0.46 I 1.32 0.39 0.46 0.85 2015 1.76 6.52 0.45 0.34 0.80 0.03 0.34 0.37 2016 1.85 5.83 0.47 0.30 0.76 0.03 0.30 0.32 2017 1.76 5.28 0.46 0.26 0.72 0.03 0.26 0.29 2018 1.57 4.78 0.46 0.23 0.68 0.01 0.22 0.23 2019 0.07 0.40 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 Total 8.20 31.63 2.74 1.61 4.34 0.49 1.60 2.08 SOURCES:CALEEMOD(v.2011.1.1) As shown in the table above, the ROG emissions are below the Level C thresholds of significance throughout the construction period. NOx emissions exceed the Level C threshold in 2014 largely as a result of site preparation and site grading activities. NOx emissions drop to the level B threshold from 2015 through the end of construction in 2019. The PM10 emissions exceed the Level B threshold in 2014 largely as a result of site preparation and site grading activities. PM10 emissions drop to the Level A threshold from 2015 through the end of construction in 2019. Draft Environmental Impact Report-f oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-17 3.1 AIR QUALITY The modeling results show that the primary causes for exceeding the NOx thresholds during construction can be largely attributed to the offroad construction vehicles during site preparation and grading. Additionally, the primary causes for exceeding the PM10 thresholds during construction can be largely attributed to fugitive dust during site preparation and grading. The NSAQMD has existing rules and regulations in place to reduce construction related emissions and dust impacts. All construction phases of the proposed project are subject to the existing NSAQMD requirements. For PM10, implementing a fugitive dust control plan in accordance with NSAQMD Rule 226 will significantly reduce PM10 emissions during this construction phases, and throughout the entire project. A dust control plan requires the use of reasonable precautions to prevent dust emissions, which may include: cessation of operations at times, cleanup, sweeping, sprinkling, compacting, enclosure, chemical or asphalt sealing, and use of wind screens or snow fences. The NOx emissions can be reduced by up to 40 percent with the use of NOx control technologies on construction equipment and haul trucks. Table 3.1-10 shows the maximum daily unmitigated and mitigated NOx emissions for this construction phase. TABLE 3.1-10: SOIL HAULING CONSTRUCTION PHASE EMISSIONS(MAXIMUM DAILY LBS/DAY) Unmitigated(Maximum Dally Emissions) NOx Site Preparation(Offroad Vehicles,On-site) 74.88 (Unmitigated Maximum Daily Emissions) Grading(Offroad Vehicles,On-site) 90.65 (Unmitigated Maximum Daily Emissions) All offroad construction equipment must111 Mitigation Measure utilize"Diesel Oxidation Catalyst",and Tiered Engines that are certified to effectively reduce NOx emissions by 40%. 40%Effectiveness.Approximately 29.95 pounds per day eliminated during site preparation and 36.26 pounds per day Mitigation Effectiveness eliminated during grading by implementing this mitigation measure. (Reference:Overview-Mitigation Measure Tables(South Coast AQMD 2007) Mitigated(Maximum Daily Emissions) NOx Site Preparation(Offroad Vehicles,On-site) 44.93 (Unmitigated Maximum Daily Emissions) Grading(Offroad Vehicles,On-site) 54.39 (Unmitigated Maximum Daily Emissions) SOURCES:CALEEMOD(v.2011.1.1),MITIGATION MEASURE TABLES(SOUTH COAST AQMD 2007). With the implementation of these standard requirements and mitigation measures, emissions are reduced to a level that does not exceed the Level C thresholds of significance. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. 3.1-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 MITIGATION MEASURES 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. 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. 1) 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-19 3.1 AIR QUALITY 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 must utilize "Diesel Oxidation Catalyst", and Tiered Engine that are certified to effectively reduce NOx emissions by 40%. 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. Impact 3.1-3: The proposed project has the potential to have carbon monoxide hotspot impacts (Less than Significant) Project traffic would increase concentrations of carbon monoxide along streets providing access to the project site. Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant (i.e., high concentrations are normally only found very near sources). The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations (i.e. hotspots), therefore, are usually only found near areas of high traffic volume and congestion. The project site is located in an attainment area for CO. The California Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) was used to analyze CO impacts for the proposed project. The ambient air quality effects of traffic emissions were evaluated qualitatively according to the CO Protocol. In the CO Protocol the proposed project screens from Level 1 to Level 7 before screening out satisfactorily. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential for causing or worsening violation of the National or State Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO. Level 1 Screening The proposed project is located in an area that is federally designated as attainment and state designed as unclassified for CO. The area has continued to be in attainment since the 1990 Clean Air Act. Level 7 Screening The project is not likely to worsen air quality as it does not significantly increase the percentage of vehicles operating in cold start mode, it does not significantly increase traffic volumes, or worsen traffic flows. Additionally, the project is not suspected of resulting in higher CO concentrations than those existing within the region at the time of attainment demonstration. Lastly, the project does not involve signalized intersections operating at LOS E or F, nor does it worsen a signalized intersection to LOS E or F. There are no other reasons to believe that the proposed project may have adverse air quality impacts.The project screens out satisfactorily at Level 7. Conclusion The traffic study for the proposed project examined Level of Service (LOS) for both road segments and intersections affected by the proposed project. No existing or future street segments or intersections are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or worse with the recommended 3.1-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIR QUALITY 3.1 mitigation.Since the project is within an attainment area for carbon monoxide (ambient air quality standards are currently attained) and in an area with low background concentrations, changes in carbon monoxide levels resulting from the proposed project would not result in violations of the ambient air quality standards, and would represent a less than significant impact. Impact 3.1-4: The proposed project has the potential for public exposure to toxic air contaminants (Less than Significant) A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general,for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. Mobil Source Air Toxics: Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAM) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants.The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources. In addition, 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 2007 EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. 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. 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. Currently, the California Air Resources Board monitors toxics throughout northern California from 17 monitoring sites, all of which are located in areas with major transportation routes. There are currently no toxic air monitoring sites located in Nevada County. The closest toxic air monitoring site to Nevada County is in the City of Roseville. Air toxics are of concern in areas with major transportation routes where there is a high volume of large diesel truck trips. The proposed project is located adjacent to State Route 267. Air toxics are not considered a major concern along this highway because State Route 267 functions predominately as a local serving and tourism serving transportation corridor for passenger vehicles from the Town of Truckee and 1-80, to the Tahoe area. While there are some large diesel truck Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-21 3.1 AIR QUALITY trips that occur on State Route 267, it is not a major route for large diesel trucks. Interstate 80 is a major transportation corridor for large diesel trucks, and the air toxics are of concern along this corridor; however, the project site is beyond the screening distance from Interstate 80 and is not considered a concern for the proposed project. Consequently, this impact is considered less than significant. Sensitive Land Uses:The California Air Resources Board (CARB) published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2007) to provide information to local planners and decision-makers about land use compatibility issues associated with emissions from industrial, commercial and mobile sources of air pollution.The CARB Handbook indicates that mobile sources continue to be the largest overall contributors to the State's air pollution problems, representing the greatest air pollution health risk to most Californians. The most serious pollutants on a statewide basis include diesel exhaust particulate matter (diesel PM), benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, all of which are emitted by motor vehicles. These mobile source air toxics are largely associated with freeways and high traffic roads. Non-mobile source air toxics are largely associated with industrial and commercial uses.Table 3.1-10 provides the California Air Resources Board minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses. TABLE 3.1-10: CARB MINIMUM SEPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING SENSITIVE LAND USES Source Category Advisory Recommendations Freeways and High- •Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway,urban roads with Traffic Roads 100,000 vehicles/day,or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.' •Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center(that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day,more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units(TRUs)per day,or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week). •Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating Distribution Centers residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points. •Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. •Within one mile of a rail yard,consider possible siting limitations and mitigation Rail Yards approaches. •Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones.Consult local air districts or the CARB on the status of pending Ports analyses of health risks. •Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate Refineries separation. Chrome Platers •Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater. •Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation.For operations with two or more machines,provide 500 feet.For operations with 3 or more machines,consult with the local air district. Dry Cleaners Using •Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning Perchloro-ethylene operations. •Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station(defined as a Gasoline Dispensing facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater).A 50 foot separation is Facilities recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. SOURCES:AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK:A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE"(GARB 2005) The residential portion of the proposed project is the only sensitive land use proposed. There are no source categories listing above that are proposed. There are two source categories located in 3.1-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report—joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) AIRQ UALITY 3.1 the vicinity of the project site (SR 267 and the Truckee Airport). The residential portion of the project is buffered from SR 267 with over 500 feet of Business Innovation uses, and from the from the Truckee Airport by over 1,000 feet of Business Innovation, Regional Commercial, Regional Support Commercial, Lifestyle Commercial, Manufacturing/Industrial, and Open Space uses. The proposed project is consistent with the CARS Minimum Separation Recommendations on Siting Sensitive Land Uses (2005). Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs. This proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Impact 3.1-5: The proposed project has the potential for exposure to odors (Less than Significant) While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the air district. The general nuisance rule (Heath and Safety Code §41700) is the basis for the threshold. Examples of facilities'that are known producers of odors include: Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chemical Manufacturing, Sanitary Landfill, Fiberglass Manufacturing, Transfer Station, Painting/Coating Operations (e.g. auto body shops), Composting Facility, Food Processing Facility, Petroleum Refinery, Feed Lot/Dairy,Asphalt Batch Plant, and Rendering Plant. If a project would locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other further analysis may be warranted; however, if a project would not locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other, then further analysis is not warranted. The proposed project is not located in proximity to a known odor source and does not warrant further analysis. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not directly create or generate objectionable odors. Persons residing in the immediate vicinity of proposed project may be subject to temporary odors typically associated with roadway construction activities (diesel exhaust, hot asphalt, etc.). However, any odors generated by construction activities would be minor and would be short and temporary in duration. This is considered a less than significant impact. I Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.1-23 3.1 AIR QUALITY I This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.1-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES neighboring Placer County.The Plan Area is located within Section 13 of Township 17 North, Range 16 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, as depicted on the Truckee quadrangle of United States Geological Survey topographic maps. The majority of the project site is composed of Great Basin sagebrush scrub. Dominant shrub species include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), low sagebrush (A. arbuscula), antelope brush (Purshia tridentata), and yellow rabbitbrush (Crysothamnus viscidiflorus). Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and lodgepole pine (P. contorts) occur scattered around the site and in clusters on the southern portion of the project site on either side of SR 267. The project site contains hydrologic features that were delineated by North Fork Associates (2004) in accordance with the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The Wetland Delineation for the 69 Acre Joerger Ranch PC-3 Project(North Fork Associates, 2004) mapped 0.33 acres and determined the feature to be isolated waters (ephemeral and intermittent streams). These hydrologic features are located along the southern aspect of the project site and are fed from the south by culverts passing under Brockway Road and SR 267 (Figure 3.2-2). Development Code Section 18.30.050.F requires Minor Use Permit approval for disturbance within 200-feet of a wetland and that a wetland delineation be prepared. Federal law requires the wetland delineation to be verified by the USACE, whom will ultimately issue a wetland determination. No wetland disturbance is permitted without Minor Use Permit approval (Development Code Section 18.46.040.C). CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) is an information system for Californis'a wildlife. CWHR contains life history, geographic range, habitat relationships, and management information on 694 species of amphibians,reptiles, birds,and mammals known to occur in the state.CWHR products are available to anyone interested in understanding, conserving, and managing California's wildlife. The CWHR habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly-occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. There are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System: 27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous,4 aquatic,8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 non-vegetated. According to the CWHR there are four wildlife habitat classifications within the project site out of 59 found in the state. The habitat classifications include: Barren, Eastside Pine, Sagebrush, and Urban. There are six other wildlife habitat classifications in the vicinity of the project site, including: Annual Grassland, Bitterbrush, Montane Chaparral, Montane Riparian, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and Water. Below is a brief description of each habitat that is found on the project site. Figure 3.2-1 illustrates the land cover types on the project site and vicinity. 3.2-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 Habitat Descriptions Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation. It can be found with many different habitats, depending on the region of the state. Eastside pine habitat occurs from about 4,000 to 6,500 feet elevation from Lake Tahoe north to Oregon, with small scattered stands that occur south to lnyo County. It is found on coarse, well- drained basaltic soils, in a drier, and colder setting, with all exposures represented. Stands are short to moderate height, 65 to 115 feet tall, with ponderosa pine being the dominant tree and some representation by Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, white fir, incense-cedar, Douglas-fir, California black oak and western juniper. Undergrowth typically includes one or more of the following shrubs: big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, manzanita, ceanothus, rubber rabbitbrush, mountain mahogany, creambush oceanspray and mountain snowberry. Prominent herbaceous plants include mule ears, arrowleaf balsamroot, Idaho fescue, pinegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass and bottlebrush squirreltail. Sagebrush occurs at a wide range of middle and high elevations (1600 to 10,500 feet) along the east and northeast borders of California on dry slopes and flats. At lower elevations and on drier sites, species such as saltbrush, greasewood, creosotebush, and winterfat are found. At mid- elevations and on more mesic sites, species such as bitterbrush, curlleaf mountain mahogany, and western serviceberry are found. At high elevations this habitat intergrades with Ponderosa Pine and Aspen habitat types. Sagebrush stands are typically large, open, discontinuous stands of fairly uniform height (1.6 to 9.8 feet). Plant density ranges from very open, widely spaced, small plants to large, closely spaced plants with canopies touching. Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished: downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily-developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs. There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Special-status species are generally defined as: 1) species listed as a candidate, threatened, or endangered under the federal or state Endangered Species Act; 2) species considered rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act; 3) plants listed as rare under California Fish and Game Code; 4) plants considered "rare, threatened, or endangered in California" by the California Native Plant Society (Lists 1B and 2); 5) animal listed as "species of special concern" by the state; and 6) animals fully protected in California by the Fish and Game Code. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-3 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based on a background search of special-status species that are documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) endangered and threatened species lists. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within five miles of the project site. The search revealed 14 special status species within the 5-mile search radius (Figure 3.2-3). Table 3.2-1 provides a list of the special-status species,their habitat,and current protective status. 3.2-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) MEI MI BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 TABLE 3.2-1:SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DOCUMENTED WITHIN 5-MILE RADIUS OF PROJECT SITE STATUS BLOOMING SPEOES (FED./CA/ GENERAL HABITAT MICRO HABITAT PERIOD POI DVflAL TO OCCUR IN PROJECT AREA CNPS) Plants Common moonwort Meadows,subalpine coniferous forest, Some habitat qualities present along the Botrychium lunaria -/-/2.3 upper montane coniferous forest. 2760-3400M. August drainages within the project site.Not observed. Donner Pass buckwheat Steep slopes and ridge tops;rocky, Eriogonum umbellatum /_./1 B.2 Upper montane coniferous forest, volcanic soils;usually in bare or July- Habitat present within the project site.Not var.torreyanum chaparral,meadows. sparsely vegetated areas.1840- September observed. 2620M. Plumas ivesia Great basin scrub,lower montane Vernally mesic areas;usually volcanic May- Some habitat qualities present along the Ivesia sericoleuca / •/16.2 coniferous forest,meadows,vernal pools. substrates.1450-2000M. October drainages within the project site.Not observed. Santa Lucia dwarf rush Vernal pools,meadows,lower montane Vernal pools,ephemeral drainages, Some habitat qualities present along the /uncusluclensis --/--/1 B.2 coniferous forest,chaparral,Great Basin wet meadow habitat and streamsides. April-July drainages within the project site.Not scrub. _ 300-2040M. observed. Alder buckthorn Meadows and seeps,lower montane Some habitat qualities present along the Rhamnus ofni(olia --/--/2.2 coniferous forest,upper montane Mesic sites.1370-2130M. May-July drainages within the project site.Not coniferous forest,montane riparian scrub. observed. Sandy beaches,on lakeside margins Some habitat qualities present along the Tahoe yellow cress Lower montane coniferous forest, and in riparian communities;on May- Rorippa subumbellata C/E/IB.1 meadows,and seeps. decomposed granite sand.1885- September drainages within the project site.Not 1900(2395)M. observed. marsh skullcap Marshes and swamps,lower montane June- Some habitat qualities present along the Scutellariagalericulata / /2'2 coniferous forest,meadows and seeps. Swamps and wet places.0 2100M. September drainages within the project site.Not observed. Birds northern goshawk --/SSC Within, and in the vicinity of coniferous Usually nests on north slopes, near water. Red fir, Known to occur In region. Potential Accipitergentilis forest, uses old nests, and maintains lodgepole pine,Jeffrey pine,and aspens are typically nesting and foraging habitat present alternate sites. nest trees. within the Pinus jefjeryi on the project site. None observed. yellow warbler --/SSC Riparian plant associations, prefers Also nests in montane shrubbery in open conifer Known to occur in region.Primary habitat Dendroica petechia willows, cottonwoods,aspens,sycamores, forests. is not present on the project site.Potential brewsteri and alders for nesting and foraging. nesting habitat present within the Pious jeffetyi on the project site.None observed. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-5 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STATUS BLOOMING SPECIES (FED./CA/ GENERAL HABITAT MICRO HABITAT PERIOD POTENTIAL TO OCCUR/N PRO/ECT ARBA CNPS) _ willow flycatcher --/E Inhabits extensive thickets of low, dense Requires dense willow thickets for nesting/roosting. Known to occur in region.Primary habitat Empidonax tralllii willows on edge of wet meadows,ponds or Low, exposed branches are used for singing is not present on the project site.Limited backwaters.2000-8000 FT elevation posts/hunting perches. potential to occur on the project site.None observed. Mammals Sierra Nevada mountain --/SSC, Dense growth of small deciduous trees and Needs dense understory for food and cover.burrows Known to occur in region.Primary habitat beaver shrubs,wet soil and abundance of forms in into soft soil.Needs abundant supply of water. is not present on the project site.Limited Aplodontia rufa the Sierra Nevada and east slope. potential to occur on the project site.None californica observed. Sierra Nevada snowshoe --/SSC. Boreal riparian areas in the Sierra Nevada. Thickets of deciduous trees in riparian areas and Known to occur in region.Primary habitat hare thickets of young conifers. is not present on the project site. Limited Leptis americanus potential to occur on the project site.None tahoensis observed. Sierra Nevada red fox --/T Found from cascades down to the Sierra Use dense vegetation and rocky areas for cover and Known to occur in region.Potential habitat Vulpes vulpes necator Nevada. Found in a variety of habitats den sites.Prefer forests interspersed w/meadows or present on the project site.None observed. from wet meadows to forested areas. alpine fell fields. Fish Lahontan cutthroat trout T/-- Historically In all accessible cold waters of Cannot tolerate presence of other salmonids. Primary habitat Is not present on the Oncorhynchus clarkii the Lahonton Basin in a wide variety of Requires gravel riffles in streams spawning. project site. No potential to occur on the henshawi water temps and conditions. project site.None observed. Notes: CNPS=California Native Plant Society Status explanations: Federal FP=fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. E=endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. SSC=species of special concern in California. T=threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. R=rare under the California Endangered Species Act PE=proposed for endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. PT=proposed for threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. California Native Plant Society C=candidate species for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act 1B=rare,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere. D=delisted from federal listing status. 2=rare,threatened,or endangered in California,but more common elsewhere. .1 =seriously endangered in California(over 80%of occurrences threatened-high degree State and immediacy of threat). E=endangered under the California Endangered Species Act .2=fairly endangered in California(20-80%occurrences threatened). T=threatened under the California Endangered Species Act .3=not very endangered in California(<20%of occurrences threatened). 3.2-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 NOXIOUS WEEDS For the purpose of this analysis and future Project-specific assessments, a noxious weed is defined as a plant that could displace native plants and natural habitats, affect the quality of forage on rangelands, or affect cropland productivity. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) lists weeds and assigns ratings (A-C) to each species on the list. The ratings reflect CDFA's view of the statewide importance of the pest, the likelihood that eradication or control efforts would be successful, and the present distribution of the pest in the state. These ratings are guidelines that indicate the most appropriate action to take against a pest under general circumstances. The rating system is explained below: • A: an organism of known economic importance subject to state (or commissioner, when acting as a state agent) enforced action involving eradication, quarantine, containment, rejection,or other holding action. • B: an organism of known economic importance subject to eradication, containment, control, or other holding action at the discretion of the individual county agricultural commissioner, or an organism of known economic importance subject to state- endorsed holding action and eradication only when found in a nursery. • C: an organism subject to no state-enforced action outside of nurseries except to retard spread at the discretion of the commissioner, or an organism subject to no state-enforced action except to provide for pest cleanliness in nurseries. 3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the natural resources of the state and nation including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS).These agencies often respond to declines in the quantity of a particular habitat or plant or animal species by developing protective measures for those species or habitat type.The following is an overview of the federal, state and local regulations that are applicable to subsequent projects under the proposed project. FEDERAL Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), passed in 1973, defines an endangered species as any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Once a species is listed it is fully protected from a "take" unless a take permit is issued by the USFWS. A take is defined as the harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species or any attempt to engage in such conduct, Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-7 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES including modification of its habitat (16 USC 1532, 50 CFR 17.3). Proposed endangered or threatened species are those species for which a proposed regulation, but not a final rule, has been published in the Federal Register. Migratory Bird Treaty Act To kill, posses, or trade a migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg is a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989), unless it is in accordance with the regulations that have been set forth by the Secretary of the Interior. Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides regulations to protect bald and golden eagles as well as their nests and eggs from willful damage or injury. Clean Water Act- Section 404 Section 404 of the CWA regulates all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Discharges of fill material includes the placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site-development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §323.2(f)]. Waters of the U.S. include lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows [33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)]. Wetlands are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACEUSACE as "that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas" [33 C.F.R. §328,3(e)]. The USACE is the agency responsible for administering the permit process for activities that affect waters of the U.S. Executive Order 11990 is a federal implementation policy, which is intended to result in no net loss of wetlands. Clean Water Act- Section 401 Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires an applicant who is seeking a 404 permit to first obtain a water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. To obtain the water quality certification, the Regional Water Quality Control Board must indicate that the proposed fill would be consistent with the standards set forth by the state. I 3.2-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 The Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. Requires authorization from the Corps for any excavation or deposition of materials into these waters or for any work that could affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of rivers or harbors. Department of Transportation Act - Section 4(f) Section 4(f) has been part of Federal law since 1966. It was enacted as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 and set forth in Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1653(f). In January 1983, as part of an overall recodification of the DOT Act, Section 4(f) was amended and codified in 49 U.S.C. Section 303. This law established policy on Lands, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites as follows: it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States, in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of lands crossed by transportation activities or facilities. The Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under section 204 of title 23) requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if: a) There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and b) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. STATE Fish and Game Code §2050-2097 - California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protects certain plant and animal species when they are of special ecological, educational, historical, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the State. CESA established that it is State policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats. CESA was expanded upon the original Native Plant Protection Act and enhanced legal protection for plants. To be consistent with Federal regulations, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare" animals into the Act as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-9 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Fish and Game Code §1900-1913 California Native Plant Protection Act In 1977 the State Legislature passed the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in recognition of rare and endangered plants of the state. The intent of the law was to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered plants. The NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants.The NPPA includes provisions that prohibit the taking of plants designated as "rare" from the wild, and a salvage mandate for landowners, which requires notification of the CDFW 10 days in advance of approving a building site. Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3800 - Predatory Birds Under the California Fish and Game Code, all predatory birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes in California, generally called "raptors," are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, posses, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a reduction or loss in a reproductive effort is considered a take.This generally includes construction activities. Fish and Game Code §1601-1603 - Streambed Alteration Under the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW has Yover any proposed activities that jurisdiction would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any lake or stream. Private landowners or project proponents must obtain a "Streambed Alteration Agreement" from CDFW prior to any alteration of a lake bed, stream channel, or their banks. Through this agreement, the CDFW may impose conditions to limit and fully mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife resources. These agreements are usually initiated through the local CDFW warden and will specify timing and construction conditions, including any mitigation necessary to protect fish and wildlife from impacts of the work. Public Resources Code § 21000 - California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) identifies that a species that is not listed on the federal or state endangered species list may be considered rare or endangered if the species meets certain criteria. Under CEQA public agencies must determine if a project would adversely affect a species that is not protected by FESA or CESA. Species that are not listed under FESA or CESA, but are otherwise eligible for listing (i.e. candidate, or proposed) may be protected by the local government until the opportunity to list the species arises for the responsible agency. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of "Species of Special Concern," developed by the CDFW. Additionally, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. List 1A contains plants that are believed to be extinct. List 1B contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. List 3 contains plants where additional information is needed. List 4 contains plants with a limited distribution. 3.2-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 Public Resources Code § 21083.4 - Oak woodlands conservation In 2004, the California legislature enacted SB 1334, which added oak woodland conservation regulations to the Public Resources Code. This new law requires a County to determine whether a project, within its jurisdiction, may result in a conversion of oak woodlands that will have a significant effect on the environment. If a County determines that there may be a significant effect to oak woodlands, the County must require oak woodland mitigation alternatives to mitigate the significant effect of the conversion of oak woodlands. Such mitigation alternatives include: conservation through the use of conservation easements; planting and maintaining an appropriate number of replacement trees; contribution of funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund for the purpose of purchasing oak woodlands conservation easements; and/or other mitigation measures developed by the County. California Wetlands Conservation Policy In August 1993, the Governor of the State of California announced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy."The goals of the policy are to establish a framework and strategy that will: • Ensure no overall net loss and to achieve a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship,and respect for private property. • Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and federal wetland II conservation programs. • Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts the primary focus of wetland conservation and restoration. The Governor also signed Executive Order W-59-93, which incorporates the goals and objectives contained in the new policy and directs the Resources Agency to establish an Interagency Task Force to direct and coordinate administration and implementation of the policy. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act provides long-term protection of species and habitats through regional, multi-species planning before the special measures of the CESA become necessary. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes the SWRCB to regulate state water quality and protect beneficial uses. I Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-11 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LOCAL 111 2025 Truckee General Plan CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT P1.4: Cluster new development where appropriate in order to maximize preservation of land in open space. Clustering shall conform to the guidelines established in Policies and Actions listed under Goal LU-7 in the Land Use Element. P4.1 Provide for the integrity and continuity of biological resources open space, habitat and wildlife movement corridors and support the permanent protection and restoration of these areas, particularly those identified as sensitive resources. P4.2 Protect sensitive wildlife habitat from destruction and intrusion by incompatible land uses where appropriate.All efforts to protect sensitive habitats should consider: • Sensitive habitat and movement corridors in the areas adjacent to development sites, as well as on the development site itself. • Prevention of habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity. • Use of appropriate protection measures for sensitive habitat areas such as non- disturbance easements and open space zoning. • Off-site habitat restoration as a potential mitigation, provided that no net loss of habitat value results. • Potential mitigation or elimination of impacts through mandatory clustering of development,and/or project redesign. P4.4: Preserve riparian corridors, Donner Lake and aquatic and wetland areas through application of setbacks and other development standards that respect these resources. P4.5: Development shall be prohibited within established setback areas for streams and waterways other than the Truckee River, except as otherwise allowed in the Development Code; such setbacks shall be between 20 and 50 feet on parcels less than 175 feet deep (depending on parcel depth), and 50 feet on parcels 175 feet deep or more. P5.1: Require biological resource assessments for all development in areas where special status species may be present. P5.2: Protect native plant species in undisturbed portions of a development site and encourage planting and regeneration of native plant species wherever possible in undisturbed portions of the project site. P5.3: Protect to the extent possible federal or State-designated endangered, threatened, special status or candidate species. 3.2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 P5.4: Support efforts to eradicate invasive and noxious weeds and vegetation on public and private property. P9.1: Provide for links between open space areas, both within Truckee and beyond the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas and enhance public access through greater connectivity. 3.2.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on biological resources if it will: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on special-status bird species (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Raptors and Migratory Birds: There are a variety of raptors (northern goshawk, bald eagle, and osprey) and migratory birds that are known throughout the Sierra Nevada range including the Tahoe region. These birds are protected by a variety of state and federal laws that prevent the Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-13 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES harassment and willful take of these species. There are numerous other protected raptors and migratory birds that are not mapped, but may utilize the project site or vicinity at times. A variety of birds could nest on the project site or in the vicinity in any given year. The proposed project will disrupt eastside pine and sagebrush habitat.There are a variety of migratory birds that use these habitats for nesting. Construction activities that occur during the nesting season (generally March 1-August 31) could disrupt nesting for birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC. During field surveys performed by Foothill Associates on August 21 and 22, 2006, Quad Knopf on September 7, 2006, and by De Novo Planning Group on July 13, 2011, there was no evidence of nesting; however, raptors or migratory birds could establish nests in any given breeding season. The proposed project will result in tree removal that could impact nesting raptors and migratory birds. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Special Status Birds:There are three special-status bird species that are documented within a five mile radius of the project site including: northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus),and yellow warbler(Dendroica petechia). Each is discussed below. Yellow warbler(Dendroica petechia brewsteri). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife lists the yellow warbler as a Species of Special Concern. Yellow warblers generally occupy riparian veg- etation in close proximity to water along streams and in wet meadows.They are found in willows, cottonwoods, and in numerous other species of riparian shrubs or trees. These birds feed mainly on animal matter, including ants, bees, wasps, caterpillars, beetles, true bugs, flies, and spiders, as well as and some berries and similar small juicy fruits. They arrive in their breeding range in late spring and begin moving to their winter range again starting as early as July, or as soon as their young are fledged (CDFW, 2008). There are documented occurrences of yellow warbler within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species, or any essential habitat for this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife lists the willow flycatcher as Endangered. Willow flycatchers occupy riparian and mesic upland thickets. They are a "sit and wait" predator of winged insects. They were historically common summer residents throughout California, breeding wherever extensive willow thickets occurred, however, they have been extirpated as breeding birds over much of their range in California.Today,they are rare to locally uncommon summer residents in wet meadow and montane riparian habitats at 2,000-8,000 ft in the Cascade and Sierra Nevada ranges, and occur along the Kern, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Rey rivers. In the spring and fall, willow flycatchers are fairly common transients throughout the state's riparian willow. There are documented occurrences of yellow warbler within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species, or any essential habitat for this species on the 3.2-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife lists the Northern goshawk as a Species of Special Concern, Northern goshawks occupy a variety of habitats including mature coniferous and deciduous forests. Nest sites are generally in stands of larger trees with dense canopy cover. Northern goshawks hunt in openings and in forested stands with an open understory that allow for catching prey in flight. Within a nest stand, northern goshawks may have as many as eight alternate nest sites. They eat a wide variety of small mammals and birds. They lay one to four eggs in early spring, with a clutch commonly producing two to three chicks. Young fledge at about five to six weeks old, but are dependent upon their parents for food until late summer or early fall. (USFWS, 2011). There are documented occurrences of Northern goshawk within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the present of this species on the project site. Nesting habitat for this species is present in the Jeffery pine (Pinus jefferyi) stands within the project site; however, its proximity to existing developments and human activities makes this area less desirable for nesting goshawks when compared to the region. Nevertheless, removal of any of these trees would result in an indirect impact on this species as a result of cumulative loss of potential nesting habitat for this species. In addition, construction activities in the vicinity of active nests could potentially disturb birds and cause them to abandon their nests. The loss or disturbance of active nests or direct mortality is prohibited by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code §3503.5. This impact is considered potentially significant. During field surveys there was no evidence of nesting; however, this species could establish nests in any given breeding season. The proposed project will result in tree removal that could impact this species. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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 II 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report— Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-15 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on special-status mammal species (Less than Significant) There are three special-status mammal species that are documented within a five mile radius of the project site including: Sierra Nevada mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa californica), Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), and Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus tahoensis). Each is discussed below. Sierra Nevada mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa californica). Sierra Nevada Mountain beavers are chunky, grizzled gray rodents with a small, one inch furred tail. Their fur is course and dull, the eyes are small, and the ears are small and rounded. They make extensive shallow burrows and tunnel systems in the ground. They are generally solitary (except during breeding and when the female is raising her young.) Most of their time is spent on or below ground; however, they will also climb trees and swim. They are active throughout the year, with most activity occurring at night.They are herbivores and forage mainly on the ground for various types of herbaceous plants, trees and shrubs. Grasses and forbs are dried and stored for winter use. Surface water or succulent vegetation is consumed on a daily basis. Young are born March to April in an oval nest of leaves, twigs, and grasses constructed in a chamber located about two feet below the surface of the ground. There are documented occurrences of Sierra Nevada mountain beaver within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species, or any essential habitat for 111 this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus tahoensis). The Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare is a medium-sized rabbit with relatively short ears; large hindfeet, and a short tail. This is the smallest subspecies of snowshoe hare in western North America. The pelage is long, thick, and soft with two annual molts. In winter, individuals are more or less uniformly white, while in summer they are cinnamon-brown to brownish-black above and white beneath. They occur from 4,800 ft to approximately 7,000 ft in riparian communities characterized by thickets of deciduous trees and shrubs such as willows and alders. In the summer, snowshoe hares feed on various green succulent plants, grasses, sedges, ferns, and forbs. In the winter, their diet changes to bark and twigs of conifers, evergreen shrubs, and deciduous trees such as aspen, alder, and willow. Primary predators of hares in the western United States are bobcats, red foxes, coyotes, and several species of hawks and owls. (CDFW, 1998). There are documented occurrences of Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species, or any essential habitat for this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). The Sierra Nevada red fox is a distinct subspecies of the red fox, which is one of the world's most familiar and widespread carnivores, occurring 3.2-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 throughout North America, Europe, Asia, and portions of Australia. They are a member of the dog family, along with coyotes, wolves and jackals. They generally weigh 4.5 to 9 lbs, have a narrow pointed muzzle, long thin legs, and a thick bushy tail with a white tip. They can have black, tawny yellow, or pale gray fur, although the reddish-orange pelt is generally the most common. They live in the open conifer woodlands and mountain meadows near treeline. They are opportunistic predators and scavengers that eat a wide variety of foods depending on their seasonal availability. Small and medium-sized mammals usually dominate the diet, with birds, insects, invertebrates, fruit,carrion,garbage and other foods important seasonally. (Perrine,Campbell and Green. 2010). There are documented occurrences of Sierra Nevada red fox within five miles of the project site. Field surveys performed by Foothill Associates on August 21 and 22, 2006, Quad Knopf on September 7, 2006, and by De Novo Planning Group on July 13, 2011, did not reveal the presence of this species, or any essential habitat for this species on the project site. There is no evidence of existing or past denning on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have a direct impact on this species. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Impact 3.2-3: The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on special-status fish species (Less than Significant) There is one special-status fish species that is documented within a five mile radius of the project site including: Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi). This species is discussed below. Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi). Lahontan cutthroat trout, like other trout species, are found in a wide variety of cold-water habitats including large terminal alkaline lakes, alpine lakes, slow meandering rivers, mountain rivers, and small headwater tributary streams. Generally, they occur in cool flowing water with available cover of well-vegetated and stable stream banks, in areas where there are stream velocity breaks, and in relatively silt free, rocky riffle-run areas. They are endemic to the Lahontan basin of northern Nevada, eastern California , and southern Oregon. Today, they occupy between 123 to 129 streams within the Lahontan basin and 32 to 34 streams outside the basin, totaling approximately 482 miles of occupied habitat.The species is also found in five lakes, including two small populations in Summit and Independence Lakes. Self-sustaining populations of the species occur in 10.7 percent of the 1 historic stream habitats and 0.4 percent of the historic lake habitats. There are documented occurrences of Lahontan cutthroat trout within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal thepresence of this species, or anyessential habitat for this Y P species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. I Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-17 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 3.2-4: The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on special-status plant species (Less than Significant with Mitigation) There are seven special-status plant species that are documented within a five mile radius of the project site including: Common moonwort (Botrychium lunaria), Donner Pass buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum), Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis), Alder buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia), marsh skullcap (Scutellaria galericulata), Plumas Ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca), and Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata). Each is discussed below. Common moonwort (Botrychium lunaria). This species is a perennial rhizomatous herb of the Ophioglossaceae family. Its range includes Mono, Modoc, Nevada, Sierra, Tulare, and Tuolumne counties. It is found in Meadows and seeps, subalpine coniferous forest, and upper montane coniferous forest.This species blooms in August (CNPS, 2011). There are documented occurrences of common moonwort within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Donner Pass buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum). This species is a perennial herb of the Polygonaceae family. Its range is from Sierra, Nevada, and Placer counties. It is found on volcanic and rocky sites, meadows and seeps, and upper montane coniferous forest. This species blooms from July to September. It is known from 20 occurrences, although it may be present in other locations where favorable conditions exist. (CNPS,2011). There are documented occurrences of Donner Pass buckwheat within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus IuciensiskThis species is an annual herb of the Juncaceae family. Its range includes Lassen, Monterey, Modoc, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Benito, San Diego, Shasta, and San Luis Obispo counties. It is found in chaparral, Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools. This species blooms from April to July(CNPS, 2011). There are documented occurrences of Santa Lucia dwarf rush within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Alder buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia). This species is a perennial deciduous shrub of the Rhamnaceae family. Its range includes Alpine, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, and Sierra counties. It is found in lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, riparian scrub, and upper montane coniferous forest.This species blooms from May to July. (CNPS, 2011). 3.2-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 There are documented occurrences of alder buckthorn within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata). This species is a perennial rhizomatous herb of the Brassicaceae family. Its range includes El Dorado, Placer, and Nevada counties in association with Lake Tahoe. It is found on decomposed granitic beaches, lower montane coniferous forest, and meadows and seeps.This species blooms from May to September. (CNPS, 2011). There are documented occurrences of Tahoe yellow cress within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. Marsh skullcap (Scutel!aria qalericulata). This species is a perennial rhizomatous herb of the Lamiaceae family. Its range includes El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, and San Joaquin counties. It is found on lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps (mesic), and marshes and swamps. This species blooms from June to September. (CNPS, 2011). There are documented occurrences of marsh skullcap within five miles of the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of this species on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this species. No mitigation is necessary. 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 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-19 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES 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. 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. Impact 3.4-5: The proposed project has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on wetlands (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 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 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 two drainages flow onto the project site from adjacent properties. The 0.22-acre intermittent stream arises from a meadow on the south side of Brockway Road and terminates on the project site without reaching another stream or water of the U.S. The 0.11-acre ephemeral stream arises as a result of drainage from SR 267 and terminates on the project site without reaching another stream or water of the U.S. The two streams combined total 0.33 acres. North Fork Associates (2004) provided a preliminary determination that these two features were isolated waters and are outside the jurisdiction of the USACE. The wetland delineation would need to be verified and a final determination made by the USACE prior to any activities that would involve the streams. If the USACE determines that the streams are isolated wetlands, then the streams are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under the 3.2-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 federal Clean Water Act. However, isolated water are still considered State Waters under State law and any activities that would require removal, filling, or hydrologic interruption of the intermittent and ephemeral streams would be subject to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the California Fish and Game Code Section 1601, regardless of whether they are determined to be U.S. Waters under the federal Clean Water Act. 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. MITIGATION MEASURES 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 drainages are jurisdictional and that the project activities would result in o 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. 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 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. If Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-21 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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). 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 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 encin shall be tightly strungonposts with a maximum 10-foot Y9fencing 9 Y f 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 3.2-6: The proposed project has the potential to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Less than Significant) Development of natural habitat has the potential to fragment migratory or nursery habitat. The project site offers habitat for wildlife species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), mountain quail (Oretyx pictus), coyote (Canis latrans), and black bear (Ursus americanus), among other species. However, the project site is already largely fragmented due to the existing roadways that bisect the project site. SR 267, Brockway Road, and Soaring Way collectively fragment the project site into four areas. The presence of these roadways reduces the viability of the project site as a 3.2-22 Draft Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 migratory corridor. Additionally, the presence of the surrounding development, including the airport, reduces the viability of the project site as a nursery site. There are no documented occurrences a of a migratory corridor or nursery site on the project site. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of a migratory corridor or nursery sites on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this issue. No mitigation is necessary. Impact 3.2-7: The proposed project has the potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction activities associated with proposed project could introduce noxious weeds or result in their spread into currently uninfested areas, possibly resulting in the displacement of special- status plant species and degradation of habitat for special-status wildlife species. Plants or seeds may be dispersed via construction equipment if appropriate measures are not implemented. This impact is considered potentially significant because the introduction or spread of noxious weeds could result in a substantial reduction or elimination of species diversity or abundance. The following mitigation measure would require plans and specifications to include specific measures that reduce the likelihood of new noxious weed infestations after construction is completed. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in effect for the project site.The 2025 Truckee General Plan, however, has various policies within the Conservation and Open Space Element that protect biological resources. Below is a review of applicable policies. Policy 1.4 requires clustering of new development where appropriate in order to maximize preservation of land in open space. The proposed project includes a variety of goals, policies, and Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-23 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES guidelines that are intended to have a clustering effect with buildings and parking areas. GOAL 2 is intended to create "business clusters" within the Specific Plan Area to promote economic diversity and opportunity. Policy 2.b is intended to establish a "Regional Support" cluster at the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersection to attract and retain local- and regional-serving businesses that support but do not compete with Downtown businesses. M-G1 states that buildings should be clustered to utilize a common entry road to the greatest extent feasible. RM-G10 states that building masses should be in scale with the surrounding landscape, with clustered building forms fitted to the topography and natural surroundings. Buildings should include a mixture of 2- and 3- stories. In addition to the above referenced goals, policies, and guidelines, the proposed project includes the preservation of open space areas totaling 10.24 acres, which is approximately 15 percent of the project site. The open space areas include wetlands, pine forest, and SR 267 frontage. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.1 requires provisions for maintaining the integrity and continuity of biological resources, open space, and habitat and wildlife movement corridors, as well as support for the permanent protection and restoration of these areas. The proposed project does not contain significant wildlife movement corridors or other sensitive biological resources other than two wetland area (streams)discussed under Policy 4.4 and 4.5 below. Policy 4.2 requires protection of sensitive wildlife habitat from destruction and intrusion by incompatible land uses where appropriate. This policy specifically calls for: consideration of sensitive habitat and movement corridors, prevention of habitat fragmentation, use of protection measures for sensitive habitat (i.e., non-disturbance easements), off-site restoration, and elimination of impacts through clustering.The proposed project does not contain sensitive wildlife habitat. Policy 4.4 requires preservation of riparian corridors, Donner Lake and aquatic and wetland areas through application of setbacks and other development standards that respect these resources. 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 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 proposed project is therefore only partially consistent with this policy because it would not preserve the 0.11-acre stream. Mitigation measure 3.2-4 through 3.2-7 ensure that the appropriate permits and compensation are provided to mitigate the physical impact to the 0.11-acre wetland; however, Policy 4.4 requires preservation of wetland areas through application of setbacks and other standards that are accomplished through a redesign that designates the 0.11-acre wetland area and a 50-foot buffer area as open space. A redesign would be required to ensure consistency with this policy. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 3.2-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 Policy 4.5 prohibits development within established setback areas for streams and waterways other than the Truckee River, except as otherwise allowed in the Development Code. This policy calls for setbacks to be between 20 and 50 feet on parcels less than 175 feet deep (depending on parcel depth), and 50 feet on parcels 175 feet deep or more.The project site contains two streams as identified in the Wetland Delineation for the t69-Acre Joerger Ranch PC-3 Project (North Fork Associates 2004). The first stream is identified as a 0.22-acre intermittent stream and is located in the 4.31-acre area designated as Open Space on the westside of SR 267. The second stream 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 0.11-acre ephemeral stream. The proposed project is therefore only partially consistent with this policy because it would not prohibit development within the 0.11- acre stream. Consistency with this policy can be accomplished through a redesign that designates the 0.11-acre wetland area and a 50-foot buffer area as open space. A redesign would be required to ensure consistency with this policy. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Policy 5.1 requires biological resource assessments for all development in areas where special status species may be present. The proposed project has underground environmental review, including the preparation of a biological resources assessment. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 5.2 requires protection of native plant species in undisturbed portions of a development site and encouragement of planting and regeneration of native plant species wherever possible in undisturbed portions of the project site. The proposed project includes 10.24 acres of open space land that will not be disturbed. These areas are in a natural condition and are intended to be fenced and protected during construction, therefore there should be no need to regenerate these areas. There is a CNPS 1B plant observed on the project site (approximately 60 individuals). Mitigation measures included in this Draft EIR requires the excavation and transplanting of these plants as well as monitoring to ensure that these individuals are successfully transplanted. The transplanting could occur within the open space areas; however, the transplant location is subject to the approval by the Town of Truckee. The proposed project, with mitigation proposed herein, is consistent with this policy. Policy 5.3 requires the protection of federal or State-designated endangered, threatened, special status or candidate species. There are not any federal or State-designated endangered, threatened, candidate species, or other special status species that have been observed or documented on the project site. There is a CNPS 1B plant observed on the project site (approximately 60 individuals). Mitigation measures included in this Draft EIR requires the excavation and transplanting of these plants as well as monitoring to ensure that these individuals are successfully transplanted.The proposed project, with mitigation proposed herein, is consistent with this policy. Policy 5.4 requires support efforts to eradicate invasive and noxious weeds and vegetation on public and private property. Mitigation measures included in this Draft EIR requires the project Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-25 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES proponent to incorporate specific measures into project plans and specifications that are intended to prevent invasive and noxious weeds and vegetation from establishing on the project site. The proposed project,with mitigation proposed herein, is consistent with this policy. Policy 9.1 requires provisions for links between open space areas, both within Truckee and beyond the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas and enhance public access through greater connectivity. The proposed project includes numerous goals, policies, and guidelines that include provisions for open space and linkages. The majority of the project site is composed of Great Basin sagebrush scrub with the dominant species including big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), low sagebrush (A. arbuscula), antelope brush (Purshia tridentata), and yellow rabbitbrush (Crysothamnus viscidiflorus). This habitat type is not considered a sensitive community. Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and lodgepole pine(P. contorta)occur scattered around the site and in clusters on the southern portion of the project site on either side of SR 267. This habitat type is also not considered a sensitive community. A small portion of the project site contains hydrologic features (0.33 acres of ephemeral and intermittent streams), which are of higher habitat quality compared to the remainder of the project site.The proposed project includes the preservation of open space areas totaling 10.24 acres, which is approximately 15 percent of the project site. The open space preservation area includes 0.22 acres of the hydrologic features. This area serves as a habitat linkage through the western portion of the project site. The remaining 0.11 acres of hydrologic features are not proposed for open space preservation. The majority of the open space preservation occurs within the frontage of SR 267. The linkage provides connectively from the northern boundary of the project site to the southern boundary. This frontage habitat is similar to the habitat throughout the project site (with the exception of the hydrologic features) and is an appropriate location for such open space preservation. Additional habitat linkages are not necessary within the project site. The proposed open space areas should ultimately be used as a trail linkage to adjacent open space area (i.e. Martis Valley, Sportspark/Legacy Trail), although they are not currently proposed. The proposed project, with mitigation proposed herein, is consistent with this policy. Conclusion There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in effect for the project site. The proposed project is consistent with most of the policies within the 2025 Truckee General Plan that are related to biological resources; however, the project as designed includes permanent disturbance to 0.11-acres of ephemeral stream which is inconsistent with Conservation and Open Space Policies 4.4 and 4.5. These policies require wetland and/or streams to be preserved and 50-foot setbacks established as a no development area. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with these policies and would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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 3.2-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) " BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.2 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. (Note: implementation of this mitigation measure would eliminate the need for Mitigation Measure3.2-4 through 3.2-7.). 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.2-27 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.2-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) i RIDGEeROADPt .�_ - J .- YA1 111 _ :,_i _. - : 1 1_ 171, /if'- - GLENSHIREIDRIVE - - -- yam\J1 •5j(� i OD - - - -" oER ESTATES:DRIVE-II- ' - S1 , _ REYµO`D-�PY . Mu 111._ Rbc, 2 Ark 4 a vi4 - JEFFER- cc PINEROAD-- - 'No \ Truckee-Tahoe Airport . g- ri%**1 .. C t` qO _ ypF IOPE4,, E� i _ , _'' lh 4,1"9:c\ d - ,P � 41/yOAa O; SO4RO.nqy Wq r.„..Y k i r 20`. �OM ou a • r % ¢4.; - CER COUNTY t ereJCr ,$ 14 'O> .PCF 67 ■ 9 P 'i ,,', ..0:•"."'SCNAFFER o. Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) Wildlife-Habitat Relationhip(WHR)Name Figure 3.2-1: Land Cover Types i Annual Grassland - Montane Riparian 1 f Barren Sagebrush N Bitterbrush ® Sierran Mixed Conifer p ® Eastside Pine Urban Montane Chaparral Water FSI `15 000 JProject Location Data scare-Mult.sa,rce land ca.er data I402 21 Caefrnnta Department of Forestry tied Fie Prote:aen 2402 - --- ---- ------------------ ■■• Other data sourua Nevada County GIS ESRI Streetmap North America Map date August 12.2011 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.2-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) B \ i'' 1 - j - •t y�'� "'`r. t. t ,4 ! __ l t AIV ' - \ rf'.l :.1 _- to rl')= r'.1� r r • Nikiki v. 7 4111 / . . 1,1.. t.4, i 's" ir . . 4111.:-.415.:::.ft....1:....,....__.... 46 *4 1 ; . .. -.11/406:Vciii.. . ` r I It '9\po t ^r .r _ ' .1416.0 ii- .41:4441F. '''''- .'. %44t..i•- i -� fir' l tri , T Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) Figure 3.2-2: Wetlands and Documented Special Status Species Ephemeral Stream - Within the Project Site - Intermittent Stream en Plumas Ivesia N o 125 250 50C Aree' 1 6.000 Project Location 1 i ED Data spumes root0t Assoc.las.2006.Ouad Knopf 2006 Nevada County GIS ----- ••■ ESA!Straolmap Notla Aman<a Map dale July 22 2013 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.2-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5-mile Radius I 2 \ 7 7 h r,, 80 `a9 1 0 • 7 7 7 } . 7 ir . 11 12 7 7 5 t ii 3 4495 Martis Creek Lan,• �_ m Recreation Area 11111.1 be. 14 80 • le • i •yqa 8 Donna Memorial State Park 7 ' Tfuckee- i Tahoe Airport 7 4 Project Location ) 7 7 7 0- 0 77 to ` ,H. 6 f s .l-4114014 9 :� 4 1 9 267 6 I\ .c f di 0 89 t 2l ' fJ 1:alder buckthorn Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 8:Santa Lucia dwarf rush 2:common moonwort 1111 9:Sierra Nevada mountain beaver Figure 3.2-3: Special Status Species L_f`3: Donner Pass buckwheat MI 10:Sierra Nevada red fox within 5-mile Radius 4:Lahontan cutthroat troutj•11:Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare N `5: marsh skullcap (::::r 12:Tahoe yellow cress 6:northern goshawk 1111 13:willow flycatcher I7:Plumas ivesia0 05 V 14:yellow warbler Mies 1'100.000 *l::::1 Area of multiple species occurrence Data sour,Calderma Depanmeni or rion and Game CNDDB tCailcrme Natural Onemtty Databases le ME■ ,c ease date August 2.201 t Base data tram ESRI StrenlMap North Amunua Map date August 12 2011 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 This section provides a background discussion of the prehistoric/ethnographic background, historic period background, known cultural resources in the region, the regulatory setting, an impact analysis, and mitigation measures. This section is based in part on 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. 3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PREHISTORIC/ETHNOGRAPHY The archaeology of the region was first outlined by Heizer and Elsasser(1953) in their study of sites located in the Truckee Basin Martis Valley area. They identified two distinct prehistoric lifeways that are believed to have once characterized the area's early occupants. Subsequent studies by Hull (2007) have further refined the cultural history of the region. Some of the oldest archaeological remains reported for the Tahoe Region have been found in the Truckee River Canyon near Squaw Valley. These Pre-Archaic remains suggest occupation approximately 9,000 years ago (Tahoe Reach Phase). Other Pre-Archaic to Early Archaic occupation dating from about 7,000 years ago was documented at Spooner Lake (Spooner Phase) near Spooner Summit overlooking Lake Tahoe. The most intensive period of occupation in the region may have occurred at varying intervals between 4,000 and 500 years ago (Martis Phases during the Early and Middle Archaic, and Early Kings Beach Phase during the Late Archaic). The proto-historic ancestors of the Washoe (Late Kings Beach Phase), also of Late Archaic times, may date roughly from 500 years ago to historic contact. The project site is in an area known as the Washoe territory. The Washoe themselves regard all "prehistoric" remains and sites within the Truckee Basin as associated with their own history. In support of this contention, they point to the traditions of their neighbors (the Northern Paiute, California Indians, and non-Indian Americans), which include stories about migrations and movement, whereas those of the Washoe do not. The ethnographic record suggests that during the mild season small groups traveled through high mountain valleys collecting edible and medicinal roots, seeds, and marsh plants. In the higher elevations, men hunted large game (mountain sheep, deer) and trapped smaller mammals. The Truckee River and tributaries such as Martis Creek were important fisheries year-round. Suitable toolstone (such as basalt) was quarried at various locales in Martis Valley. The Washoe have a tradition of making long treks across the Sierran passes for the purpose of hunting, trading, and gathering acorns. These aboriginal trek routes, which followed game trails, are often the precursors of our historic and modern road systems. Archaeological evidence of these ancient subsistence activities are found along the mountain flanks as temporary small hunting camps containing flakes of stone and broken tools. In the high valleys more permanent base camps are represented by stone flakes, tools, grinding implements, and house depressions. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-1 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES While there was a tendency for groups to move from lower to higher elevations during the mild seasons, and to return to lower elevations the remainder of the year, a fixed seasonal round was not rigidly adhered to by all Washoe; some Washoe may have wintered in the Truckee Basin during milder seasons (D'Azevedo 1986). While some Washoe trekked to distant places for desired resources, most groups circulated in the vicinity of their traditional habitation sites and appear to have been less compelled to cover large expanses of land in their subsistence pursuit than some other groups in the Great Basin. This was due to the large variety of predictable resources close at hand (D'Azevedo 1986). Their relatively rich environment afforded the Washoe a degree of isolation and independence from neighboring peoples and may account for their long tenure in their known area of historic occupation (D'Azevedo 1986). The Washoe are part of an ancient Hokan-speaking residual population, which has been subsequently surrounded by Numic-speaking intruders, such as the Northern Paiute. Even into the 20th century, the Washoe were not completely displaced from their traditional lands. The contemporary Washoe have developed a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that includes goals of reestablishing a presence within the Tahoe Sierra and re-vitalizing Washoe heritage and cultural knowledge, including the harvest and care of traditional plant resources and the protection of traditional properties within the cultural landscape. HISTORY OF TRUCKEE There have been four themes which characterize the historic development of the town of Truckee: transportation, timber, ice, and tourism. These themes are discussed briefly in the following sections. Transportation is the dominant theme. It was Truckee's location on a major transportation route through the Sierra Nevada Mountains which made the timber, ice, and tourism industries possible. Transportation Though largely undocumented, fur trappers and early explorers must have been the first Euroamericans to find the natural pass through the Sierra Nevada Mountains now called Dormer Pass. For example, the Meek brothers, a small detached group of Joseph Walker's exploration journey of 1833-1834, proceeded directly west from the Humboldt Sink, followed the Truckee River into the mountains, and then on to what is now California (Townley 1983:25). Word of this passage way through the formidable mountain barrier spread by word of mouth, and it eventually became a major transportation route. The first documented and successful emigrant passage through the Sierra Nevada Mountains via the Truckee River route was by the Murphy-Steven Party in 1844. However, the most famous emigrant group to use this route was the Donner Party (discussed by Grayson 1993:277-296, and Hardesty 1997, as well as others). Consisting primarily of three families-the Murphys, the Graves, and the Donners, with George Donner providing leadership of the party-the Donner Party set out from Springfield, Illinois, in April of 1846. Their ill-fated journey was long and difficult. One of the difficulties was the Hastings' Cut-off. Instead of taking the party across the Ruby Mountains at Secret Pass, Hastings guided the party south through the Ruby Valley, crossed the Ruby Mountains at Overland Pass, followed Huntington Creek to the South Fork of the Humboldt River, and then 3.3-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 onward to the Huntington Creek and the established Emigrant Trail. This longer and more difficult passage added an additional week to their journey. The party eventually reached the Truckee Meadows near the present site of Reno in October. They decided by consensus that they could cross the Sierra Nevada Mountains before winter set it, and attempted to do so. An early winter storm arrived when the party was in the vicinity of present day Truckee, and a broken wagon axle forced the party to divide into three groups. One group camped in the meadow near Alder Creek three miles northeast of present day Truckee, while the other two groups quartered on the east shore of Dormer Lake. The winter was especially harsh, costing the lives of numerous men, women, and children in the party. The survivors were eventually rescued and they completed their journey to California. The Donner Party tragedy discouraged use of Donner Pass for about two years. However, with the discovery of California golf in 1848, record numbers of emigrants flowed over the Truckee River Route of the California Emigrant Trail in 1849. The stream of emigrants continued for many years as prospectors were drawn to California's mineral wealth and settlers were drawn to the rich farm land. By 1863 the Dutch Flat and Donner Lake Wagon Road followed the Truckee River through the Sierras. An enterprising settler named Joseph Gray built a log cabin and stage stop where the downtown area of Truckee is today, and for a while the area was called Gray's Station. Another settler named McConnell built a cabin the following year, but soon relinquished it to S.S. Coburn, a blacksmith. The area then became known as Coburn's Station. Gray's and Coburn's Stations, therefore, mark the earliest place names in Truckee's history (Meschery 1978:34; Truckee-Donner Historical Society 1994:11). George Schaffer, who arrived sometime in the mid-1860s, built the first toll bridge over the Truckee River near the present S.R. 267 bridge, facilitating transportation to and from communities south of the river. While settlers were establishing Coburn's Station, work parties (mostly Chinese) were laying out railroad tracks from Sacramento toward the Sierras. By 1867 the Central Pacific Railroad had reached Donner Summit west of Coburn's Station, and in 1868 the first train ran from Sacramento to Reno via Donner Pass (Truckee-Donner Historical Society 1994:11). Supportive industries, especially lumber mills, were established rapidly. The Central Pacific built a roundhouse in 1875, permanently placing machinists and trackmen in this mountain town. In 1869, the Central Pacific Railroad was joined with the Union Pacific Railroad at Promontory Point, Utah, to form the First Transcontinental Railroad. Soon Truckee (renamed after a disastrous fire in 1868) became a popular stopping point along the railroad, and hotels, brothels, and business district emerged. With the advent of automobiles, wagon roads through Donner Pass were eventually superseded by highways. The historic Lincoln Highway (later U.S. 40) was completed in 1926, passing through downtown Truckee. Interstate 80, which bypasses the downtown area, was completed in 1964. Timber Truckee was uniquely situated for commercial enterprise: within the heart of the Sierra forests, and on the route of the Central Pacific Railroad. Construction of the Central Pacific created an Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-3 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES insatiable demand for lumber products, especially ties, trestle beams, telegraph poles, and milled lumber for snow sled buildings. Completion of the railroad allowed lumber products to reach destinations as far away as Utah, though more important were the burgeoning mines of the Comstock in Nevada. Joseph Gray and George Shaffer had mills operating along the Truckee River as early as 1867 to accommodate the Central Pacific needs, and sold five million board feet to the railroad in the first year. They are credited with building the first sawmill in Truckee, which was located somewhere on the river's south bank (Meschery 1978:43). By 1871 Shaffer had his own mill in Martis Valley, with a trunk line connecting it to the Central Pacific in Truckee. Elle Ellen operated a mill on the north end of town from 1868-1877 (Wilson 1992:68). Llewellyn Davies and Sons had a mill west of Truckee in 1901. By 1868 fourteen mills were in the immediate vicinity of Truckee with a combined output of sixty-six million board feet(Meschery 1978:44). E.J. Brickell and George Geisendorfer founded the Truckee Lumber Company in 1867. W.H. Kruger joined the company in 1872. They built a water-powered mill on the south side of the Truckee River to supply lumber to the Central Pacific. The Truckee Lumber Company, despite several disastrous fires, continued to operate into the twentieth century. By 1872 they had switched over to steam power and were producing 15-25 million board feet annually(Wilson 1992:66).Ten miles of narrow gauge railroad supplied the mill and box factory. The company literally sealed its own fate by cutting the last available tree in the era, and was forced to close in 1909. The box factory burned in 1918. Ice The Sierra Nevada Mountains are an area of heavy snowfall and cold winters. By late November the cost of keeping logging roads and flumes operational was too great, and logging would come to a virtual standstill. A natural offshoot of the lumber industry was the utilization of frozen mill ponds and numerous mountain lakes for ice harvesting. As early as 1868 Truckee, being ideally located in the Sierras and along the Central Pacific Railroad, became the distribution point for the Sierra ice storage and shipment. Ice became big business, with companies storing upward of 300,000 tons for the summer months (Truckee-Donner Historical Society 1994:38). Ice from the Sierra reached both coasts, used as naturally pure drinking water and, more important, to refrigerate eastbound railroad cars loaded with fruits and other California produce (Meschery 1978:48). California's agricultural growth in the 1870s is a direct result of using Sierra ice to deliver fresh produce to markets throughout the United States (Truckee-Donner Historical Society 1994:36). Ice was also used underground in cooling Comstock mines. Tourism Tourism is Truckee's primary industry today, and dates back to the turn of the century. In 1900, Truckee served as a terminus for the Lake Tahoe Railway and Transportation Company, shuttling summer visitors to the lake. C.F. McGlashan constructed the famed Ice Palace for the enjoyment of all. Originally within the downtown area, sometime after the turn of the century the Ice Palace was moved to the base of the Hilltop Lodge, in an area called GLADUKUM. The Ice Palace was host to an annual Winter Carnival,ski competitions, and toboggan lift.The Ice Palace burned in 1916.A ski 3.3-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 jump was built at the base of the Hilltop Lodge; it was dismantled in the mid-1950s. Numerous accounts throughout the town's history tell of people ice skating, sledding, and downhill skiing. In IOf course,addition to winter spscenery the natural around Truckee is spectacular. c , access to Truckee's scenic beauty and recreational facilities was greatly facilitated by construction of rail and automobile roads through Donner Pass and the Truckee Canyon. KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES Records Search A records search was conducted at the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at California Station University, Sacramento on October 3, 2002 (NCIC File#NEV-02-87/PLA-02-102). Sources consulted by the Information Center include the 1 National Register of Historic Places, Listed Properties and Determined Eligible Properties (National Park Service, computer list), California Register of Historical Resources (2002), California Points of Historical Interest (1992), California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), California Historical Landmarks (1996), Gold Districts of California (1970), Historic Spots in California (1966), and the Directory of Property of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Lassen County(2002). II According to Kautz Environmental Consultants (2002), there were 28 proposed projects within mile of the PC-3 Plan area that had cultural surveys and reports conducted between 1979 and 2002 (see Table 3.3-1). TABLE 3.3-1:PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN WITHIN THE PROJECT'S VICINITY LIBRARY NUMBER PROJECT NAME AUTHOR DATE FINDINGS Archaeological Records Search& Reconnaissance Survey,Martis Valley Archaeological 441 Estates No.4,Truckee,CA . Planning 1979 No recorded sites. An Archaeological Survey for the Martis Valley Meadows,Placer&Nevada Counties, 630 CA Derr.Eleanor 1981 No recorded sites. First Addendum:Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed California Highway Patrol Commercial Inspection&Scale 852 Facility. Bass,Henry 1982 NEV-460/H A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Martis Valley Mini-Storage Project, P-29-44 P-29-45- 112 Gallagher Development,LTD , Lindstrom,Susan 984 H Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Proposal Widening&Addition of a Left- turn Lane to Route 267 at Truckee Airport, 394 East of Truckee,Placer County , Wiant,W. 1984 No recorded sites. Positive Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Truckee Bypass Project, NEV-531/H NEV- 3416 Nevada Co. . Bass,Henry 1989 532-H Archaeological Survey of Grapevine Gulch 3284 VMP RX#4-019-AEU _ Gilbert,C. 1991 No recorded sites. Archaeological Survey of the Donner Lake NEV-13/H NEV- Shoreline&Adjacent Areas Within Donner 826 NEV 827-H 3473 Memorial State Park Woodward,J. 1991 NEV 828 H 3481 Cultural Resources Survey for a 120 kV Randolph,J.&T. 1991 NEV-848-H Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-5 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES LIBRARY NUMBER PROJECT NAME AUTHOR DATE FINDINGS Transmission Line Between Squaw Valley& Burke Truckee,Nevada&Placer Counties A Cultural Resources Surface Survey of the Sierra Meadow Townhouses Project,A One No# Acre Parcel Near Truckee Lindstrom,Susan 1991 No recorded sites. Confidential Archaeological&Historical 3426 Resources Survey&Impact Assessment Smith,D. 1992 No recorded sites. P-29-1104-H P- Cultural Resources Survey of a 10 Acre 29-1105-H P-29- 3411 Parcel in Nevada County,CA Fryman,L. 1993 1106 Cultural Resources Inventory of The Truckee Pines Apartments Project,Nevada 3438 County Maniery,J. 1994 NEV-573 Martis Valley Well Project Heritage 2048 Resource Inventory,Truckee LindstrOm,Susan 1999 No recorded sites. Archaeological Survey,Zerweck Module Home/Subdivision Project,c.30 ac.,Nevada 1944 &Placer Counties Jensen,P. 1999 No recorded sites. Second Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report&Finding of Effect for the Proposed Truckee Bypass Project,Nevada 2655 County Offerman,J. 1999 No recorded sites. Archaeological Inventory Survey Tahoe- Truckee Sanitation District Expansion Project,c.500 acres near Truckee Airport, 3484 Nevada County Jensen,P. 1999 No recorded sites. P-29-1171 (NEV- 3595 Sierra Pines Apartment Homes Project Lindstrom,Susan 1999 839H) Archaeological Survey Percin Development 3483 Project,c.5 acres,Nevada&Placer Counties Jensen,P. 2000 No recorded sites. No recorded sites, Sierra Bible Church Project,Heritage one high cut 2559 Resource Inventory,Truckee LindstrOm,Susan 2000 stump isolate Mountain Meadows Townhomes Project 2560 Heritage Resource Inventory,Truckee Lindstrom,Susan 2000 No recorded sites. A Cultural Resources Inventory Survey for a Proposed Sports Complex,Truckee Donner 2438 Recreation&Park District,Nevada County Hutchins,J. 2000 NEV-642-H P-29-1166-H,P- Martis Valley Well No.1 Pump Station& 29-1167-H,P-29- 145 Easement Project Lindstrom,Susan 2001 1168-H Archaeological Survey,Riverview 575 Townhomes,Truckee Jensen,P. 2001 No recorded sites. 3415 Community Sports Park THP Banka,W. 2001 P-29-1109 3604 Ponderosa Pines Project Lindstrom,Susan 2001 No recorded sites. Timber Management Plan Cultural 2445 Resources Report Wayland,B. 2002 No recorded sites. Survey of line sections 11& 12,Placer, No# Nevada&Sierra Counties Self,W. 2002 No recorded sites. SOURCE:KAUTZ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS(2002) Table 3.3-2 outlines 18 archaeological sites recorded within a%: mile radius of the project location. 3.3-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 TABLE 3.3-2:ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE PROJECT'S VICINITY LIBRARY SITE# NUMBER SITE DESCRIPTION SIGNIFICANT P-29-44 112 Isolated basalt Martis Corner-notched projectile point NS* P-29-45-H 112 Isolated narrow gauge railroad bed NS P-29-1104-H 3411 Isolated cut nail&brown bottle glass fragment NS Isolated tin can scatter(#10),sanitary&tobacco,road P-29-1105-H 3411 throw NS P-29-1106-H 3411 Isolated scatter of insulator glass&a tin can NS P-29-1109 3604 Basalt Martis corner-notched point NS Not provided P-29-1110 Lindstrom Early stage basalt biface NS P-29-1166-H 145 Surface charcoal oven NES P-29-1167-H 145 Surface charcoal oven NE P-29-1168-H 145 Historic two-track road with dump feature NE 3640,not provided, P-29-1189-H Lindstrom Old Brockway Road NS P-29-87 No report Reported in 1954,flaked stone scatter(basalt)with NEV-29 Elsasser projectile points NE P-29-589-H NEV-531/H 3416 Mixed multi-component site or historic Washoe camp NE P-29-631 NEV-573 3438 Sparse lithic scatter composed of basalt debitage NE P-29-733 NEV 642H 2438 Small trash scatter NS P-29-1186 NEV-829-H 3474 Structural remains with historic trash in association NE P-29-1171-H NEV-839-H 3595 Rock lined trench with a sanitary can scatter NE P-29-1226 NEV-848-H 3481 Multi-period historic dump NE SOURCE:KAUTZ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS(2002) *NS=Not Significant,*NE=not evaluated To summarize, the prehistoric local assemblage of sites is dominated by basalt lithic debris and tools. There are three isolated basalt artifacts (Martis late period projectile points)and three lithic scatters dominated by basalt, none of which are very dense. One "mixed assemblage" appears to describe an ethnohistoric period Washoe encampment, but too little is recorded to make an accurate evaluation.The local historic assemblage is dominated by five informal secondary dumps. Also present are two surface distributed charcoal ovens that are suspected to be related to Chinese labor. Two historic-aged isolated finds are reported as are three features composed of two roads and one rock lined trench. Field Survey The field survey involved a pedestrian ground survey of the entire project area using parallel transected at fewer than 30 meter intervals. Handwritten notes document all field observations associated with the survey. Drawings and 35 mm photographs supplement the field notes. A GPS g g unit was used to record the positions of cultural resources encountered during the survey. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-7 L 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES Survey Results Two historic-aged archaeological sites were recorded during the cultural resources inventory survey, both consisting of small scatters of refuse. This type of site is consistent with the pre- survey expectations. A brief description of the sites is presented below. In addition, four historic- aged isolated finds are described below. No prehistoric materials of any kind were observed. HISTORIC-AGED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES The two historic dump sites are described below. Each site is identified with the temporary number that was assigned during the field survey. Site KEC-305-1 This site is a historic secondary trash scatter consisting of eleven tin cans (milk and beverage), six amber bottle glass fragments, an aqua glass insulator fragment, and one aqua glass bottle fragment. Seriation of the historic artifacts suggest a date for the assemblage of sometime between the 1890s and 1945. Assuming this assemblage is not mixed, it probably dates from the late 1930s to the mid-1940s. The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act(California Government Code 6254.10). Site KEC-305-2 This site is another secondary historic trash scatter consisting entirely of tin cans comprised of beer and other beverage containers. The tin cans are all flat top beverage cans with a variety of side seams with several lithographed logos including "Goetz Crown/100 years of...", "Shasta Lemon-Lime", and "Bonnie Hubbard Orange Juice Concentrate Pure Frozen." The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). HISTORIC-AGED ISOLATES The four historic-aged isolates are described below. Isolate No. 1 This site consists of a brown bottle with intact lightning stopper, "Grolsh" impressed 4 places around the body, oil finish, machine manufactured, stippling around base (may be modern). The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). Isolate No. 2 This site consists of a brown whiskey flask, machine manufactured, Anchor Hocking logo, oval, "Federal Law Forbids..."on shoulder, pint size, fragmented.The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). 3.3-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 Isolate No. 3 This site consists of an a tin can, 210 x 410, stamped embossment, "Regal Pale Ale" on ends (may be modern. The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). Isolate No. 4 This site consists of an electric 3-burner stove with oven, scattered electric parts, oven door with glass insert, legs missing (26"x26"x26"), 1940s-1950s. The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). 11 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Paleontology is a branch of geology that studies prehistoric life forms other than humans, through the study of plant and animal fossils. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of organisms that lived in the region in the geologic past and therefore preserve an aspect of the region's prehistory which is important in understanding the development of the region as a whole, as many of these species are now extinct. Like archaeological sites and objects (which pertain to human occupation), paleontological sites and fossils are non-renewable resources. They are found primarily in sedimentary rock deposits and are most easily found in regions that may have been uplifted and eroded, but they may also be found anywhere that subsurface excavation is being carried out(e.g., streambeds, under roads). Fossils and Their Associated Formations Geologic formations are the matrix in which most fossils are found, occasionally in buried paleosols (ancient soils). These formations are totally different from modern soils and cannot be correlated with soil maps that depict modern surface soils representing only a thin veneer on the surface of the earth. Geologic formations may range in thickness from a few feet to hundreds of thousands of feet, and form complex relationships below the surface. Geologic maps (available through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or California Geological Survey) show the surface expression (in two dimensions) of geologic formations along with other geologic features such as faults, folds, and landslides. Although sedimentary formations were initially deposited one atop the other, much like a layer cake, over time the layers have been squeezed, tilted, folded, cut by faults and vertically and horizontally displaced, so that today, any one rock unit does not usually extend in a simple horizontal layer. If a sensitive formation bearing fossils can be found at the surface in an outcrop, chances are that same formation may extend not only many feet into the ground straight down, it may well extend for miles just below the surface. Consequently, predicting which areas are paleontologically sensitive is a difficult task. Determining Paleontological Potential The most general paleontological information can be obtained from geologic maps, but geologic cross sections (slices of the geologic layer to view the third dimension) must be reviewed for each area in question. These usually accompany geologic maps or technical reports. Once it can be determined which formations may be present in the subsurface, the question of paleontological Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-9 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES resources must be addressed. Even though a formation is known to contain fossils, they are not usually distributed uniformly throughout the many square miles the formation may cover. If the fossils were part of a bay environment when they died, perhaps a scattered layer of shells will be preserved over large areas. If on the other hand, a whale died in this bay, you might expect to find fossil whalebone only in one small area of less than a few hundred square feet. Other resources to be considered in the determination of paleontological potential are regional geologic reports, site records on file with paleontological repositories and site-specific field surveys. Paleontologists consider all vertebrate fossils to be of significance. Fossils of other types are considered significant if they represent a new record, new species, an oldest occurring species,the most complete specimen of its kind, a rare species worldwide, or a species helpful in the dating of formations. However, even a previously designated low potential site may yield significant fossils. The exact locations are considered proprietary and therefore not presented in CEQA documents (to prevent the removal or destruction of these important, nonrenewable resources). Paleontological Setting The bedrock of the project area is Miocene and Pliocene (25 to 2 million years old) volcanic rock upon which younger Pleistocene (2 million to 10 thousand years old) glacial and alluvial deposits are deposited. Miocene to Pliocene volcanic rock forms the bedrock in and near the project site. These rocks comprise the andesite and basalt flows that are common in the region. Igneous rocks do not generally contain fossils and,therefore,are not paleontologically sensitive. Portions of the project area contain glacial and alluvial Pleistocene sedimentary deposits. These deposits are generally loose gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Pleistocene alluvial deposits commonly contain vertebrate fossil resources, including mammoth, bison, horse, camel, ground sloth, sabertoothed cats,dire wolves, bear, rodents, birds,and reptiles. 3.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act was enacted in 1966 as a means to protect cultural resources that are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The law sets forth criterion that is used to evaluate the eligibility of cultural resources. The NRHP is composed of districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture that are significant to American History. Virtually any physical evidence of past human activity can be considered a cultural resource. Although not all such resources are considered to be significant and eligible for listing, they often provide the only means of reconstructing the human history of a given site or region, particularly where there is no written history of that area or that period. Consequently, their significance is judged largely in terms of their historical or archaeological interpretive values.Along with research 3.3-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 values, cultural resources can be significant, in part, for their aesthetic, educational, cultural and religious values. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Specific regulations regarding compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA state that, although the tasks necessary to comply with Section 106 may be delegated to others, the federal agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the Section 106 process is completed according to statute. The Section 106 process is a consultation process that involves the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) throughout; the process also calls for including Native American Tribes and interested members of the public, as appropriate, throughout the process. Implementing regulations for Section 106(36 CFR 800) detail the following five basic steps. 1. Initiate the Section 106 process. 2. Identify and evaluate historic properties. 3. Assess the effects of the undertaking on historic properties within the area of potential it effects(APE). 4. If historic properties are subject to adverse effects, the federal agency, the SHPO, and any other consulting parties (including Native American tribes) continue consultation to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect. A memorandum of agreement (MOA) is usually developed to document the measures agreed upon to resolve the adverse effects. 5. Proceed in accordance with the terms of the MOA. Department of Transportation Act- Section 4(f) The Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, is set forth in Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.). This law established that it is the policy of the United States Government to make a special effort to preserve historic sites. The Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project that requires the use of a historic site of national, state, or local significance only if: a) There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and b) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. STATE California Register of Historic Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) was established in 1992 and codified in the Public Resource Code §5020, 5024 and 21085. The law creates several categories of properties that may be eligible for the CRHR. Certain properties are included in the program automatically, including: properties listed in the NRHP; properties eligible for listing in the NRHP; and certain classes of State Historical Landmarks. Determining the CRHR eligibility of historic and prehistoric Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-11 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES properties is guided by CCR §15064.5(b) and Public Resources Code (PRC) §21083.2 and 21084.1. NRHP eligibility is based on similar criteria outlined in Section 106 of the NHPA(16 U.S. Code [USC] 470). Cultural resources, under CRHR and NRHP guidelines, are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. A cultural resource may be eligible for listing on the CRHR and/or NRHP if it: • is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or • has yielded,or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. If a prehistoric or historic period cultural resource does not meet any of the four CRHR criteria, but does meet the definition of a "unique" site as outlined in PRC§21083.2, it may still be treated as a significant resource if it is: an archaeological artifact, object or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: • it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that • there is a demonstrable public interest in that information, • it has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or • it is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 provides guidance for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Demolition or material alteration of a historical resource, including archaeological sites, is generally considered a significant impact. Determining the CRHR eligibility of historic and prehistoric properties is guided by CCR §15064.5(b) and Public Resources Code (PRC) §21083.2 and 21084.1. NRHP eligibility is based on similar criteria outlined in Section 106 of the NHPA(16 U.S. Code [USC)470). CEQA also provides for the protection of Native American human remains (CCR §15064.5[d]). Native American human remains are also protected under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001 et seq.), which requires federal agencies and certain recipients of federal funds to document Native American human remains and cultural items within their collections, notify Native American groups of their holdings, and provide an opportunity for repatriation of these materials. This act also requires plans for dealing with potential future collections of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects, sacred objects, 111 3.3-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-]oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 and objects of cultural patrimony that might be uncovered as a result of development projects overseen or funded by the federal government. Assembly Bill 978 In 2001, Assembly Bill (AB) 978 expanded the reach of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and established a state commission with statutory powers to assure that federal and state laws regarding the repatriation of Native American human remains and items of patrimony are fully complied with. In addition, AB 978 also included non-federally recognized tribes for repatriation. LOCAL 2025 Truckee General Plan CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT P19.1: As part of the development review process, require proper archaeological or paleontological surveying, testing, research, documentation, monitoring and safe retrieval of archaeological and cultural resources. P19.2: Require an archaeological survey by a qualified professional whenever there is evidence of an archaeological or paleontological site within a proposed project area, is determined to be high likelihood for occurrence of such sites, or where a project involves substantial site disturbance. P19.3: Consult with representatives of the Native American community whenever necessary to ensure the respectful treatment of Native American sacred places. 3.3.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on cultural resources if it will: • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines§15064.5; • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§15064.5; • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource; • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-13 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) RECORDS SEARCH A records search was conducted at the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at California Station University,Sacramento on October 3, 2002 (NCIC File#NEV-02-87/PLA-02-102). Sources consulted by the Information Center include the National Register of Historic Places, Listed Properties and Determined Eligible Properties (National Park Service, computer list), California Register of Historical Resources (2002), California Points of Historical Interest (1992), California inventory of Historic Resources (1976), California Historical Landmarks (1996), Gold Districts of California (1970), Historic Spots in California (1966), and the Directory of Property of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Lassen County(2002). According to Kautz Environmental Consultants (2002), there were 28 proposed projects within Y2 mile of the PC-3 Plan area that had cultural surveys and reports conducted between 1979 and 2002 (see Table 3.3-1).Table 3.3-2 outlines 18 archaeological sites recorded within a 'A mile radius of the project location. The prehistoric local assemblage of recorded sites is dominated by basalt lithic debris and tools.There are three isolated basalt artifacts(Martis late period projectile points) and three lithic scatters dominated by basalt, none of which are very dense. One "mixed assemblage" appears to describe an ethnohistoric period Washoe encampment, but too little is recorded to make an accurate evaluation. The local historic assemblage is dominated by five informal secondary dumps. Also present are two surface distributed charcoal ovens that are suspected to be related to Chinese labor. Two historic-aged isolated finds are reported as are three features composed of two roads and one rock lined trench. FIELD SURVEY 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 below. In addition, four historic-aged isolated finds are described below. No prehistoric materials of any kind were observed. Site KEC-305-1 This site is a historic secondary trash scatter consisting of eleven tin cans (milk and beverage), six amber bottle glass fragments, an aqua glass insulator fragment, and one aqua glass bottle fragment. Seriation of the historic artifacts suggest a date for the assemblage of sometime between the 1890s and 1945. Assuming this assemblage is not mixed, it probably dates from the late 1930s to the mid-1940s. The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). 3.3-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 Site KEC-305-2 This site is another secondary historic trash scatter consisting entirely of tin cans comprised of beer and other beverage containers. The tin cans are all flat top beverage cans with a variety of side seams with several lithographed logos including "Goetz Crown/100 years of...", "Shasta Lemon-Lime", and "Bonnie Hubbard Orange Juice Concentrate Pure Frozen." The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). Isolate No. 1 This site consists of a brown bottle with intact lightning stopper, "Grolsh" impressed 4 places around the body, oil finish, machine manufactured, stippling around base (may be modern). The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). Isolate No. 2 This site consists of a brown whiskey flask, machine manufactured, Anchor Hocking logo, oval, "Federal Law Forbids..." on shoulder, pint size, fragmented. The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). Isolate No. 3 This site consists of an a tin can, 210 x 410, stamped embossment, "Regal Pale Ale" on ends (may be modern. The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). Isolate No. 4 This site consists of an electric 3-burner stove with oven, scattered electric parts, oven door with glass insert, legs missing (26"x26"x26"), 1940s-1950s. The location of this site is exempt from public disclosure as provided by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code 6254.10). NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS A Notice of Preparation was filed with the Office of Planning and Research for a 30-day state review period. The state review included copies of the Notice of Preparation disseminated to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC did not provide a response either through the Office of Planning and Research or directly to the Town of Truckee. As such, the NAHC has notre regarding rovided information din sacred lands or Native American tribe contacts. P g g CONCLUSION 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). Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-15 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would require construction to halt in the event that a buried and previously undiscovered cultural or historical resource is encountered during construction activities so that it can be appropriately evaluated by a qualified professional. Subsequently, This mitigation measure would ensure that any potential impact to unknown resources is reduced to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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. Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The project site is underlain by Quaternary age glacial deposits (Saucedo and Wagner, 1992) typically consisting of variable quantities of silt, sand, cobbles and occasional boulders. The southeastern portion of the site may also be immediately underlain by more recent alluvium (Geocon 2006).The region is filled with volcanic flows and sediments of the Lousetown Formation, known as the Martis Valley formation of Latham. Igneous rocks do not generally contain fossils and, therefore, are not paleontologically sensitive; however, the glacial deposits and more recent alluvium more commonly contain vertebrate fossil resources, including mammoth, bison, horse, camel,ground sloth, sabertoothed cats,dire wolves, bear, rodents, birds, and reptiles. The records search and field surveys by Kautz Environmental Consultants (2002), which was peer reviewed by Peak & Associates (2006), did not reveal any surface evidence of paleontological 3.3-16 Draft Environmental impact Report—joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 resources on the project site. There is no evidence that the project site contains subsurface paleontological resources, although it is possible based on the glacial and alluvium deposits. While there are no known paleontological resources on the project site, damage to or destruction of unknown buried paleontological resources would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, state, or federal criteria. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: If paleontological resources are discovered during the course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within SO meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the Town of Truckee shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance 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. Impact 3.3-3: The proposed project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Indications are that humans have occupied the Truckee region for over 10,000 years and it is not always possible to predict where human remains may occur outside of formal burials. Therefore, excavation and construction activities, regardless of depth, may yield human remains that may not be interred in marked,formal burials. Under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological materials as being "any evidence of human activity." Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 5097 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during project implementation. State and federal law address the inadvertent discovery of human remains. These laws require human remains discovered during construction to be treated with dignity and respect. Work must stop if human remains are found during construction until the County Coroner has been contacted, and, if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the NAHC and most likely descendant must be consulted in order to determine the appropriate course of action. The following mitigation measure embodies these requirements of federal and state law and are intended to ensure that all construction activities that inadvertently discover human remains implement state and federal requirements to determine the historical significance and disposition of any discovered human remains. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Draft Environmental Impact Report—f oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.3-17 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES 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: o The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendent. o The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. o 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. 3.3-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4 The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts associated with the geology and soils of the project site and general vicinity,and to analyze issues such as the potential exposure of people and property to geologic hazards, landform alteration, and erosion. This section is based in part on a geotechnical report performed by Blackburn Consulting in 2003 entitled: Preliminary Geotechnical Report Joerger Ranch PC-3 (Blackburn Consulting, 2003). The study was peer reviewed by Geocon Consultants in September 2006 and De Novo Planning Group in August 2011. 3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING REGIONAL GEOLOGY The project site is located in the Martis Valley approximately one mile southeast of Historic Downtownjurisdictional Truckee within the jurisdictional limits of the Town of Truckee. Located within Nevada County, the project site shares its southern boundary with neighboring Placer County. The Plan Area is located within Section 13 of Township 17 North, Range 16 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, as depicted on the Truckee quadrangle of United States Geological Survey topographic maps. Geomorphic Province The Town of Truckee lies within the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province. The Sierra Nevada is a tilted fault block nearly 400 miles long. Its east face is a high, rugged multiple scarp, contrasting with the gentle western slope (about 2°) that disappears under sediments of the Great Valley. Deep river canyons are cut into the western slope. Their upper courses, especially in massive granites of the higher Sierra, are modified by glacial sculpturing, forming such scenic features as Yosemite Valley. The high crest culminates in Mt. Whitney with an elevation of 14,495 feet above sea level near the eastern scarp. The metamorphic bedrock contains goldbearing veins in the northwest trending Mother Lode. The northern Sierra boundary is marked where bedrock disappears under the Cenozoic volcanic cover of the Cascade Range. Site Geology The project site is relatively flat to gently sloping.The USGS Truckee Quadrangle topographic maps indicated that existing grade varies from a low of approximately 5,850 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwestern portion of the site, to a high of approximately 5,930 feet MSL in the southern portion of the site. Site drainage is generally to the southwest to north and northeast. The site is underlain by Quaternary age glacial deposits (Saucedo and Wagner, 1992) typically consisting of variable quantities of silt, sand, cobbles and occasional boulders. The southeastern portion of the site may also be immediately underlain by more recent alluvium (Geocon 2006).The region is filled with volcanic flows and sediments of the Lousetown Formation, known as the Martis Valley formation of Latham. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.4-1 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEISMIC HAZARDS Faults Faults are classified as Historic, Holocene, Late Quaternary, Quaternary, and Pre-Quaternary according to the age of most recent movement (California Geological Survey, 2002). These classifications are described as follows: • Historic:faults on which surface displacement has occurred within the past 200 years; • Holocene: shows evidence of fault displacement within the past 11,000 years, but without historic record; • Late Quaternary: shows evidence of fault displacement within the past 700,000 years, but may be younger due to a lack of overlying deposits that enable more accurate age estimates; • Quaternary: shows evidence of displacement sometime during the past 1.6 million years; and • Pre-Quaternary:without recognized displacement during the past 1.6 million years. Faults are further distinguished as active, potentially active, or inactive. (California Geological Survey,2002). • Active: An active fault is a Historic or Holocene fault that has had surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. • Potentially Active: A potentially active fault is a pre-Holocene Quaternary fault that has evidence of surface displacement between about 1.6 million and 11,000 years ago. • Inactive: An inactive fault is a pre-Quaternary fault that do not have evidence of surface displacement within the past 1.6 million years. The probability of fault rupture is considered low; however, this classification does not mean that inactive faults cannot, or will not, rupture. There are no known active or potentially active faults located within the project site; however, there are numerous faults located in the region. Below is a brief summary of the faults located within 50 miles of the project site: unnamed fault south of Truckee (1.5 miles west), unnamed fault along Martis Creek (2 miles east), unnamed fault associated with the 1966 Truckee Earthquake (4 miles northeast), North Tahoe Fault (active, 12 miles southeast), Mohawk Valley Fault (active, 20 miles northwest), Genoa Fault (23 miles southeast), Honey Lake Fault (43 miles northeast), Antelope Valley Fault (47 miles southeast), and Foothills Fault (50 miles west). Figure 3.4-1 presents a map of the faults within a 50-mile radius of the project site. Seismic Scales Seismic hazards include both rupture (surface and subsurface) along active faults and ground shaking, which can occur over wider areas. Ground shaking, produced by various tectonic phenomena, is the principal source of seismic hazards in areas devoid of active faults. All areas of the state are subject to some level of seismic ground shaking. 3.4-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4 Several scales may be used to measure the strength or intensity of an earthquake. Magnitude scales (ML) measure the energy released by earthquakes. The Richter scale, which represents magnitude at the earthquake epicenter, is an example of an ML. As the Richter scale is logarithmic, each whole number represents a 10-fold increase in magnitude over the preceding number. Moment Magnitude (Mw) is used by the United States Geological Service (USGS) to describe the magnitude of large earthquakes in the U.S. The value of moment is proportional to fault slip multiplied by the fault surface area. Thus, moment is a measurement that is related to the amount of energy released at the point of movement. The Mw scale is often preferred over other scales, such as the Richter, because it is valid over the entire range of magnitudes. Moment is normally converted to Mw, a scale that approximates the values of the Richter scale. The Modified Mercalli Scale (MM) expresses earthquake intensity at the surface on a scale of I through XII. While there are no known active faults located within the project site, the area could experience considerable ground shaking generated by faults in the Table 3.4-1 presents a comparison of the Richter Magnitude and Modified Mercalli Scale and the potential effects of an earthquake based on these scales. TABLE 3.4-1:COMPARISON OF RICHTER MAGNITUDES AND MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITIES RICHTER Modified Mercalli Effects MAGNITUDE Intensities 2 1-II Usually detected only by instruments 3 111 4 Felt indoors IV-V Felt by most people;slight damage 5 VI VII Felt by all;many frightened and run outdoors;damage minor to moderate 6 VII-VIII Everybody runs outdoors;damage moderate to major 7 IX-X Major damage S+ X-Xl Total and major damage SOURCE:CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,2002. Seismic Hazard Zones ALQUIST-PRIOLO FAULT ZONES An active earthquake fault, per California's Alquist-Priolo Act, is one that has ruptured within the Holocene Epoch (11,000 years). Based on this criterion,the California Geological Survey identifies Earthquake Fault Zones. These Earthquake Fault Zones are identified in Special Publication 42 (SP42), which is updated as new fault data become available. The SP42 lists all counties and cities within California that are affected by designated Earthquake Fault Zones. The Fault Zones are delineated on maps within SP42 (Earthquake Fault Zone Maps). There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones located within the project site. Figure 3.4-1 illustrates the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that are within a 50-mile radius of the project site. SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES The state Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) addresses hazards along active faults. The Northern California counties affected by the Seismic Hazard Zonation Program include Alameda, San Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.4-3 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. The Southern California counties affected by the Program include San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura. There is not currently any seismic hazard zones mapped within the project site. Liquefaction Liquefaction, which is primarily associated with loose, saturated materials, is most common in areas of sand and silt or on reclaimed lands. Cohesion between the loose materials that comprise the soil may be jeopardized during seismic events and the ground will take on liquid properties. Thus, liquefaction requires specific soil characteristics and seismic shaking. Glacial deposits that underlain portions of the project site may be susceptible to liquefaction under seismic activity in the region; however, given the depth of static groundwater levels of the project site (greater than 50 feet), liquefaction potential is considered low on the project site and immediate vicinity(Blackburn Consulting, 2003). Landslide Landslide potential is influenced by physical factors, such as slope, soil, vegetation, and precipitation. Landslides require a slope, and can occur naturally from seismic activity, excessive saturation, and wildfires, or from human-made conditions such as construction disturbance, vegetation removal,wildfires, etc. Given the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslide potential is considered low on the project site and immediate vicinity. Structural Damage There are four seismic zones in the United States. The zones are numbered one through four, with Zone 4 representing the highest level of seismic hazard. There are more stringent design and construction standards for areas within Zones 3 and 4, which includes all of California. The project site is located in Seismic Zone 3. As such, building design is subject to more stringent seismic design standards. OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Soils The soils on the project site are predominately glacial till and outwash from volcanic rock, with some colluvium and residuum derived from volcanic rock. The taxonomic classes of the soils are frigid Ultic Haploxeralfs and frigid Ultic Argixerolls. (Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2011). According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (2011), there are four different soil series located on the project site, that make up three different variant complexes. These include the Euer, Martis, Kyburz, and Trojan series. Figure 3.4-2 presents a map of the soils located on the project site Information from the NRCS official soil description for these series is provided below. • Euer: The Euer series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in glacial outwash and material from volcanic sources. These soils are on terraces. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 43 degrees F. 3.4-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4 • Martis: The Martis series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in glacial till and outwash from mixed sources, mainly volcanic. These soils are on glacial outwash plains and have slopes of 2 to 5 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 42 degrees F. • Kyburz: The Kyburz series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from basic volcanic rock. Kyburz soils occur on uplands and have slopes of 2 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 25 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 45 degrees. • Trojan:The Trojan series consists of deep and very deep, well drained soils that formed in colluvium and residuum derived from volcanic rocks or from schist and argillite. Trojan soils are on hills and mountains. Slopes are 2 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 20 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 45 degrees F. Erosion The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) delineates soil units and compiles soils data as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.The following description of erosion factors is provided by the NRCS Physical Properties Descriptions: • Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil, whereas Kf indicates the erodibiity of the fine soils. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Soil erosion data for the soils located on the project site were obtained from the NRCS. As identified in Table 3.4-2 below, the erosion factor Kf varies from 0.24 to 0.37, which is considered moderately low to moderate potential for erosion. TABLE 3.4-2:SOIL EROSION FACTORS MAP SYMBOL AND SOIL NAME KF REPRESENTATIVE VALUE %i SAND %SILT %CLAY EUB—Euer-Martis variant complex,2 to 5 percent slopes Euer 028 65.7 22.8 11.5 Martis variant 0.37 42.1 37.9 20 FUE—Kyburz-Trojan complex,9 to 30 percent slopes Kyburz 0.24 66.8 19.2 14 Trojan 0.24 65.9 19.1 15 MEB—Martis-Euer variant complex,2 to 5 percent slopes Martis 0.24 65.9 19.1 15 Euer variant 0.24 65.7 22.8 11.5 SOURCE:NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE,2011. Expansive Soils The NRCS delineates soil units and compiles soils data as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The following description of linear extensibility (aka shrink-swell potential, or expansive potential) is provided by the NRCS Physical Properties Descriptions: Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.4-5 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS "Linear extensibility" refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3-or 1/10-bar tension(33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. The shrink-swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed. Linear extensibility data for the soils located on the project site were obtained from the NRCS. As identified in Table 3.4-3 below, the linear extensibility of the soils varies from 0.0 to 5.9 percent, which is considered low to moderate linear extensibility. Approximately 90 percent of the project site has low expansive soils. A small area in the northern portion and southern portion of the project site has moderate expansive soils. The moderately expansive soils can be at a depth of between six inches to 67 inches from the surface. As such, the engineering and design of facilities on the project site will be subject to more stringent geotechnical and structural design standards. TABLE 3.4-3:LINEAR EXTENSIBILITY(EXPANSION POTENTIAL) MAP SYMBOL AND SOIL NAME DEPTH LINEAR EXTENSIBILITY (INCHES) (PERCENTAGE) EUB—Euer-Martis variant complex,2 to 5 percent slopes Euer 0-65 0.0-2.9 Martis variant 0-55 0.0-2.9 FUE—Kyburz-Trojan complex,9 to 30 percent slopes Kyburz 0-6 0.0-2.9 6-34 3.0-5.9 34-38 — Trojan 0-21 0.0-2.9 21-67 3.0-5.9 67-71 — MEB—Martis-Euer variant complex,2 to 5 percent slopes Martis 0-67 0.0-2.9 Euer variant 0-12 0.0-2.9 12-24 3.0-5.9 24-60 0.0-2.9 SOURCE:NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE,2011. Frost Heave Frost heave is the expansion of soils due to freezing and thawing. Frost heave can damage foundations, concrete, pavement, and roadways. The soils on the project site have the potential for significant frost heave. As such, the engineering and design of facilities on the project site will be subject to more stringent geotechnical and structural design standards. 3.4-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4 Naturally Occurring Asbestos The term "asbestos" is used to describe a variety of fibrous minerals that, when airborne, can result in serious human health effects. Naturally occurring asbestos is commonly associated with ultramafic rocks and serpentinite. Ultramafic rocks, such as dunite, peridotite and pyroxenite, are igneous rocks comprised largely of iron-magnesium minerals.As they are intrusive in nature,these rocks often undergo metamorphosis, prior to their being exposed on the Earth's surface. The metamorphic rock serpentinite is a common product of the alteration process. Naturally occurring asbestos is mapped in Nevada and Placer County, although it is all located in foothill region of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. There is no naturally occurring asbestos mapped within the project site or immediate vicinity. Subsidence Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage, or oxidation of organic material, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. While subsidence is an issue of concern in some areas of California, the Natural Resource Conservation Service does not identify it as an issue of concern on the project site or immediate vicinity. Tsunami Tsunamis are standing waves that occur in the ocean, while seiches are standing waves that occur in enclosed bodies of water (i.e. Lake Tahoe). These waves usually follow seismic, landslide and other events. Given that distance and elevation that separate the project site from the Pacific Ocean,tsunamis are not an issue of concern on the project site or immediate vicinity. Seiches Seiches are standing waves that occur in enclosed bodies of water(i.e. Lake Tahoe). Like tsunamis, these waves usually follow seismic, landslide and other events. There are two major faults located under Lake Tahoe and studies have shown that a magnitude 7.0 earthquake could create seiche waves up to 10 meters (approximately 30 feet) high along the shore. Given that the project site is over 12 miles from the shore of Lake Tahoe, seiches are not an issue of concern on the project site or immediate vicinity. Volcanism Much of the Sierra Nevada range was once volcanically active, including the Tahoe basin. However, the volcanoes in the region date back approximately 1.3 million years and are considered dormant or inactive. There are no indications that any prehistoric volcanoes in the region may become active.Volcanoes are not an issue of concern on the project site or immediate vicinity. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.4-7 6 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 USC, 7701 et seq.) requires the establishment and maintenance of an earthquake hazards reduction program by the federal government. Executive Order 12699 Signed in January 1990, this executive order of the President implements provisions of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act for "federal, federally assisted or federally regulated new building construction" and requires the development and implementation of seismic safety programs by federal agencies. Uniform Building Code (UBC) The purpose of the Uniform BuildingCode (UBC) is to provide minimum standards to preserve the P P public peace, health, and safety by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, certain equipment, location, grading, use, occupancy, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. UBC standards address foundation design, shear wall strength, and other structurally related conditions. STATE California Building Standards Code (CBSC) The CBSC is set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The CBSC includes codes that establish standards for new buildings, existing buildings, historical buildings,fire safety, and energy. The CBC is contained within the California Building Standards Code. Per state law, building standards are enforceable only to the extent that they are embodied in Title 24 of the CCR. CA Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code establishes the state's regulations for earthquake protection. This section of the code requires structural designs to be capable of resisting likely stresses produced by phenomena such as strong winds and earthquakes. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act), signed into law December 1972, requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazards associated with fault rupture and to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across these traces. 3.4-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4 Cities and counties must regulate certain development projects within the zones, which include withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement (Hart, 1997). Surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within an Alquist-Priolo Zone. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site has to be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) sets forth roadway design standards for seismic safety in the latest version of the Highway Design Manual(originally published in 1995). Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 The California Department of Conservation Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (§ 2710), also known as SMARA, provides a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy that permits the continued mining of minerals, as well as the protection and subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. The purpose of SMARA is to ensure that adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition and readily adaptable for alternative land uses. If a use is proposed that might threaten the potential recovery of minerals from an area that has been classified MRZ-2, SMARA would require the jurisdiction to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use, provide public notice of these reasons, and forward a copy of the statement to the State Geologist and the State Mining and Geology Board (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 2762). LOCAL 2025 Truckee General Plan SAFETY ELEMENT P1.1: Group and locate new residential development in such a way as to avoid areas of hazard including steep slopes and areas of unstable soils. P1.3: Require soils reports for new development in areas where geologic risks are known to exist. Such reports should include recommendations for appropriate engineering and other measures to address identified risks. P3.1: Locate new buildings associated with new discretionary development outside of avalanche hazard areas. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.4-9 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT P 12.1:Preserve slopes of 30 percent or greater as open space and avoid slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent if there are other, more suitable areas for development with slopes less than 20 percent. P 12.2:Require projects that require earthwork and grading, including cuts and fills for roads, to incorporate measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Typical measures include project design that conforms with natural contours and site topography, maximizing retention of natural vegetation, and implementing erosion control Best Management Practices. P12.3 Require discretionary project review for all substantial grading activities not associated with an approved development project or timber harvesting plan. 3.4.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on geology and hazards if it will: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. o Strong seismic ground shaking. o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. o Landslides. • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;or • Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property. • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. 3.4-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.4-1: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects involving rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking (Less than Significant) The Preliminary Geotechnical Report Joerger Ranch PC-3 (Blackburn Consulting, 2003) indicates that the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, there are no faults located within the project site, and ground rupture and/or fault creep are not expected to occur. There are, however, numerous active or potentially active faults located in the region, including three within a five mile radius of the project site. The area is considered seismically active, and some ground shaking is expected. The Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California (Peterson et al, 1999) indicated that for a seismic event with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of approximately 0.3g could be expected. Blackburn Consulting (2003) concluded that the project site is within Seismic Zone 3, and that the Building Codes in California incorporate structural design parameters for ground shaking of this magnitude. As a standard practice, the Town requires these special structural design parameters to be incorporated into the design and engineering of buildings and infrastructure. With the implementation of these special structural design parameters for all buildings and infrastructure, the proposed project would result in a less- than-significant impact from these issues. No additional mitigation is required. Impact 3.4-2: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects involving ground failure or landslides (Less than Significant) Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesionless soils and a sudden increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report Joerger Ranch PC-3 (Blackburn Consulting, 2003) indicates that the project site includes soils at that may be susceptible to liquefaction under seismic activity in the region. However, Blackburn Consulting (2003) concludes that given the depth of static groundwater levels of the project site (greater than 50 feet), liquefaction potential is considered low on the project site. Additionally, given the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslide potential is considered low on the project site and immediate vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact from these issues. No additional mitigation is required. Impact 3.4-3: The proposed project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction and site preparation activities would involve some land clearing, mass grading, and other ground-disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. Construction-related erosion could result in the loss of a Draft Environmental Impact Report—loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.4-11 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS substantial amount of nonrenewable topsoil and could adversely affect air quality and water quality in nearby surface waters. Risks associated with erosion can be reduced by using appropriate controls during construction and properly revegetating exposed areas as soon as construction is complete. The Regional Water Quality Control Board will require a project specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)to be prepared for each component of the proposed project that disturbs an area one acre or larger. The SWPPPs will include project specific best management measures that are designed to control drainage and erosion. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 require the project proponent to prepare a SWPPP and implement both non-structural and structural BMPs. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact from these issues. MITIGATION MEASURES 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.1.) 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. Impact 3.4-4: The proposed project has the potential to result in risks from expansive soil (Less than Significant) Expansive soils are those that shrink or swell with the change in moisture content. The volume of change is influenced by the quantity of moisture, by the kind and amount of clay in the soil, and by the original porosity of the soil. Approximately 90 percent of the project site has low expansive soils (NRCS, 2011). According to the NRCS (2011), a small area in the northern portion and southern portion of the project site has moderate expansive soils. The NRCS soils data (2011) indicates that the moderately expansive soils can be at a depth of between six inches to 67 inches from the surface. Shrinking and swelling on the project site could damage roads and other structures. Frost heave is another form of soil expansion, but it is related to freezing and thawing. Blackburn Consulting (2003) noted that the soils on the project site have the potential for significant frost heave. Like expansive soils, frost heave on the project site could damage foundations, concrete, pavement,and roadways. 3.4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.4 The Town of Truckee requires the design and engineering of buildings and infrastructure to include specific design recommendations from a licensed geotechnical engineer. After evaluating the soils on the project site, the geotechnical engineer will recommend detailed engineering measures that are necessary to reduce the risks associated with soil expansion and frost heave, among other things. With the implementation of project specific geotechnical measures for all buildings and ni i infrastructure, the proposed project would result in a less-than-sigf cant impact from these issues. No additional mitigation is required. Impact 3.4-5: The proposed project has the potential to have soils incapable of supporting alternative waste water disposal systems (No Impact) The proposed project would include connection to the Truckee Sanitation District's waste water collection system. No septic systems are proposed. Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.4-13 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This page left intentionally blank. 3.4-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) \. , , i v } Aneroid 'i? . 50-mile radius i a+�7 9 ,-/-••••,- r+. l— ra • sy �' l r'..-lell,_ - :: ' c cc '.A- 70 \ .46' • ' •aiac, Nile 'Q .r , d t try �. `\ {{ ' t 1' fa dr , 3.X61 fa'', �I: \ 4 + t • + fa sr t `1 1`f `ti a ) • \ i 1, i.irr....1 , 1' f �f:Reno- 80 �. . �,; i, ._ ,:.1.1 -''r..±-- SaeiP.rk t V le {{) - sl ',(If l' \Y , ' , - --*"..'.,1.."`-'6A,.." --. 5 mile radius l ) It a �' • f• 50, 1 (see inset! -�_� % '/ •,',e.1.1 7,-----21;:i . ri,4 ...07 .., ,___4,'it , Aro. ---' Kit / ` e . ,., "iii, . 11' - 4).--L'': .. M �� . / \ ;r;ncItYe • /10 ,'-'N�t ',t Tahoe % 1,-;,), SmAe - - ;illi t' ( 0 / �/Ys. ratlhus -• �f 0i ,. . 0 ioai! ,. •••:.. riptom • 11 •v, '..,‘" T, ., .......-- -• .1reif 1:4 . .'7 .,' ( jt,-1-:)---.4\51-1- , . \AMP 1 --,jr #. : -,. :89, \\ '' r ,.'',7 '4111.- '11 ‘.1\ iii, -ter � 'Y�,6 1 i 4 4tag }�� J p. , „ '.'>'1*,..._,..,:: fi'9 -C Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) Figure 3.4-1: Faults Map Project Location AQuatemary Faults of the Western U.S Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones(California) o as s to 1900.000 mm.,,ore.Greet Beet,center for Geothermal Energy e.Morn..Geoeg.colderv., ■■■ 0501 Speetmap North America.SSRI Shaded Rebel Map Sane, Map date nuyuai,'2011 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS I This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.4-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) l M w MAR1iS.ORIVE _ r 0 ��o ----= FUE 0 .c..)`. 0:MOLO'N 0 r t , Truckee-Tahoe Airport MEB yTo C I • CA-4r /Y• m , It /Pa 1O •Z a I-••!R 0 DCN. • ' • y �(:19C)46.,coc,,,,, ♦ • So I �i�• ' C. 2=,,.• . . w4Y C 2 r 1 W , - 2 4 .67 EUB • Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) Project Location NRCS Soils Figure 3.4-2: Soils Map EUB:Euer-Martis vanant complex,2 to 5 percent slopes N EVB:Inville-Martis variant complex.2 to 5 percent slopes FUE:Kyburz-Trojan complex.9 to 30 percent slopes N mo wo MEB:Martis-Fuer variant complex.2 to 5 percent slopes t 8A00 Oat.sour.USDA Nabone Resourre Consersaton Secy.. Sod OMaMart Other M.sources MOM. Nevada County GIS ESRI Strouimnp North Amenca Map dal. August 17,2011 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This page left intentionally blank. 3.4-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 This section 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 they relate to the proposed project. 3.5.1 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE LINKAGES Various gases in the Earth's atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth's surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth's atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high- frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H10), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N70), and ozone (03). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N20 occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2005, concentrations of these three greenhouse gases have increased globally by 36, 148, and 18 percent, respectively (IPCC 2007)'. Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH.,), ozone (03), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors (California Air Resources Board, 2012)2. In California, the 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. "Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ons_ipcc_fourth_assessment_repart_wg1_report_the_ physical_science_basis.htm California Air Resources Board.2012. "Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data,2000-2009. hap:i'www.arb.ca�;ovicci invemory+dataIdata.htm Draft Environmental Impact Report- joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-1 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (California Air Resources Board, 2012). As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively. California produced 492 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2004 (California Energy Commission 2006a)3. By 2020, California is projected to produce 507 MMTCO2e per year.4 Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence,of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California's GHG emissions in 2008, accounting for 36.9% of total GHG emissions in the state (California Air Resources Board, 2012). This category was followed by the electric power sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (24.8%) and the industrial sector (21.1%) (California Air Resources Board, 2012). EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE The effects of increasing global temperature are far-reaching and extremely difficult to quantify. The scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels,which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion,threats to levees and inland water systems and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitat. If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major source of supply for the state. The snowpack portion of the supply could potentially decline by 70% to 90% by the end of the 215` century (Cal EPA 2006)5. This phenomenon could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water 3 California Energy Commission. 2006a.Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/archive/archive.htm 4 California Air Resources Board.2010."Functional Equivalent Document prepared for the California Cap on GHG Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms." 5 California Environmental Protection Agency,Climate Action Team.2006.Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/cli mate_action_team/repo rts/ 3.5-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 supply for a growing state population. Further, the increased ocean temperature could result in increased moisture flux into the state; however, since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations, increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more pressure on California's levee/flood control system. Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels (Cal EPA 2006). If this occurs, resultant effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and disruption of wetlands (Cal EPA 2006). As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (Cal EPA 2006), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following. Public Health Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25% to 35% under the lower warming range and to 75% to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced. In addition, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90°F in Los Angeles and 95°F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat. Water Resources A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snow pack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snow pack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. The state's water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California's estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, a major state fresh water supply. Global warming is also Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-3 33 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE projected to seriously affect agricultural areas,with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25% of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the state (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the snow dependent winter recreational season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as one month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing, snowboarding, and other snow dependent recreational activities. If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snow pack by as much as 70% to 90%. Under the lower warming scenario, snow pack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snow pack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snow pack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities. Agriculture Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California's farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California's agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts, and milk. Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth. In addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests' breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates. 3.5-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 Forests and Landscapes Global warming is expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation thereby resulting in a possible increased risk of large of wildfires. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the state. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90%. Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60% to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state's forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming. Rising Sea Levels Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the state's coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. ENERGY CONSUMPTION The consumption of nonrenewable energy (primarily gasoline and diesel fuel) associated with the operation of passenger, public transit, and commercial vehicles results in GHG emissions that ultimately result in global climate change. Alternative fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, and electricity (unless derived from solar, wind, nuclear, or other energy sources that do not produce carbon emissions) also result in GHG emissions and contribute to global climate change. Electricity Consumption California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. Approximately 71 percent of the electrical power needed to meet California's demand is produced in the state. Approximately 29 percent of its electricity demand is imported from the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest (California Energy Commission, 2012)6. In 2010, California's in-state generated electricity was derived from natural gas (53.4 percent), large hydroelectric resources (14.6 percent), coal (1.7 percent), nuclear sources (15.7 percent), and renewable resources that include geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectric resources, wind, and solar (14.6 percent) (California Energy Commission, 2012). 6 California Energy Commission(2012). Energy Almanac. Retrieved August 2012,from http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/index.html Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-5 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total statewide electricity consumption increased from 166,979 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 1980 to 228,038 GWh in 1990, which is an estimated annual growth rate of 3.66 percent. The statewide electricity consumption in 1997 was 246,225 GWh, reflecting an annual growth rate of 1.14 percent between 1990 and 1997 (California Energy Commission Energy Almanac, 2012). Statewide consumption was 274,985 GWh in 2010, an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 1997 and 2010. Oil The primary energy source for the United States is oil, which is refined to produce fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Oil is a finite, nonrenewable energy source. World consumption of petroleum products has grown steadily in the last several decades.As of 2009, world consumption of oil had reached 96 million barrels per day.The United States, with approximately five percent of the world's population, accounts for approximately 19 percent of world oil consumption, or approximately 18.6 million barrels per day (The World Factbook 2009, Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009). The transportation sector relies heavily on oil. In California, petroleum based fuels currently provide approximately 96 percent of the state's transportation energy needs (California Energy Commission, 2012). Natural Gas/Propane The state produces approximately 12 percent of its natural gas, while obtaining 22 percent from Canada and 65 percent from the Rockies and the Southwest (California Energy Commission, 2012). In 2006, California produced 325.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas (California Energy Commission, 2012). GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY An emissions inventory quantifies the GHG emissions,including the amount of GHGs emitted to or removed from the atmosphere, over a specific period of time by source categories (e.g. transportation, residential, etc.). An inventory is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. A brief summary of emissions inventories is provided below for global, United States, California, and local GHG emission inventories. Global emissions of GHGs in 2004 were estimated to be 30 billion tons of CO2e per year or about 4.3 tons/year/person (including both ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions from land-use changes). In 2004, it was estimated that the United States emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2e or about 25 tons/year/person. Of the four major sectors nationwide - residential, commercial, industrial and transportation - transportation accounts for the highest percentage of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2006, total U.S. GHG emissions increased approximately 15 percent. According to the California Air Resources Board, California emitted approximately 480 million metric tons of CO2e emissions in 2004. This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of 3.5-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 California compared to other states. By contrast, California has the fourth lowest per-capita carbon dioxide emission rate from fossil fuel combustion in the country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. State commitments have lowered the GHG emissions growth rate by more than half of what it would have been otherwise. The CARB staff has projected 2020 unregulated GHG emissions, or the emissions that would be expected without any GHG reduction actions, at 596 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e. At the time this Draft EIR was prepared, a regional GHG emission inventory had not been prepared/adopted for the Air Basin, or Nevada County. Additionally, a local GHG emissions inventory had not been prepared/adopted for the Truckee region. 3.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL Clean Air Act The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions. The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction. Energy Policy and Conservation Act The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 mpg. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined on the basis of each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle cle manufacturers' compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on Draft Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-7 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program,the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country's dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the act provides for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources,such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for a clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy. Federal Climate Change Policy According to the EPA, "the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change" that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology, and institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. To implement this policy, "the Federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science." The federal government's goal is to reduce the greenhouse gas(GHG) intensity (a measurement of GHG emissions per unit of economic activity) of the American economy by 18 percent over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. In addition, the EPA administers multiple programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions, including "ENERGY STAR", "Climate Leaders", and Methane Voluntary Programs. However, as of this writing, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly regulating GHG emissions. Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule On September 22, 2009, EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This publically available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases along with vehicle and engine manufacturers will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85% of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this final rule. 3.5-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 STATE Assembly Bill 1493 In response to AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding GHG emission standards to California's existing motor vehicle emission standards. Amendments to CCR Title 13 Sections 1900 (CCR 13 1900) and 1961 (CCR 13 1961), and adoption of Section 1961.1 (CCR 13 1961.1) require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet average GHG emission limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium- duty passenger vehicle weight classes beginning with the 2009 model year. Emission limits are further reduced each model year through 2016. For passenger cars and light-duty trucks 3,750 pounds or less loaded vehicle weight (LVW), the 2016 GHG emission limits are approximately 37 percent lower than during the first year of the regulations in 2009. For medium-duty passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks 3,751 LVW to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW), GHG emissions are reduced approximately 24 percent between 2009 and 2016. CARB requested a waiver of federal preemption of California's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. The intent of the waiver is to allow California to enact emissions standards to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles in accordance with the regulation amendments to the CCRs that fulfill the requirements of AB 1493. The EPA granted a waiver to California to implement its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars. Assembly Bill 1007 Assembly Bill 1007, (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) directed the CEC to prepare a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. As a result, the CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in consultation with the state, federal, and local agencies. The plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California's goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality. California Executive Orders S-3-05 and S-20-06, and Assembly Bill 32 On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order 5-3-05. The goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California's GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels by the 2020 and 3) 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. this goal was further reinforced with the passage of AssemblyBill 32 (AB 32 the Global In 2006, t s P g ), Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve "real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases." Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state's Climate Action Team. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-9 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE Assembly Bill 32- Climate Change Scoping Plan On December 11, 2008 CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap of CARB's plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce CO2e emissions by 169 million metric tons (MMT), or approximately 30 percent, from the state's projected 2020 emissions level of 596 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario. (This is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2002-2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020.)The Scoping Plan also breaks down the amount of GHG emissions reductions ARB recommends for each emissions sector of the state's GHG inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards: • improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e), • the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e), • energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems(26.3 MMT CO2e), and • a renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e). California Strategy to Reduce Petroleum Dependence (AB 2076) In response to the requirements of AB 2076(Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000),the CEC and the CARB developed a strategy to reduce petroleum dependence in California. The strategy, Reducing California's Petroleum Dependence, was adopted by the CEC and CARB in 2003. The strategy recommends that California reduce on-road gasoline and diesel fuel demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand levels by 2020 and maintain that level for the foreseeable future; the Governor and Legislature work to establish national fuel economy standards that double the fuel efficiency of new cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs); and increase the use of non- petroleum fuels to 20 percent of on-road fuel consumption by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030. Climate Action Program at Caltrans The California Department of Transportation, Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, prepared a Climate Action Program in response to new regulatory directives. The goal of the Climate Action Program is to promote clean and energy efficient transportation, and provide guidance for mainstreaming energy and climate change issues into business operations. The overall approach to lower fuel consumption and CO2 from transportation is twofold: (1) reduce congestion and improve efficiency of transportation systems through smart land use, operational improvements, and Intelligent Transportation Systems; and (2) institutionalize energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction measures and technology into planning, project development, operations, and maintenance of transportation facilities,fleets, buildings,and equipment. 3.5-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 The reasoning underlying the Climate Action Program is the conclusion that "the most effective approach to addressing GHG reduction, in the short-to-medium term, is strong technology policy and market mechanisms to encourage innovations. Rapid development and availability of alternative fuels and vehicles, increased efficiency in new cars and trucks (light and heavy duty), and super clean fuels are the most direct approach to reducing GHG emissions from motor vehicles (emission performance standards and fuel or carbon performance standards)." Governor's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order #S-01-07) Executive Order#S-01-07 establishes a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 through establishment of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is incorporated into the State Alternative Fuels Plan and is one of the proposed discrete early action GHG reduction measures identified by CARB pursuant to AB 32. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. OPR prepared its recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines to provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. Senate Bill 375 Sen. Bill No. 375 (Stats. 2008, ch. 728) (SB 375) was built on AB 32 (California's 2006 climate change law). SB 375's core provision is a requirement for regional transportation agencies to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in order to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles.The SCS is one component of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS outlines the region's plan for combining transportation resources, such as roads and mass transit, with a realistic land use pattern, in order to meet a state target for reducing GHG emissions. The strategy must take into account the region's housing needs, transportation demands, and protection of resource and farmlands. Additionally, SB 375 modified the state's Housing Element Law to achieve consistency between the land use pattern outlined in the SCS and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. The legislation also substantially improved cities' and counties' accountability for carrying out their housing element plans. Finally, SB 375 amended the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) to ease the environmental review of developments that help reduce the growth of GHG emissions. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-11 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On January 1, 2010, the California Building Standards Commission adopted CALGreen and became the first state in the United States to adopt a statewide green building standards code. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials. LOCAL 2025 Truckee General Plan The 2025 Truckee General Plan establishes the following goals and policies relative to greenhouse gas emissions in the General Plan (Note: additional General Plan policies related to Air Quality are presented in Section 3.1 Air Quality): HOUSING ELEMENT Goal H-4 Balance the need and provision of housing in the community with its impacts on the environment and needed public facilities and services. P4.1 Encourage residential design that promotes energy efficiency and sustainable building practices and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. P4.2 Encourage residential development that reduces infrastructure and other development costs, preserves and enhances important environmental resources, and maintains important areas as open space. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Goal COS-15 Encourage conservation of energy and fuel resources,strive to reduce generation of solid waste, and promote environmental sustainability. P15.1 Support recycling programs town-wide, including the curbside recycling and business waste reduction programs. P15.5 Encourage new private and public development to maximize opportunities for use of passive or natural heating and cooling and encourage sites with solar opportunities to be designed with natural heating and cooling principles. P15.6 Maintain or surpass the 2003 annual solid waste reduction rate of approximately 70 percent throughout the life of the General Plan. P15.8 Reduce the use of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials. 3.5-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District The proposed project is under jurisdiction of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD), which regulates air quality according to the standards established in the Clean Air Acts and amenoments to those acts. The NSAQMD comprises three contiguous, mountainous, rural counties in northeastern California (Nevada, Sierra, and Plumas counties) and regulates air quality through its permitting authority and through air quality related planning and review activities over most types of stationary emission sources. The NSAQMD has not yet established significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions from project operations. 3.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, climate change-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project under consideration would do any of the following: 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. There is not an established threshold of significance for GHG emissions; however, it is commonly accepted that a threshold should be related to compliance with AB 32. In accordance with NSAQMD recommendations (per. comm. Sam Longmire 4/17/13), the Town of Truckee, as lead I agency, has chosen to prepare a quantitative GHG analysis for the proposed project in order to demonstrate that the project would promote sustainability and implement operational GHG emission reduction strategies that would reduce the project's GHG emissions from BAU levels by 15 percent, in compliance with AB 32 and the Scoping Plan. Therefore, if the proposed project does not show a 15 percent reduction from projected BAU levels (i.e., 2010 levels) compared to the project's estimated 2020 levels, the project would be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. GHG emission reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, compliance with local, State, or federal plans or strategies for GHG reductions, on-site and off-site mitigation recommendations from the Office of the Attorney General, and project design features. It should be noted that the proposed project would be required to comply with the minimum mandated measures of 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen Code), such as a 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use and diversion of 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. A variety of voluntary CalGreen Code measures also exists that would further reduce GHG emissions, but are not mandatory. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-13 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.5-1: Project implementation has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or the potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project's GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulativelyconsiderable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale g impact. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane(CH4)and nitrous oxide (N20),from mobile sources and utility usage. The proposed project's short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)r" (v.2011.1.14). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure(i.e., MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants. Short-Term Construction GHG Emissions: Estimated increases in GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.5-1. 3.5-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 TABLE 3.5-1: CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS(UNMITIGATED METRIC TONS/YR) - - r Rio-COz NBio-COz Total CO2 CNS I N20 COze 2014 0.00 742.00 i 742.00 0.07 0.00 743.49 2015 0.00 882.01 882.01 0.07 0.00 883.40 2016 0.00 1,059.92 1,059.92 0.06 0.00 1,061.26 2017 0.00 1,050.33 1,050.33 0.06 0.00 1,051.56 2018 0.00 1,049.22 1,049.22 0.05 0.00 1,050.34 i- 2019 0.00 576.99 576.99 0.03 0.00 577.58 2020 0.00 75.52 75.52 0.00 0.00 75.62 2021 0.00 74.45 74.45 0.00 0.00 74.54 2022 0.00 73.45 73.45 0.00 0.00 73.54 2023 0.00 11.48 11.48 0.00 0.00 11.49 Total 0.00 5,595.37 5,595.37 0.34 0.00 5,602.82 SOURCES:CAL EEMoo(v.2011.1.1) As presented in the table, short-term construction emissions of GHG associated are estimated to be 5,602.82 MTCO2e. Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change in the long-term. Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions: The long-term operational GHG emissions estimate for the proposed project incorporates the project's potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with utility and water usage, and wastewater and solid waste generation. The modeling included mitigation inputs for the year 2020 including the following: Energy Mitigation • Exceed Title 24 by 15% • Install High Efficiency Lighting Water Mitigation • Install low flow bathroom faucet • Install low-flow kitchen faucet • Install low-flow toilet • Install low-flow shower • Use water-efficient irrigation systems Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed project in 2020 with the above mitigation incorporated are summarized in Table 3.5-2. As shown in the table, the annual 2020 GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be 20,860 MTCO2e with mitigation incorporated. Draft Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-15 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE TABLE 3.5-2: OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS 2020(MITIGATED METRIC TONS/YR) Bio-CO2 Nato-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area 0.00 90.09 90.09 0.00 0.00 90.65 Energy 0.00 3,117.76 3,117.76 0.09 0.04 3,131.81 Mobile 0.00 16,276.51 16,276.51 0.67 0.00 16,290.66 Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water 0.00 989.18 989.18 12.38 0.32 1,347.58 Total 0.00 20,473.54 20,473.54 13.14 0.36 20,860.70 SOURCES:CALEEMOD(v.2011.1.1) The significance thresholds for GHG emissions should be related to compliance with AB 32, and the Town of Truckee, as lead agency, has chosen to utilize a threshold of significance for GHG emissions based on the CARB's 2008 Scoping Plan that a development project must show a minimum GHG emission reduction of 15 percent from projected Business as Usual (BAU) levels (i.e., 2010 levels) by the year 2020. Thus, the project's 2010 levels were evaluated in order to determine the net decrease in the proposed project's GHG emissions over time. Table 3.5-3 presents the projected 2010 BAU GHG emissions,which are estimated to be 29,871.67MTCO2e. TABLE 3.5-3: OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS 2010 BUSINESS AS USUAL(UNMITIGATED METRIC TONS/YR) 810-COz NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CHS N20 CO2e Area 43.38 55..i f, 98.74 0.04 0.00 100.88 Energy 0.00 4,663.29 4,663.29 0.13 0.06 4,683.95 Mobile 0.00 22,429.21 22,429.21 1.93 0.00 22,469.77 Waste 418.86 0.00 418.86 24.75 0.00 938.70 Water 0.00 1,230.39 1,230.39 15.47 0.40 1,678.37 Total 462.24 28,378.25 28,840.49 42.32 0.46 29,871.67 SOURCES:CALEEMOD(v.2011.1.1) Consequently, the proposed project 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 MTCO2eJ /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. I 3.5-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.5 It should be noted that although a reduction related to such attributes would occur for every development project, CaIEEMod 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 previously, 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. • 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.5-17 3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE • 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 reduction in GHG emissions that may result from the implementation of these Green Design Principals. Conclusion: As stated previously, short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of the proposed project. 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. MITIGATION MEASURES Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-4. 111 3.5-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials related to the project site and general vicinity, and to analyze the potential for exposure of people to hazards and hazardous materials as the project is built and operated in the future. This section is based in part on the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Joerger Ranch PC-3 (Blackburn and Associates 2003), PC-3/Joerger Ranch Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Peer-Review (Quad Knopf 2006), a review of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Database (2013), the California Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Database (2013), California Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Database (2013), the California Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Database (2013), and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) (2013). 3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING The project site is relatively flat to gently sloping.The USGS Truckee Quadrangle topographic maps indicated that existing grade varies from a low of approximately 5,850 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwestern portion of the site, to a high of approximately 5,930 feet MSL in the southern portion of the site. Site drainage is generally to the southwest to north and northeast. 111 The site is underlain by Quaternary age glacial deposits (Sauced() and Wagner, 1992) typically consisting of variable quantities of silt, sand, cobbles and occasional boulders. The southeastern portion of the site may also be immediately underlain by more recent alluvium (Geocon 2006). The region is filled with volcanic flows and sediments of the Lousetown Formation, known as the Martis Valley formation of Latham. Soil Survey The soils on the project site are predominately glacial till and outwash from volcanic rock, with some colluvium and residuum derived from volcanic rock. The taxonomic classes of the soils are frigid Ultic Haploxeralfs and frigid Ultic Argixerolls. (Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2011). According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (2011), there are four different soil series located on the project site, that make up three different variant complexes. These include the Euer, Martis, Kyburz, and Trojan series. Figure 3.4-2 presents a map of the soils located on the project site Information from the NRCS official soil description for these series is provided below. • Euer: The Euer series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in glacial outwash and material from volcanic sources. These soils are on terraces. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 43 degrees F. • Martis: The Martis series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in glacial till and outwash from mixed sources, mainly volcanic. These soils are on glacial outwash plains and have slopes of 2 to 5 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 42 degrees F. II Draft Environmental Impact Report— Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-1 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • Kyburz: The Kyburz series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from basic volcanic rock. Kyburz soils occur on uplands and have slopes of 2 to 50 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 25 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 45 degrees. • Trojan:The Trojan series consists of deep and very deep,well drained soils that formed in colluvium and residuum derived from volcanic rocks or from schist and argillite. Trojan soils are on hills and mountains. Slopes are 2 to 50 percent.The mean annual precipitation is about 20 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 45 degrees F. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site in conformance with ASTM Practice E 1527 by Blackburn Consulting (2003). The scope of the Phase I ESA was directed at determining whether there may be hazardous materials on, or near, the project site. The Phase I ESA was peer reviewed by Quad Knopf(2006). Findings The following was found on the project site through the efforts of the Phase I ESA and Peer Review: • One building, private well, and pump house were observed on APN 19-620-02, which is located at the southwest corner of the project site at the intersection of Brockway Road and Martis Drive. • One unmarked 55-gallon drum was located east side of the well and pump house. • Three, 5-gallon containers were located against the south wall of the pump house. One container was open, and its contents were hardened. The two remaining containers were sealed; however, no labels or markings were visible on any of the containers. o No stained soils were visible under or near the containers. • Distressed and dying vegetation was visible around the perimeter of the pump house; however, it was not determined to be due to debris found in the vicinity. • One pole mounted transformer was observed transecting the southwest corner of APN 19- 620-02.There were no leaks observed. • During the site reconnaissance, the above ground storage tank (AST) was observed at the Truckee Tahoe Airport. There were no observable leaks or stains in the vicinity of the AST. There was no containment or swells in place in the event of a spillage or leaks; however, based on the distance from the project site, the identified AST does not pose a significant risk. • One, 5-gallon open container.The contents were hardened and appeared to be black/grey in color. 3.6-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 • Three, 5-gallon containers against the south wall of the pump house. Scrap metal and other debris was also observed. • Approximately 21 55-gallon drum lids in piles east of the pump house. • Scrap wood, tire and snow blower. • Large scrap wood pile with metal and some unidentified car parts. • Rear of Tech Service Center. 2 computer monitors, 8 computer terminals, cardboard boxes, and additional debris. • Snow Blower located east of the pump house. • One, 55-gallon drum located against the west facing wall of the pump house. Nearby Facilities An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was conducted for the Phase 1 ESA and the Peer Review. The radius map identified four facilities within a 2.5 mile radius of the project site. These include the following: • Tahoe Truckee USD Transportation Maintenance Ops Yard. This facility is located approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the project site. The facility address is 12486 Joerger Drive. • Teichert Aggregate. This facility is located approximately 2.0 northeast of the project site. The facility address is Joerger Drive off Highway 267. • Truckee Sanitary District is located approximately 0.5 north of the project site. The facility address is 12304 Joerger Drive. • Truckee Precision is located approximately 2.3 west of the project site. The facility address is 10607 West River Street The EDR radius report also identified 20 orphan facilities within the Truckee area. "Orphan" facilities were identified in the regulatory databases within the vicinity of the project site; however, because these sites lacked complete, or accurate geographical data they were not fully addressed in the EDR report. During the peer review, the orphan facilities were identified and located. None of the orphan facilities are located within the vicinity of the project site, and do not pose a significant hazard. FIRE HAZARDS Wild fires are a major hazard in the State of California. Wild fires burn natural vegetation on developed and undeveloped lands and include timber, brush, woodland, and grass fires. While low intensity wild fires have a role in the region's ecosystem, wild fires put human health and safety, Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-3 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS structures (e.g., homes, schools, businesses, etc.), air quality, recreation areas, water quality, wildlife habitat and ecosystem health, and forest resources at risk. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Government Code 51175-89 directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to identify areas of very high fire hazard severity zones within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Mapping of the areas, referred to as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones(VHFHSZ), is based on data and models of, potential fuels over a 30-50 year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior, and expected burn probabilities to quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure(including firebrands)to buildings. In late 2005 to be effective in 2008, the California Building Commission adopted California Building Code Chapter 7A requiring new buildings in VHFHSZs to use ignition resistant construction methods and materials. These new codes include provisions to improve the ignition resistance of buildings, especially from firebrands. The updated very high fire hazard severity zones are used by building officials for new building permits in LRA. The updated zones are used to identify property whose owners must comply with natural hazards disclosure requirements at time of property sale and 100 foot defensible space clearance. It is likely that the fire hazard severity zones will be used for updates to the safety element of general plans. Calfire published a map for Truckee entitled Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAs Recommended by CAL FIRE in November 24, 2008. This map illustrates much of the Town of Truckee as a VHFHSZ; however,the proposed site is labeled as non-VHFHSZ. AIRPORT OPERATIONS HAZARDS Hazards associated with airport operations are generally associated with aircraft accidents.Aircraft accidents of most concern occur during takeoff and landing operations during which aircraft are operated close to the ground and within close proximity to one another. Potential hazards around an airport can be increased due to many external factors such as incompatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport, installation of power transmission lines, wildlife hazards (i.e., bird strikes, migrating wildlife, etc.), and construction of tall structures. In order to mitigate the potential hazards of tall structures within the vicinity of an airport, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established an airport height restriction area, defined by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. FAR Part 77 establishes "imaginary surfaces" around an airport where a structure is considered to pose a hazard to an aircraft. FAR Part 77 requires that the FAA be notified prior to construction of any structure that would pierce these imaginary surfaces. However, the FAA cannot prohibit the construction of such structures. The State of California goes further, requiring that a permit be obtained from the State Division of Aeronautics prior to construction of such a structure. In addition to imaginary surfaces, a safety restriction area is established around airports within which it is assumed that hazards may exist to people or structures on the ground in the event of an aircraft accident. Nationwide studies of aircraft accidents have found the following: 3.6-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The 1976 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities. The 1984 RCRA amendments provided the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent releases from USTs. The program establishes tank and leak detection standards, including spill and overflow protection devices for new tanks. The tanks must also meet performance standards to ensure that the stored material will not corrode the tanks. Owners and operators of USTs had until December 1998 to meet the new tank standards. As of 2001, an estimated 85 percent of USTs were in compliance with the required standards. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (the Act) introduced active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably the Superfund program. The Act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of, and response to, uncontrolled hazardous substances releases. The Act deals with environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and to chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection. Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety to regulate pipeline transportation of natural (flammable, toxic, or corrosive) gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Office of Pipeline Safety regulates the design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. While the federal government is primarily responsible for developing, issuing, and enforcing pipeline safety regulations,the pipeline safety statutes provide for State assumption of the intrastate regulatory, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities under an annual certification. To qualify for certification, a state must adopt the minimum federal regulations and may adopt additional or more stringent regulations as long as they are not incompatible. FY 2001 Appropriations Act Title IV of the Appropriations Act required the identification of "Urban Wildland Interface Communities in the Vicinity of Federal Lands that are at High Risk from Wildfire" by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. 3.6-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 STATE The primary state agencies that are responsible for overseeing regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials are the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Water Quality Control Board, and the California Air Resources Board. Several laws governing the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are administered by these agencies. State laws and regulations that are applicable to hazards and hazardous materials are presented below. California Health and Safety Code Cal-EPA has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes. Many of these regulations are embodied in the California Health and Safety Code. The code includes regulations that govern safe drinking water, substances control, land reuse and revitalization, remediation, restoration, and methamphetamine contaminated cleanups. California Code of Regulations Title 22 and Title 26 The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 provides state regulations for hazardous materials, and CCR Title 26 provides regulation of hazardous materials management. In 1996, Cal/EPA established the "Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program" (Unified Program) which consolidated the six administrative components of hazardous waste and materials into one program. Assembly Bill 337 Per AB 337, local fire prevention authorities and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) are required to identify "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Standards related to brush clearance and the use of fire resistant materials in fire hazard severity zones are also established. CA Public Resources Code The state's Fire Safe Regulations are set forth in Public Resources Code §4290, which include the establishment of State Responsibility Areas (SRA). Public Resources Code §4291 sets forth defensible space requirements, which are applicable to anyone that ...owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material(§4291(a)). Uniform Fire Code The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) establishes standards related to the design, construction and maintenance of buildings. The standards set forth in the UFC range from designing for access by Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-7 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS firefighters and equipment and minimum requirements for automatic sprinklers and fire hydrants to the appropriate storage and use of combustible materials. CA Code of Regulations Title 8 In accordance with CCR, Title 8, §1270 and §6773 (Fire Prevention and Fire Protection and Fire Equipment), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) establishes fire suppression service standards. The standards range from fire hose size requirements to the design of emergency access roads. CA Code of Regulations Title 14 (Natural Resources) Division 1.5 (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), Title 14 of the CCR establishes a variety of wildfire preparedness, prevention and response regulations. CA Code of Regulations Title 19 (Public Safety) Title 19 of the CCR establishes a variety of emergency fire response, fire prevention and construction and construction materials standards. CA Code of Regulations Title 24 (CA Building Standards Code) The California Fire Code is set forth in Part 9 of the Building Standards Code. The CA Fire Code, which is pre-assembled with the International Fire Code by the ICC, contains fire-safety building standards referenced in other parts of Title 24. CA Health and Safety Code and UBC Section 13000 et seq. State fire regulations are set forth in §13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which is divided into "Fires and Fire Protection" and "Buildings Used by the Public." The regulations provide for the enforcement of the UBC and mandate the abatement of fire hazards. The code establishes broadly applicable regulations, such as standards for buildings and fire protection devices, in addition to regulations for specific land uses, such as childcare facilities and high-rise structures. DATABASES There is a broad list of federal and state database that provide information for sites with varying potential for risk from the possible existence of hazardous materials. There are numerous redundancies among these various database listings. Below is a brief summary of each. National Priorities List The National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund Sites is EPA's database of more than 1,200 sites designated for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. 3.6-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 RCRIS System The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) is an EPA database that includes selective information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA. Identification on this list does not indicate that there has been an impact on the environment. CERCLIS Data Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) is an EPA database that contains information on potential hazardous waste sites that have been reported to EPA by states, municipalities, private companies, and individuals, pursuant to Section 103 of CERCLA. CERCLIS contains sites that are either proposed for or on the NPL, as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. CORRACTS Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) is an EPA database that identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. RAATS System RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) is an EPA database that contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators, and includes administrative and civil actions brought by EPA. PADS System PCB Activity Database System (PADS) is an EPA database that identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers, and/or brokers and disposers of polychlorinated biphynels (PCBs) who are required to notify EPA of such activities. CHMIRS Data The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS) contains information on reported hazardous materials incidents (i.e., accidental releases or spills). The source of this information is the California Office of Emergency Services. ERNS Sites The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) provides records of reported releases of oil and hazardous substances.The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. Cortese Database The Cortese database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, and all solid waste disposal facilities from which Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-9 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS there is known hazardous substance migration. The source of this database is the California Environmental Protection Agency(CAL-EPA). LUST Reports The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. This information comes from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System. UST Database The Underground Storage Tank (UST) database lists registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA).The UST information comes from the State Water Resources Control Board's Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database. HIST UST Sites The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites. The data source is the State Water Resources Control Board. CA FID Information The Facility Inventory Database (CA FID) lists active and inactive underground storage tank locations.This database is maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board. HAZNET Database The Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET) includes data extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests each year by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control. FINDS Data The Facility Index System (FINDS) contains both facility information and "pointers" to other sources of information that contain more detail (e.g., RCRA Info, Permit Compliance System [PCS], Aerometric Information Retrieval System [AIRS]).The source of this information is the U.S. EPA. FTTS Database The Federal Toxics Tracking System (FITS) tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions/compliance activities related to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act (EPCRA). The source of this data is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides,and Toxic Substances. CA SLIC Database The statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (CA SLIC) database includes unauthorized discharges from spills and leaks, other than from underground storage tanks or other regulated sites.The data source is the State Water Resources Control Board. 3.6-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 Notify 65 Records Proposition 65 Notification Records (Notify 65) contain facility notifications about any release that could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. The State Water Resources Control Board maintains this database. EMI Data Emissions Inventory Data (EMI) is comprised of toxics and criteria pollutant emissions data collected by the state Air Resources Board and local pollution agencies. Manufactured Gas Plant Database This database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants), which were in operation in the U.S. until the 1950s. Due to common past practices, the potential for on-site hazardous by-products (such as coal tar, sludge, oils, and chemical compounds) remains on such sites, which could result in soil or groundwater contamination. These records are maintained by EDR, Inc.,as part of its proprietary database. SWEEPS Records The Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST list, which is no longer maintained or updated, was under the purview of the State Water Resources Control Board. Other agencies(e.g.,as identified above) now maintain UST records. LOCAL 2025 Truckee General Plan SAFETY ELEMENT P1.1: Group and locate new residential development in such a way as to avoid areas of hazard including steep slopes and areas of unstable soils. P3.1: Locate new buildings associated with new discretionary development outside of avalanche hazard areas. P4.1: Continue to cooperate with the Truckee Fire Protection District, the California Department of Forestry, and the U.S. Forest Service in creating and promoting fire prevention education. P4.2: Continue to cooperate with the Fire Protection District to implement fire safety ordinances to minimize wildland fire hazards, including incorporation of fire resistant building and roofing materials, and attainment of maintenance of "defensible space." Defensible space may include re-vegetation with less flammable species, such as fire resistant native and adapted species, and the use of mulch to prevent erosion on bare soils. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-11 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS P4.3: Promote fire hazard reduction through cooperative fuel management activities in association with the Truckee Fire Protection District, the California Department of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service. Such strategies may include identifying and implementing opportunities for fuel breaks in very high fire hazard severity zones, and ensuring that fire breaks are provided where necessary and appropriate. P4.4: Require new development to incorporate adequate emergency water flow, emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes. P4.5: Continue to support the mitigation fee program for the Fire Protection District, to ensure that the District is able to meet the future fire protection needs of the community as it grows. P5.1: Continue to coordinate with the Nevada County Environmental Health Department in the review of all projects which require the use, storage or transport of hazardous waste to ensure necessary measures are taken to protect public health and safety. P5.2: Continue to cooperate with Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal to facilitate opportunities for safe disposal of household hazardous waste. P5.3: Support efforts to identify and remediate soils and groundwater contaminated with toxic materials, and to identify and eliminate sources contributing to such contamination. P6.1: Maintain land use and development patterns in the vicinity of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport that are consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, including setbacks and height requirements. P7.1: Work with Caltrans to coordinate establishment of appropriate emergency access routes through the Town when closure of Interstate 80 is necessitated by weather related or other emergencies. Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan g Y P The Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan (TEOP) was prepared in February 2008 and serves as an extension of the California Emergency Plan. The TEOP addresses the Town's responsibilities in emergencies associated with natural disasters, including wildfires. It provides a framework for coordination of response and recovery efforts within the Town in coordination and with local, State, and federal agencies. The TEOP establishes the emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies, and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements utilizing the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The plan also meets requirements established by the National Incident Management System (NIMS). 3.6-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services The Town established the Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services on April 20, 2009 to identify the applicability of Truckee Fire Protection District requirements on Town- approved projects and the public official responsible for verifying compliance with the condition. The Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services policy states that the review authority must make a finding of such before the review authority may approve a zoning clearance, development permit, or use permit to ensure adequate provisions for emergency vehicle access and fire protection. The finding focuses on the installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements on or adjacent to the property and the payment of development fees for the construction of facilities and purchase of equipment to address cumulative impacts on fire services. Because the land use permit is approved by the Town, a Town official should be responsible for verifying compliance with this finding in coordination with the Truckee Fire Protection District Fire Marshal. The following condition of approval shall be applied to the approval of all zoning clearances, development permits, and use permits: "As determined by the Community Development Director in coordination with the District Fire Marshal, the project shall comply with all applicable Truckee Fire Protection District ordinances and requirements related to the construction or installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements and the payment of mitigation fees for the construction of facilities and the purchase of equipment. These ordinances and requirements may include, but not be limited to, installation of fire hydrants, minimum fire flow, automatic sprinkler systems for buildings, driveway and turnaround specifications, and fuel clearance. The physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements shall be installed at the time of development and completed prior to occupancy of buildings and the land, and the mitigation fees shall be paid in accordance with adopted Council rules for administration of the mitigation fee program." Nevada County Fire Plan The Nevada County Fire Plan (NCFP) was prepared to reduce the risk from wildland fires to life, property, and natural resources in Nevada County and comply with the Disaster Management Act of 2000 and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. This NCFP was accepted by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in 2005. The NCFP includes an extensive series of recommendations for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors aimed at reducing wildland fire risk in Nevada County, including fuel management and defensible space enforcement strategies, public education, infrastructure improvements to increase fire-fighting capacity, and coordination with local fire agencies to ensure consistent and effective wildland fire mitigation efforts. Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The basic function of the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is to promote compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses. As adopted by the Foothill Airport Land Use Commission, the Plan serves as a tool for use by the commission in fulfilling its duty to Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-13 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS review airport and adjacent land use development proposals. Additionally, the Plan sets compatibility criteria applicable to local agencies in their preparation or amendment of land use plans and ordinances and to land owners in their design of new development. 3.6.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CECtA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact from hazards and hazardous materials if it will: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS Construction activities would likely require the use of petroleum based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. The use of these materials will pose a reasonable risk of release into the environment if not properly handled, 3.6-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 stored, and transported.These are potentially significant impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS The operational phase of the project will occur after construction is completed and residents, business operators/employees,and guests move in to occupy the structures and facilities on a day- to-day basis. The proposed project includes a residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Each of these facilities will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in residential areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. If handled appropriately, these materials do not pose a significant risk. The commercial and industrial uses may store and use commercial/industrial grade chemicals or other hazardous materials at larger quantities than found in residential areas. There will be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by Nevada County Department of Environmental Health . Implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this issue. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: 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 !D# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law). Impact 3.6-2: The proposed project has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (Less than Significant) The Truckee area has a total of six schools: Tahoe Truckee High School, Sierra Mountain Middle School, Glenshire Elementary, Truckee Elementary, Sierra High School, and Prosser Creek Charter School. None of these schools are within one-quarter mile of the project site. Implementation of Draft Environmental Impact Report-loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-15 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue. 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Phase I ESA and Peer Review included a site reconnaissance, interviews, historical land use research, and database research. The scope of the Phase I ESA was directed at determining whether there may be hazardous materials on, or near, the project site. It was determined that the project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; however, the following were found on the project site through the efforts of the Phase I ESA and Peer Review: • One building, private well, and pump house were observed on APN 19-620-02, which is located at the southwest corner of the project site at the intersection of Brockway Road and Martis Drive. • One unmarked 55-gallon drum was located east side of the well and pump house. • Three, 5-gallon containers were located against the south wall of the pump house. One container was open, and its contents were hardened. The two remaining containers were sealed; however, no labels or markings were visible on any of the containers. o No stained soils were visible under or near the containers. • Distressed and dying vegetation was visible around the perimeter of the pump house; however, it was not determined to be due to debris found in the vicinity. • One pole mounted transformer was observed transecting the southwest corner of APN 19- 620-02.There were no leaks observed. • During the site reconnaissance, the above ground storage tank (AST) was observed at the Truckee Tahoe Airport. There were no observable leaks or stains in the vicinity of the AST. There was no containment or swells in place in the event of a spillage or leaks; however, based on the distance from the project site, the identified AST does not pose a significant risk. • One, 5-gallon open container.The contents were hardened and appeared to be black/grey in color. • Three, 5-gallon containers against the south wall of the pump house. Scrap metal and other debris was also observed. • Approximately 21 55-gallon drum lids in piles east of the pump house. 3.6-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-]verger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 • Scrap wood, tire and snow blower. • Large scrap wood pile with metal and some unidentified car parts. • Rear of Tech Service Center. 2 computer monitors, 8 computer terminals, cardboard boxes, and additional debris. • Snow Blower located east of the pump house. • One, 55-gallon drum located against the west facing wall of the pump house. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: 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 3.6-2: 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: 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. impact 3.6-4: The proposed project has the potential for the project to result in a safety hazards for people residing or working on the project site as a result of public airport or public use airport (Less than Significant) The Truckee Tahoe Airport is located 0.6 miles east of the project site. The project site is located within the airport's sphere of influence. The Truckee-Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Map designates the project site as land use zones 131, B2 and D, as shown in Figure 3.6-1. Table 3.6-1 presents the applicable airport compatibility zones. Draft Environmental Impact Report- joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-17 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE 3.6-1:AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY ZONES ZONE NOISE AND OVERFLIGHT FACTORS SAFETY AND AIRSPACE PROTECTION FACTORS Risk Level:High • Encompasses areas overflown Noise Impact:High by aircraft at low altitudes— • Encompasses peak season 60- typically only 200 to 400 feet CNEL contour above the runway elevation. BI(Inner Approach/Departure • Single-event noise sufficient • Some 10%to 20%of off- Zone) to disrupt wide range of land runway general aviation use activities including accidents near airports take indoors if windows open place here • Object heights restricted to as little as 50 feet B2(Adjacent to Runway) Noise Impact:Moderate to High Risk Level:Low to Moderate • Partly within peak season 60- • Area not normally overflown CNEL contour by aircraft;primary risk is with • Exposed to loud single-event aircraft (especially twins) noise from takeoffs and jet losing directional control on thrust-reverse on landing; takeoff also from pre-flight run-ups • About 3% of off-runway general aviation accidents near airports happen in this zone • Object heights restricted to as little as 35 feet D(Primary Traffic Patterns) Noise Impact:Moderate Risk Level:Low • Noise more of a concern with • About 20% to 30% of general respect to individual loud aviation accidents take place in events than with cumulative this zone, but the large area noise contours en-compassed means a low • Portions of the peak season, likelihood of accident average day 55-CNEL contour occurrence in any given extend into this zone location • Residential density criteria • Risk concern is primarily with for this zone provide two uses for which potential options on the basis that consequences are severe (e.g. noise concerns can be very-high-intensity activities in minimized either by limiting a confined area) the number of dwelling units • Object height limits generally in affected areas or by 100 feet above runway allowing high-density elevation development which tends to have comparatively high ambient noise levels SOURCE:TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN(OCTOBER 2010) The residential portion of the project is located exclusively within land use zone D, which is considered a low risk. It is estimated that 20 to 30 percent of general aviation accidents take place in this zone, but the large area encompassed means a low likelihood of accident occurrence in any given location. The risk concern is primarily with uses for which potential consequences are severe (e.g. very-high-intensity activities in a confined area). Object height limits are generally 100 feet above runway elevation. The residential density criteria for this zone provide two options, one of which is residential densities of over five units to the acre (high density option). The density at 3.6-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report—)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6 which the residential portion is proposed is consistent with the high density option outlined in the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (October 2010)for residential uses in Zone D. The non-residential portion of the project is located in land use zones B1, B2, and D, which allows 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. While there is inherent risk with any structures built in proximity to an airport, the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (October 2010) serves as a planning tool to appropriate site land uses and structures to minimize the risk to the extent possible.There will be a risk of accident associated with the airport operations for the life of the project; however, provided that the proposed project is consistent with the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (October 2010) the impact is considered less than significant with regards to this environmental issue. Impact 3.6-5: The proposed project has the potential for the project to result in safety hazards for people residing or working on the project site as a result of a private airstrip (Less than Significant) There are no documented private airstrips within close proximity to the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue. Impact 3.6-6: The proposed project has the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Less than Significant) The Town of Truckee has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that serves as the official Emergency Plan for the Town of Truckee. It includes planned operational functions and overall responsibilities of Town Departments during an emergency situation. The Emergency Plan also contains a threat summary for the Town, which addresses the potential for natural, technological and human-caused disasters. In Nevada County, including the Town of Truckee, all major roads are available for evacuation, depending on the location and type of emergency that arises. The proposed project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with the Town of Truckee EOP or the evacuation routes established by Nevada County. The proposed project would add additional trips onto roadways in Nevada County; however, the level of service analysis indicates that all roadways and intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service.Additionally,construction activities are not expected to result in any significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.6-19 3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 3.6-7: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death from wildland fires (Less than Significant) The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The Truckee area has an abundance of fuels, including flashy fuels (i.e., grassland and sagebrush) that when combined with warm and dry summers with high temperatures create a situation that results in higher risk of wildland fires. Most wildland fires are human caused, so areas with easy human access to land with the appropriate fire parameters generally result in an increased risk of fire. Calfire published a map for Truckee entitled Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAs Recommended by CAL FIRE in November 24, 2008. This map illustrates much of the town of Truckee as a VHFHSZ; however,the proposed site is labeled as non-VHFHSZ. The proposed project is subject to the Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services which states that the review authority must make a finding of such before the review authority may approve a zoning clearance, development permit, or use permit to ensure adequate provisions for emergency vehicle access and fire protection.The finding focuses on the installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements on or adjacent to the property and the payment of development fees for the construction of facilities and purchase of equipment to address cumulative impacts on fire services. Ultimately, a Town official is responsible for verifying compliance with this finding in coordination with the Truckee Fire Protection District Fire Marshal. The standard condition requires appropriate installation of hydrants with minimum fire flow requirements, access and turnaround requirements, automatic sprinkler systems, and fuel clearance requirements. Implementation of these requirements, which is a standard condition of approval,will ensure that the potential impact for wildland fire is reduced to a less than significant level. The following condition of approval shall be applied to the proposed project "As determined by the Community Development Director in coordination with the District Fire Marshal, the project shall comply with all applicable Truckee Fire Protection District ordinances and requirements related to the construction or installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements and the payment of mitigation fees for the construction of facilities and the purchase of equipment. These ordinances and requirements may include, but not be limited to, installation of fire hydrants, minimum fire flow, automatic sprinkler systems for buildings, driveway and turnaround specifications, and fuel clearance. The physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements shall be installed at the time of development and completed prior to occupancy of buildings and the land, and the mitigation fees shall be paid in accordance with adopted Council rules for administration of the mitigation fee program." 3.6-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) al • 1 ` /,.: JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) irli,ire, •.. .•, .,.r. ........0.91.1. ,;: I resg, :,:...._ ,. • .r I 1pppG .■ ,:r? rviiiimi, t 1 Imo► /�� 79�9Q14w1►► s5 , „ iPoi�i Ok ,,J;,, lik ` .. 1,1,-,...1,1„; •. ,r.A . f Figure 3.6-1 -Airport Safety Map F 7.1:. „„.....,.. • y FiryiElir ” ib Nip :-!....... ...,... "��Illl...i. Nko CompatabilityZones 'tu- -Anport Influence Area Boundary dik'-4 :-. AI.n1 �lr- ', r .`AINII6. ''_ �'� AM'Ili• :2. 'Y- '!Ts• �7/.1..,. I Zone Zone Ell �i�r .,,:rpet'I /� Zenee2 ei �. Zone,� ;,iAIRzone 1 J Zone �� • . r • tip •A v Height Rewew Overlay Zone IV lel .. •- 60 r': .H 1 » *a AYAY.S' l mas of FAR Pan n sertaces lip 11,11141106 .. AO • • f y� Boundary Lines ,_ ,,l %,* � ty► .A .A..Y. •'I ... .--'41166.. ` `- hi A • Airport Progeny line / ' •Z/f iI Nevada/Placer County Line MI6. .� •/�r , •'e ,-�� ` +� �4' • /�/; :.•::.'::.:•:.•..... Federal Lads(USFS B ACE) .. . .., g• Trurhee.town Limits ��/� •� '�7r� B • ,� •!.. , I, • `i� .i................ Truckee Sphere a Influence AlPP• r ...Ad,- •:::/:...-.. • ' ' iii...1"!tilt , let O• rr , '._ .J ' . �m1/4lii:a..�t►►��-.w;�0• , 1► ,a 1,.� ,111, y. til^'-_�A',..'>- 1 D .• -`�A`�• tf4 1, , I� •�;:,•:r A 4 ........ A 'ilir •-•"\ • - kli ''; I34 I'llill .!.e.:.:.1.- ti.‘ `i��. .`wt • !r f ` F..1 moa Boa IP''llih L.. : ...---"" ... .....1 "::::::::.:::::::::::::.:::::::.::::.:.::::::.:::::.:::::::::::.: • � :';; :'' ..,I drallidgilir ': boa mom FowrN Ertl On Omm.Mul r�Test ,� .j. wC0404t..tF (Pomba, t w MF 75 rl...�ett .r .,t. ,■ . ▪ t r MIME HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3/ This section describes the surface water and groundwater features for the project site and relevant surrounding areas and addresses potential issues associated with storm drainage and flooding, storm water quality, and exposure of structures to flood hazards. This section includes a regulatory setting, impacts that are likely to result from project implementation, and measures to reduce potential impacts to water quality. Information provided in this section has been based on interpretations of regulations, available data, available reports and other information, information obtained from Town of Truckee staff and other governmental agencies, and field reconnaissance performed by Storm Water Consulting, Inc. This includes the following: Preliminary Geotechnical Report Joerger Ranch PC-3 (Blackburn Consulting, 2003), Geotechnical Peer Review (Geocon Consultants 2006), various Town of Truckee documents (i.e. Municipal Code, 2025 General Plan Update, Storm Water Management Program, Storm Water Quality Ordinance, Erosion Prevention Standards and Public Improvement and Engineering Standards), comment letters from the Lahontan RWQCB pertaining to the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan, Truckee River Chronology by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Planning, Truckee River Watershed Map (USGS), NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 (precipitation-depth-frequency information), National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils information, FEMA FIRM panels and FIS report covering the project site, applicable State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality orders and listings, State Division of Safety of Dams and Emergency Management Agency listing of dams falling within state jurisdiction and applicable dam failure inundation mapping, State of California Water Code, Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) climate data, field reconnaissance, USGS quad maps, and aerial photographs. A discussion of water supplies and the provision of water service to residents and businesses is provided in Section 3.12 Utilities and Services Systems. 3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING REGIONAL HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE The project site resides within the watershed of the Truckee River on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. A nearby segment of the Truckee River flows eastward along an alignment that is roughly % mile to the north of the project site. The Truckee River is the sole outlet of Lake Tahoe and flows generally northeast to Truckee, then turns sharply to the east and flows down the mountain slope into Nevada, through Reno and Sparks, and along the northern end of the Virginia Range. At Fernley it turns north, flowing along the east side of the Pah Rah Range and ultimately emptying into the southern end of Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River is approximately 105 miles in length as it extends downstream between its origin (outlet) at Lake Tahoe and its terminal discharge into Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River Watershed is a closed system, having Pyramid Lake as it point of terminal discharge, and it does not have a natural outlet. The overall watershed area for the Truckee River at its outfall at Pyramid Lake is about 3,115 square miles (see Figure 3.7-1). Roughly 25% of the overall watershed resides in California and includes the higher elevations within the watershed. The middle and lower elevations of the watershed reside in Nevada and represent about 75% of the overall watershed area. The U.S. Draft Environmental Impact Report- loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-1 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Geological Survey has subdivided the Truckee River Watershed into three (3) primary sub-basins (or regions with separate Hydrologic Unit Codes) as shown on Figure 3.7-1. These primary sub- basins are referred to as the Lake Tahoe sub-basin, the Middle Truckee River sub-basin, and the Pyramid-Winnemucca Lake sub-basin. Major tributaries to the Truckee River include the Little Truckee River, Martis Creek, Donner Creek and Prosser Creek in California and Hunter Creek, Steamboat Creek and the North Truckee Drain in Nevada. Watershed elevations range from about 9,000 feet at mountain peaks, to about 5,700 feet in the Truckee River valley north of the project site, to about 4,500 feet at Reno and about 3,800 feet at Pyramid Lake. LOCAL HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE Climate and Precipitation Precipitation in the Truckee area occurs as rainfall in the summer months and as a combination of rainfall and snowfall in the winter months. The majority of rainfall and snowfall occurs in the winter months. Due to the area's relatively high elevations and its orientation along the east slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, temperatures range from cool and moderate in the summer to repetitively below freezing in the winter. For the area surrounding the project site, the following generalizations can be made based on records taken from the Truckee Ranger Station gauging site (#049043, with composite data from 1904 to 2009): • Average maximum temperature is approximately 82.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (July); • Average minimum temperature is approximately 14.6 degrees F (January); • Average annual precipitation is approximately 30 inches; • Average annual depth of snowfall is approximately 202 inches. The 100-year 24-hour return period depth of precipitation is approximately 6.6 inches, per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Atlas 14,Volume 6, Version 2 (2011). EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE The project site is located upland to the south of the Truckee River. It is about%: mile in distance to the south of the Truckee River and about 150 feet or more higher in elevation than the Truckee River. Figure 3.7-2 is a portion of a U.S.G.S Quad map that depicts drainage features and general topography in the vicinity of the project site. The site itself is located within a local drainage area of about 2 square miles that includes meadows and ephemeral channels. The meadow areas are dispersed across a broad area along Brockway Road, Highway 267 and the Truckee-Tahoe Airport. In many cases the meadow areas are isolated with no surface connection to the Truckee River. The project site is located on the northern half of the local drainage area on relatively flat terrain with grasslands, meadows, and woodlands. Surface runoff is conveyed primarily as sheet flow through the project site in a northerly direction toward downslope areas or to low lying onsite areas. The site includes two 3.7-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 ephemeral drainage courses that are fed from the south by culverts passing underneath Brockway Road and State Route 267. Figure 3.7-3 depicts the location and sizes of existing drain pipes crossing roadways and highways within and adjacent to the project site and general directions of drainage flow. FLOODING According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 533 and 534 published by FEMA for Nevada County, California and Incorporated Areas dated February 3, 2010, the project site is entirely located in non-regulatory flood Zone X(unshaded).This flood zone is defined by FEMA as follows: • Zone X—Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 0.2- percent annual chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile,and areas protected from the 1-percent annual chance flood by levees. No base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone. The project site is entirely located within an "unshaded" Zone X. As such, the designation would correspond to areas outside the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain. Hence, the project site is not located in any 100-year floodplain or any 500-year floodplain. Figure 3.7-4 depicts the regulatory flood and flood zone information represented on the effective FIRMs within and adjacent to the project site. DAMS There are two (2) dams that discharge to the Truckee River upstream of the project site. These dams are Lake Tahoe Dam and Donner Lake Dam. The Truckee River flows eastward along an alignment that is about'A mile to the north of the project site and is about 150 feet lower than the lowest site elevations. Given that these dams do not have a significant height or width at their outlets and given the magnitude of the elevation difference between the project site and the Truckee River, neither dam would pose a flood risk to the project site in the event of a dam failure. Lake Tahoe Dam regulates the water surface elevation of Lake Tahoe and discharges to the Truckee River at Tahoe City about 15 miles upstream of the project site. It is owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Donner Lake Dam is located approximately 4 'A miles upstream to the west of the project site on Donner Creek, and Donner Creek discharges to the Truckee River about 2 'A miles upstream to the west of the project site. Donner Lake Dam is owned and operated by the Truckee Meadows Water Authority. Both dams fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Table 3.7-1 lists pertinent official information from DSOD regarding these dams. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-3 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY TABLE 3.7-1:DAMS DISCHARGING TO THE TRUCKEE RIVER UPSTREAM OF THE PC-3 SPECIFIC PLAN RESERVOIR LENGTH HEIGHT NAME OF STREAM OWNER CAPACITY AREA TYPE OF (FEET) (FEET) DAM ACRE-FEET (ACRES) STRUCTURE Lake Truckee U.S.Bureau of 732,000 20,000 Gravity 109 14 Tahoe River Reclamation Donner Donner Truckee Meadows Slab and Lake Creek Water Authority 10,300 960 Buttress 45 16 SOURCE:DSOD,2011 There are no darns upstream of the project site that discharge to the project site. GROUNDWATER AND SOILS According to a Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared for the site (Blackburn Consulting, Inc., 2003), groundwater level data made available by the California Department of Water Resources indicates that groundwater is recorded at depths ranging from 70 to 180 feet for the project area. The report indicates that limited amounts of perched groundwater may be encountered at shallower depths, particularly during or shortly following the winter/spring season. Surface soils consist of sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, gravelly loam, gravelly sandy clay loam and gravelly clay loam.The surface soils are expected to be well drained. According to soils information published by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for the Tahoe National Forest Area, the entire project site consists of soils falling within the category of Hydrologic Soil Group B.The NRCS defines Hydrologic Soil Group B as follows: • Group B: Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. WATER QUALITY The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has included the Truckee River (Calwater Watershed No. 63510010) downstream of the project site in the 2006 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments requiring total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). This most current listing was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on June 28, 2007. A TMDL is a quantifiable assessment of potential water quality issues, contributing sources,and load reductions or control actions needed to restore or protect bodies of water.Table 3.7-2 provides pertinent information included in the Section 303(d) listing for the Truckee River. 3.7-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 TABLE 3.7-2:CWA LISTED SECTION 303(0)WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS DOWNSTREAM OF PROJECT SITE BODYWATER L POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES COMPLETIONT Range Grazing-Riparian and/or Upland, Silviculture, Construction/Land Development, Highway/Road/Bridge Truckee Sedimentation, Construction, Streambank Modification/Destabilization, 2006 River Siltation Channel Erosion, Erosion/Siltation, Natural Sources, Recreational and Tourism Activities (non-boating), Snow skiing activities,Nonpoint Source SOURCE:SWRCB,2007 AND 2008 In May 2008, the Lahontan RWQCB published an amendment to their Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region - North and South Basins (or Basin Plan) that establishes TMDLs for the Middle Truckee River watershed (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008). The project site is a part of the Middle Truckee River watershed and is governed by this amendment to the Basin Plan.The amendment to the Basin Plan establishes the following TMDL for the Truckee River measured at Farad, several miles downstream of the project site: Suspended sediment concentrations shall be reduced to a target value for the annual 90`h percentile that is less than or equal to 25 milligrams per liter within 20 years. 3.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL111 Clean Water Act (CWA) The Clean Water Act (CWA), initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal, industrial, and construction storm water discharges under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Section 402(p) requires that stormwater associated with industrial activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit.The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for implementing the CWA and issues NPDES permits to dischargers. The project site is located within a portion of the state that is regulated by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB). Federal Emergency Management Agency The Town of Truckee is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted, as a desired level of protection, an expectation that development should be protected from floodwater damage produced by the Intermediate Regional Flood, defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year. The Town has adopted a floodplain management ordinance as a part of their Municipal Code that exceeds the minimum requirements established Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-5 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER $UALITY by FEMA. The Town is occasionally audited by the California Department of Water Resources to ensure that proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations is occurring. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.) The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Act's implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti- degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act's goal of "fishable and swimmable" navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment facilities, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. To expedite the permit issuance process, the RWQCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB issues general permits for stormwater runoff from construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Lahontan Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and the Lahontan RWQCB. State Water Resources Control Board General Permits The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the CWA and issues NPDES permits to dischargers for storm water discharges from construction, municipal, and industrial activities. The project site is located within a portion of the state that is regulated by the Lahontan RWQCB. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES The SWRCB has adopted an NPDES General Permit for construction activities, known as the Construction General Permit (CGP). On July 1, 2010, a new CGP (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) became effective, superseding a former CGP (Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ). The CGP requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect storm 3.7-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report -Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 water runoff and the placement locations for the BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a Construction Site Monitoring Program (CSMP) to demonstrate that the site is in compliance with the CGP. Depending on the construction site risk level, the CSMP includes varying levels of visual monitoring and water quality sampling and analysis. A summary of the differences between the former CGP and the new CGP follows(SWRCB, 2009): • Rainfall Erosivity Waiver: The current CGP includes the option allowing a small construction site (>1 and <5 acres)to self-certify if the rainfall erosivity value (R value) for their site's given location and time frame compute to be less than or equal to 5. • Technology-Based Numeric Action Levels: The current CGP includes NALs [numeric action levels] for pH and turbidity. • Technology-Based Numeric Effluent Limitations: The current CGP contains daily average NELs [numeric effluent limitations] for pH during any construction phase where there is a high risk of pH discharge and daily average NELs turbidity for all discharges in Risk Level 3. The daily average NEL for turbidity is set at 500 NTU [turbidity] to represent the minimum technology that sites need to employ (to meet the traditional Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standard)and the traditional, numeric receiving water limitations for turbidity. • Risk-Based Permitting Approach: The current CGP establishes three levels of risk possible for a construction site. Risk is calculated in two parts: (1) Project Sediment Risk, and (2) Receiving Water Risk. • Minimum Requirements Specified: The current CGP imposes more minimum BMPs and requirements than were previously only required as elements of the SWPPP or were suggested by guidance. • Project Site Soil Characteristics Monitoring and Reporting: The current CGP provides the option for dischargers to monitor and report the soil characteristics at their project location. The primary purpose of this requirement is to provide better risk determination and eventually better program evaluation. • Effluent Monitoring and Reporting: The current CGP requires effluent monitoring and reporting for pH and turbidity in storm water discharges. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine compliance with the NELs and evaluate whether NALs included in the current CGP are exceeded. • Receiving Water Monitoring and Reporting: The current CGP requires some Risk Level 3 dischargers to monitor receiving waters and conduct bio-assessments. • Rain Event Action Plan:The current CGP requires certain sites to develop and implement a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP)that must be designed to protect all exposed portions of the site within 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event. Draft Environmental Impact Report-]oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-7 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY • Annual Reporting: The current CGP requires all projects that are enrolled for more than one continuous three-month period to submit information and annually certify that their site is in compliance with these requirements. The primary purpose of this requirement is to provide information needed for overall program evaluation and pubic information. • Certification/Training Requirements for Key Project Personnel: The current CGP requires that key personnel (e.g., SWPPP preparers, inspectors, etc.) have specific training or certifications to ensure their level of knowledge and skills are adequate to ensure their ability to design and evaluate project specifications that will comply with General Permit requirements. • Linear Underground/Overhead Projects: The current CGP includes requirements for all Linear Underground/Overhead Projects (LUPs). The Lahontan RWQCB has also established project guidelines for erosion control that include specific BMPs that are required to be incorporated into construction projects and has established waste discharge prohibitions and exception criteria for projects within the Truckee River Hydrologic Unit. MUNICIPAL ACTIVITIES 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 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. 3.7-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES The SWRCB has also issued a statewide General Permit (Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ) for regulating storm water discharges associated with industrial activities. This General Permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). It also requires the development of a SWPPP, a monitoring plan,and the filing of an annual report. The SWRCB has recently issued a draft Water Quality Order to replace the current General Permit for industrial facilities. The draft Order contains several significant changes from the current General Permit, including additional certification, sampling, and inspection requirements. The draft Order is targeted for adoption in the near future. Total Maximum Daily Loads Under CWA Section 303(d) and California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (discussed in a later subsection), the State of California is required to establish beneficial uses of state waters and to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to create a list of waters that are not attaining water quality standards after implementation of technology-based limits. For waters on this list, the states must develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) that account for all sources of the pollutants that placed the water on the list.These include "nonpoint" sources, which are sources of pollutants not connected to a specific discharger. TMDLs are established at the level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards. The establishment of TMDLs is generally a stakeholder-driven process that involves investigation of sources and their loading (pollution input), estimation of load allocations, and identification an implementation plan and schedule. Where stakeholder processes are not effective,TMDLs can be established by the RWQCBs or the USEPA. The project site is included in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region- North and South Basins (Basin Plan) adopted by the Lahontan RWQCB which addresses surface and groundwater quality issues. In California, the SWRCB has interpreted state law to require that implementation be addressed when TMDLs become part of a region's Basin Plan. In May 2008,the Lahontan RWQCB published an amendment to their Basin Plan that establishes TMDLs for the Middle Truckee River watershed (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008). The project site is a part of the Middle Truckee River watershed and is governed by this amendment to the Basin Plan. Section 404 Permits Section 404 of the CWA is administered through the Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and regulates the water quality of all discharges of fill or dredged material into waters of the United States including wetlands and intermittent stream channels. Section 404, Title 33,Section 1344 of the CWA in part authorizes the USACE to: • Set requirements and standards pertaining to such discharges; Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-9 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY • Issue permits "for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites"; • Specify the disposal sites for such permits; • Deny or restrict the use of specified disposal sites if "the discharge of such materials into such area would have an unacceptable, adverse effect on municipal water supplies and P p pP fishery areas"; • Specify type of and conditions for non-prohibited discharges; • Provide for individual state or interstate compact administration of general permit programs; • Withdraw approval of such state or interstate permit programs; • Ensure public availability of permits and permit applications; • Exempt certain federal or state projects from regulation under this section; and • Determine conditions and penalties for violation of permit conditions or limitations. In general, a USACE permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of the United States. The type of permit depends on the acreage involved and the purpose of the proposed fill. Minor amounts of fill can be covered by a Nationwide Permit. An Individual Permit is required for projects that result in more than a "minimal" impact on jurisdictional areas. California Water Quality Certification Process Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal CWA, projects that are regulated by the USACE must obtain water quality certification from the applicable RWQCB.This certification ensures that a project will meet State water quality standards.The RWQCB also has independent authority over discharges to waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, known as waste discharge requirements (WDRs). The Lahontan RWQCB has a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands and typically requires the identification of mitigation for all impacts to wetlands before it will issue water quality certification. When reviewing applications for 401 certifications or WDRs, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the "beneficial uses" associated with waters of the State. Generally, the Lahontan RWQCB defines beneficial uses to include all of the resources, services, and qualities of aquatic ecosystems and underground aquifers that benefit the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of water quality control measures into projects that will result in discharge into waters of the State. For most projects, Lahontan RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction Best Management Practices(SMPs). 3.7-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 STATE California Water Code (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act) In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of the State's water resources. The act established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) as the principal state agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California. Under the act, water quality policy is established, water quality standards are enforced for both surface water and groundwater, and the discharges of pollutants from point and non- point sources are regulated. The act authorizes the SWRCB to establish water quality principles and guidelines for long-range resource planning including groundwater and surface water management programs and control and use of recycled water. Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region the regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas,or types of waste. The Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260 is as follows: (a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge,containing the information that may be required by the regional board: (1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system. (2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region. (3)A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269. (c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge. Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-11 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region - North and South Basins (Basin Plan) Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires each RWQCB to formulate and adopt water quality control plans, or basin plans, for all areas within their region. The Porter- Cologne Act also requires each RWQCB to establish water quality objectives within the basin plans. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 131 requires each state to adopt water quality standards by designating water uses to be protected and adopting water quality criteria that protect the designated uses. In the State of California, the beneficial uses and water quality objectives are the state's water quality standards. The project site is located within and is regulated by the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region - North and South Basins (Basin Plan). Much of the project site ultimately drains to the Truckee River via sheet flow or unnamed ephemeral streams, and the Basin Plan lists specific water quality objectives for this i segment of the Truckee River. In addition, Chapter 4 of the Basin Plan prohibits the discharge or threatened discharge, attributable to human activities,of solid or liquid waste materials including soil, silt, clay, sand,and 1 other organic and earthen materials to lands within the 100-year floodplain of the Truckee River or of any tributary to the Truckee River. However, exemptions may be granted by the Lahontan RWQCB that fall within the following categories of new projects: (1) projects solely intended to reduce or mitigate existing sources of erosion or water pollution,or to restore the functional value to previously disturbed floodplain areas; (2) bridge abutments, approaches, or other essential transportation facilities identified in an approved general plan; (3) projects necessary to protect public health or safety or to provide essential public services; (4) projects necessary for public recreation; (5) projects providing outdoor public recreation within portions of the 100-year floodplain that have been substantially altered by grading and/or filing activities which occurred prior to June 26, 1975. California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code governs the issuance of Streambed Alteration Agreements by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by CDFW. 3.7-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report- )oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 LOCAL Town of Truckee Municipal Code The Town of Truckee Municipal Code includes several chapters that address conditions and requirements associated with storm drainage. Chapter 18.34 (Flood Plain Management) addresses development and permitting requirements and restrictions associated with building within the regulatory floodplain (including minimum requirements established by FEMA). Chapter 1830, Section 050 (Drainage and Storm Water Runoff) addresses requirements related to drainage and erosion control, runoff treatment,and maintenance. Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Standards (May 2003) Section 5 of these standards describes accepted methodologies for runoff calculations, design criteria and standards for drainage facilities and structures, and requirements for the preparation and submittal of drainage reports. Section 8 of these standards describes requirements for erosion and sediment control, including the requirements for the preparation of erosion and sediment control plans. Town of Truckee Erosion Prevention Standards (April 2007) The Town of Truckee requires that an erosion prevention plan be included as part of the submitted construction plan documents. The plan must show temporary and permanent BMPs or erosion prevention methods, infiltration or detention methods, and timelines within which erosion prevention measures will be made. Additional storm water runoff created by new construction is required to be detained/retained on site. Town of Truckee Storm Water Quality Ordinance (January 2009) The Town of Truckee has adopted a Storm Water Quality Ordinance (Article 11.01 of their Municipal Code) to enhance and protect the quality of waters in the Town by reducing pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable, control storm water discharges to the storm drain system, and cause the use of best management practices by the Town and its citizens that will reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges to waters of the State. The ordinance seeks to promote these purposes by: • Prohibiting illicit discharges to the storm drain system; • Establishing authority to adopt requirements for storm water management, including source control requirements to reduce pollution to the maximum extent practicable; • Establishing authority to adopt requirements for municipal operations to reduce storm water pollution and erosion to the maximum extent practicable; I Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-13 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY • Establishing authority to adopt requirements for public and private development projects to reduce storm water pollution and erosion both during construction and after the project is complete; and • Establishing authority that will enable the Town to implement and enforce their adopted Storm Water Management Program (SWMP). 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. 2025 Truckee General Plan CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Goal COS-11: Protect water quality and quantity in creeks, natural ,drains esand groundwater g basins. P11.1: Minimize excessive paving that negatively impacts surface water runoff and groundwater recharge rates. P11.2: Protect surface and groundwater resources from contamination from runoff containing pollutants and sediment, through implementation of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Lahontan Region's Best Management Practices. P11.3: Cooperate with State and local agencies in efforts to identify and eliminate all sources of existing and potential point and non-point sources of pollution to ground and surface waters, including leaking fuel tanks, discharges from storm drains, auto dismantling, 3.7-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 dump sites, sanitary waste systems, parking lots, roadways, and logging and mining operations. P11.5: Require new development projects that have the potential to impact local water quality through increased storm water runoff or erosion to include an analysis of water quality impacts as a component of project review, and to integrate mitigation measures that would reduce identified impacts to an acceptable level. P11.6: Utilize Low Impact Development and Best Management Practices established in the Lahontan RWQCB's Truckee River Hydrologic Unit Project Guidelines for Erosion Control, and the State of California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbooks, and other resources such as the Practice of Low Impact Development (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) and Water Quality Model Code and Guidebook (State of Oregon, Department of Land Conservation and Development) as guidelines for water quality and erosion control measures required by the Town. P11.9: Recognize the importance of storm water management in protecting all water resources in Truckee, for example,flood control, surface and ground water quality, and river,stream and lake health. P12.2: Require projects that require earthwork and grading, including cuts and fills for roads, to incorporate measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Typical measures include project design that conforms to natural contours and site topography, maximizing retention of natural vegetation, and implementing erosion control Best Management Practices. P13.2: Existing non-paved roads within new development and subdivisions, and existing off- site non-paved roads that serve new development and subdivisions shall be paved to the extent necessary to offset emissions generated by the development and subdivision traffic to the degree feasible. New non-paved roads shall not be allowed for new development and subdivisions except for single family residences,secondary residential units and duplexes on existing lots. New paving shall take into consideration the policies under Goal COS-11 concerning minimization of impacts to water quality and groundwater recharge that may result from increases in paved areas. 3.7.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with hydrology and water quality if it will: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop Draft Environmental Impact Report- )oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-15 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation,run-off or flooding on-or off-site; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site; • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; • Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; • Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows; • Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or • Result in inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.7-1: The proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts: Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The greatest potential impact to water quality may exist during construction when earthmoving and vegetation removal occurs.The project site would be subject to new construction and grading, including work associated with new buildings, roadways, parking areas, landscape areas and utility placement. The presence of heavy equipment on the site presents the opportunity for spills of oil and fuel. Other materials such as paint and solvents used during construction could also accidentally be discharged to downslope areas. All of these construction activities could lead to temporary impacts on surface water quality to downslope areas and on-site isolated waters due to the increase in sediments,the release of other pollutants, and/or increased soil erosion. The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and has issued a statewide General Permit (Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ) for construction activities within the state. The State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (CGP) is implemented and enforced by the Lahontan RWQCB in this region. The CGP applies to construction activities that disturb one 3.7-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 acre or more and requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that identifies BMPs to minimize pollutants from discharging from the construction site to the maximum extent practicable. The BMPs that must be implemented can be categorized into two major categories: (1) erosion and sediment control BMPs and (2) non-stormwater management and materials management BMPs. Erosion controls include practices to stabilize soil, to protect the soil in its existing location, and to prevent soil particles from migrating. Examples of erosion control BMPs are preserving existing vegetation, mulching, and hydroseeding. Sediment controls are practices to collect soil particles after they have migrated but before the sediment leaves the site. Examples of sediment control BMPs are street sweeping, fiber rolls, silt fencing, gravel bags, sand bags, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps,and detention basins. Wind erosion controls prevent soil particles from leaving the site in the air. Examples of wind erosion control BMPs include applying water or other dust suppressants to exposed soils on the site. Tracking controls prevent sediment from being tracked off-site via vehicles leaving the site to the extent practicable. A stabilized construction entrance not only limits the access points to the construction site, but also functions to partially remove sediment from vehicles prior to leaving the site. Non-stormwater management and material management controls reduce non-sediment-related pollutants from potentially leaving the construction site to the extent practicable. The CGP prohibits the discharge of materials other than stormwater and authorized non-stormwater discharges (such as irrigation and pipe flushing and testing). Non-stormwater BMPs tend to be management practices with the purpose of preventing stormwater from coming into contact with potential pollutants. Examples of non-stormwater BMPs include preventing illicit discharges and implementing good practices for vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning and fueling operations, such as using drip pans under vehicles. Waste and materials management BMPs include implementing practices and procedures to prevent pollution from materials used on construction sites. Examples of materials management BMPs include: • Good housekeeping activities such as storing of materials, covered and elevated off the ground, in a central location. • Securely locating portable toilets away from the storm drainage system and performing routine maintenance. • Providing a central location for concrete washout and performing routine maintenance. • Providing several dumpsters and trash cans throughout the construction site for litter/floatable management. • Covering and/or containing stockpiled materials and overall good housekeeping on the site. Prior to construction on any site exceeding one acre in size, a SWPPP must be developed and submitted to the Town of Truckee that identifies the specific BMPs to be implemented and maintained on the site. A Notice of Intent must also be filed with the Lahontan RWQCB. The Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-17 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Lahontan RWQCB has also established project guidelines for erosion control that shall be followed and incorporated into the project SWPPP. Slope and soil disturbance associated with construction activities, including movement of soils on the project site, that could cause accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation or the release of pollutants to downslope areas is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure consistency with the regulatory requirements and ensure that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on construction related water quality. 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 Storm water 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-storm water 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 storm water 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. 3.7-18 Draft Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 Impact 3.7-2: The proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Development of the proposed project would increase local runoff production and would introduce constituents into stormwater that are typically associated with urban runoff. These constituents include sediments, heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper), petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and fertilizers. As identified above, the project site is located within the watershed for the Truckee River, which is a Section 303(d) listed impaired waterway for sediment and siltation. The Lahontan RWQCB has published an amendment to their Basin Plan that establishes TMDLs for the Middle Truckee River watershed (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008). The project site is a part of the Middle Truckee River watershed and is governed by this amendment to the Basin Plan. The amendment to the Basin Plan establishes the following TMDL for the Truckee River measured at Farad, several miles downstream of the project site: Suspended sediment concentrations shall be reduced to a target value for the annual 90`h percentile that is less than or equal to 25 milligrams per liter within 20 years. The Town of Truckee's Public Improvement and Engineering Standards, Erosion Prevention Standards, and Chapter 18.30 (Section 18.30.050 - Drainage and Stormwater Runoff) of the Town's Municipal Code include requirements for preparing plans and implementing procedures that provide for erosion and sediment control and requirements for other stormwater quality mitigation measures. The Lahontan RWQCB has also established project guidelines for erosion control that shall be followed and incorporated into the project SWPPP. As a condition of site development, surface water and drainage will be managed through a combination of natural and constructed features to retain water quality and natural hydrology to the greatest extent feasible. 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 water quality treatment facilities designed to reduce the rate and volume of runoff to pre-project conditions, remove potential pollutants and facilitate infiltration. LID drainage facilities may include water quality inlets, buffer strips, soil amendments, earthen swales, rock-lined swales, bio- swales, rock infiltration basins and slope stabilization. These facilities will be used to capture sand and sediment, provide filtration of pollutants and allow infiltration to underlying soils. All graded disturbance areas shall be restored with soil stabilization and natural vegetation through the use of organic material such as wood chips, mulch, and native plantings for protective ground cover in order to protect surface water quality and decrease stormwater runoff on exposed surfaces. Per the guidelines of the Lahontan RWQCB and as required by the Town of Truckee, onsite retention shall be provided for the 20-year, 1-hour storm runoff volume from impervious areas. This equates to the first 0.7 inches of rainfall that produces runoff from all impervious surfaces. Peak discharge flows will be reduced to rates and quantities at or below existing pre-project Draft Environmental Impact Report- )oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-19 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY conditions by use of onsite detention/retention facilities and LID facilities that attenuate flows and provide infiltration. Snow storage and snow removal are important considerations on-site and within the adjacent public road and highway right-of-way. 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, excess snow will be hauled off-site to a permitted disposal site such as the Eastern Regional Landfill Transfer Station.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. Post construction BMP's will also be implemented in accordance with NPDES Phase II and Town of Truckee MS4 requirements. 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. The possibility that development of the proposed project could introduce sediments and constituent pollutants typically associated with urban development into storm water runoff that would have the potential of degrading storm water quality in downslope areas is a potentially significant. With the implementation of the following mitigation measure and permit approval from RWQCB, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on long-term stormwater quality. 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 3.7-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 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. • h project site,to the design of new detention/retention basins that will serve the p o/ec s te, 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 15.30.105.8. • 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. Impact 3.7-3: The proposed project has the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge (Less than Significant) (Note: The following discussion is associated with potential impacts of the proposed project on groundwater as it relates to stormwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Depletion of Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-21 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY groundwater supplies as it relates to water usage is addressed in Section 3.12 Utilities and Service Systems.) The proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff. According to a Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared for the site (Blackburn Consulting, Inc., 2003), groundwater level data made available by the California Department of Water Resources indicates that groundwater is recorded at depths ranging from 70 to 180 feet for the project area. The report indicates that limited amounts of perched groundwater may be encountered at shallower depths, particularly during or shortly following the winter/spring season. Surface soils consist of sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, gravelly loam, gravelly sandy clay loam and gravelly clay loam.The surface soils are expected to be well drained. According to soils information published by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for the Tahoe National Forest Area, the entire project site consists of soils falling within the category of Hydrologic Soil Group B.The NRCS defines Hydrologic Soil Group B as follows; U . Group B: Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. As is shown, the infiltration rate of the project site is considered moderate by the NRCS and the depth of ground water is 70+ feet. As such, groundwater recharge is less than optimal and the project site is not located in an area that is a significant groundwater recharge area. It should also be noted that stormwater will be managed through a comprehensive system that is consistent with the requirements of the Lahontan RWQCB and as required by the Town of Truckee. This system will include the capture and diversion of stormwater from impervious services to areas that allow stormwater to infiltrate into the soil. For these reasons, the project would not cause the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic. 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(Less than Significant with Mitigation) When land is in a natural or undeveloped condition, soils, mulch, vegetation, and plant roots absorb rainwater. This absorption process is called infiltration or percolation. Much of the 3.7-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 rainwater that falls on natural or undeveloped land slowly infiltrates into the soil and is stored either temporarily or permanently on the surface or in underground layers of soil. When the soil becomes completely saturated with water or the rate of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, the rainwater begins to flow over the surface of the land to low-lying areas, ditches, channels,streams, and rivers. Rainwater that flows off of a site is defined as stormwater runoff. The infiltration and runoff process is altered when a site is developed. Buildings, roads,and parking lots introduce asphalt, concrete, and roofing materials to the landscape. These materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. Grading associated with development also eliminates many of the low-lying areas that may have been providing a degree of surface storage, and underground storm drains, if present, provide for efficient conveyance of runoff to downstream locations of discharge. As impervious surfaces are added to the ground conditions and surface and underground drainage conveyance becomes more efficient and more concentrated, the natural infiltration and storage processes are reduced. As a result, the volume and rate of storm water runoff increases. The effect of these increases in runoff rates and volumes would be more pronounced during storms of lower magnitude and higher frequency.This is due to reductions in initial abstraction (infiltration and surface storage) and time of concentration (travel times) that would be created by development. The increased volumes and flow rates of stormwater runoff may result in downstream flooding if not properly mitigated. New development features associated with the proposed project could increase flow rates and volumes of runoff by introducing streets, buildings, walks, parking areas, and other impervious surfaces and by providing improved facilities for drainage conveyance. The increased storm water rates and volumes as compared to existing conditions have the potential to have a significant impact. 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. LID drainage facilities that serve this function may include water quality inlets, buffer strips, soil amendments, earthen swales, rock-lined swales, bio-swales, rock infiltration basins and slope stabilization. These facilities will be used to capture sand and sediment, provide filtration of pollutants and allow infiltration to underlying soils. All graded disturbance areas shall be restored with soil stabilization and natural vegetation through the use of organic material such as wood chips, mulch, and native plantings for protective ground cover. Per the guidelines of the Lahontan RWQCB and as required by the Town of Truckee, onsite retention shall be provided for the 20-year, 1-hour storm runoff volume from impervious areas. This equates to the first 0.7 inches of rainfall that produces runoff from all impervious surfaces. Peak discharge flows will be reduced to rates and quantities at or below existing pre-project Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-23 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY conditions by use of onsite detention/retention facilities that attenuate flows and provide infiltration. Implementation of drainage improvements required per the following mitigation measure would reduce runoff rates and volumes and associated impacts to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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. Impact 3.7-5: The proposed project has the potential to otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has included the Truckee River (Calwater Watershed No. 63510010) downstream of the project site in the Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments requiring total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The pollution sources are identified as follows: Range Grazing-Riparian and/or Upland, Silviculture, Construction/Land Development, Highway/Road/Bridge Construction, Streambank Modification/Destabilization, Channel Erosion, Erosion/Siltation, Natural Sources, Recreational and Tourism Activities (non-boating), Snow skiing activities, Nonpoint Source. This most current listing was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on June 28, 2007. In May 2008, the Lahontan RWQCB published an amendment to their Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region — North and South Basins (or Basin Plan) that establishes TMDLs for the Middle Truckee River watershed (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008). The project site is a part of the Middle Truckee River watershed and is governed by this amendment to the Basin Plan.The amendment to the Basin Plan establishes the following TMDL for the Truckee River measured at Farad, several miles downstream of the project site: Suspended sediment concentrations shall be reduced to a target value for the annual 90th percentile that is less than or equal to 25 milligrams per liter within 20 years. I 3.7-24 Draft Environmental impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.7 Under the CWA listing, these impaired water bodies have no remaining assimilative capacity or ability to accommodate additional quantities of these contaminants, irrespective of concentration. Projects are required to comply with requirements of approved TMDL5, as regulated in the region by the RWQCB through issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES permit amendments. Previously listed mitigation measures require the project proponent to submit a Notice of Intent and SWPPP to the RWQCB in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. The SWPPP will utilize BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards during construction. Additionally, the project design includes the use of stormwater quality features that will minimize nonpoint source pollution and long-term urban runoff impacts.These stormwater quality features are intended to treat runoff close to the source. Through the preparation of improvement and grading plans these measures will be refined so that they will functionally minimize stormwater quality impacts, which would reduce the impacts on downstream 303(d) impaired water bodies. Implementation of previous listed mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact relative to this environmental topic. Impact 3.7-6: The proposed project has the potential to place housing or structures that would impede/redirect flows within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map (Less than Significant) The project site is designated Zone X on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone X indicates an area outside the 0.2 percent chance floodplain. The proposed project would not place housing or structures in a flood hazard area. As a result the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact relative to this environmental topic. Impact 3.7-7: The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (Less than Significant) A tsunami is a sea wave caused by an earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. The project site is located at such great distance and elevation from the sea that it precludes a potential impact from a tsunami. Seiches are changes or oscillations of water levels within a confined water body. Seiches are caused by fluctuation in the atmosphere, tidal currents or earthquakes. Lakes in seismically active areas,such as Lake Tahoe, are at risk from seiches. Geological evidence indicates that the shores of Lake Tahoe may have been hit by seiches as much as 10 m (33 feet) high in prehistoric times, and local researchers have called for the risk to be factored into emergency plans for the region. While there are no historical accounts of seiches in Lake Tahoe, it is possible that one could happen Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.7-25 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY provided that faults traverse through the water body. The areas at the greatest risk of flooding from a seiche at Lake Tahoe are the areas along the shoreline. Given the distance from Lake Tahoe, the risk of flooding on the project site from a seiche at Lake Tahoe is considered remote. A mudflow is a type of mass wasting or landslide, where earth and surface materials are rapidly transported downhill under the force of gravity. Mudflow events are caused by a combination of factors, including soil type, soil profile, precipitation, and slope. Mudflows may be triggered by heavy rainfall that the soil is not able to sufficiently drain or absorb. As a result of this super- saturation, soil and rock materials become unstable and eventually slide away from their existing location. Soils most susceptible to mudflow are saturated, loose, non-plastic, uniformly graded, and fine-grained sand deposits. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey identifies the site to be moderately drained and the site is largely flat thus making the potential of mudflows low. There are two (2) dams that discharge to the Truckee River upstream of the project site. These dams are Lake Tahoe Dam and Donner Lake Darn. The Truckee River flows eastward along an alignment that is about% mile to the north of the project site and is about 150 feet lower than the lowest site elevations. Given that these dams do not have a significant height or width at their outlets and given the magnitude of the elevation difference between the project site and the Truckee River, neither dam would pose a flood risk to the project site in the event of a dam failure. Lake Tahoe Dam regulates the water surface elevation of Lake Tahoe and discharges to the Truckee River at Tahoe City about 15 miles upstream of the project site. It is owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Donner Lake Dam is located approximately 4 1/2 miles upstream to the west of the project site on Donner Creek, and Donner Creek discharges to the Truckee River about 2 'A miles upstream to the west of the project site. Donner Lake Dam is owned and operated by the Truckee Meadows Water Authority. Both dams fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). These dams do not pose a significant risk of flooding on the project site. The proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. As a result the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact on these environmental issues. i I 3.7-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) • _ � N *•. • T 'r..4./. . .., ..„. . , .ak , „AA. f f_o �,lyik441'!ter-[ y/- ., , S 2 kJ.::". " -, /'-, { .. S l'• •* ,.... • , . i k.. . ,,... ,,-.; ,.-: . *A.411: 7 ilt-L.4"4 ''''‘%4 .:16:.-. ' w„td'.• vs . ./i, 4. Pyramid J Ilir * .�r �� F, ,,.. Lake �. .t om_AO ii • • • +f = v E tIvir,,,..,r _ ifk-4.,- . ''' . A• r ,„-i*, .. . i •:.! - 1 ... , , . . 4 • • r�,a iii s ,2 s Y ++ ,bri. *tom ' % Sparks �;, �, it, 1tP��!' !J u 1 ,,, 3 .. .Y, a">j ,, y�. 4. a. . �,,,•,.. f v1`„ � .y!" .s',..1.•4 .:•-.,.•- s R- - �• , ~ �s•'T 1R,r r L.«s -tI si 41 -s+ ./` • sem`.: • • �. .,• w r _,i' -.� c, `:a E-Pro ect Site.. * • ;i J•. cii;i1 *s *' .. ruckee �,�. �' i '., ,, '. ,. `�� y Y ! _.war �,=�' .�, -- _,�+ y �•� - .- � .�. ..a.- • r!� r� F �Pl�,pr/ •�'f 4 - �.' �r• Tahoe Lake ' I' " ^' ! "160.11' f •....,....„-its .�� , ro eii, •4, Tahoe s r. *4+�• . : "* Vii' 4_ �s ; ' 4 ' 3 jolt' (" 541:4, - •'ice , ' ;' - ,. 7 �' ' r'- , ''_a11LTruckee.River Watershed Sub-basins -Ver •4i . ,.."�."� f, . ti` s�'"�b ` LAKE TAHOE(509 sq.mi.) 00 R i;r, A'�►4 .__ • 1 � , J ., 4415v�,� PYRAMID-WINNEMUCCALAKE(1,394 sq. mi,) ry .r �� ,, ►� ` � :,-� .7' r • - . MIDDLE TRUCKEE RIVER(1.212 sq.mi) 1 4 ' 6 ,�' L w„Aiwer'ai' • ”-P ":'M'�- '�If/ ;Ak Total Truckee River Watershed=-3.115 s n'; t JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC- 0 5 10 20 FIGURE 3.7-1: Truckee Riv Miles Overall Watershed and Primary Sub-basin Data sources USGS.Storm Water Consulting.intu• "•" t "'` •�t' 1111111.•Map date.October 2011 , ..Mi,.,,�,.,,.�.,.,.K,......,r.................a r,.,,, 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page left intentionally blank. 3.7-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) We _ /'/: a .•marl Pk • 8 1•,• i - •�9 n' Subslator •.—.Iry^ __ _.-__. __ '?'�a..0 t µr: w } ,�7 1• • s / Y •riGravel Pn �1. Cam ..._. _-- J/ / C' I V / l sr _ suet P,u' _--r- `,. .,..- 00`WakTG ,,�, '. � �' .... _d--- __.—__-____—_. _ r-+� _ .. - _.. _ `•L �i )- INT. . -_ MCL TtO �-r� II •'•' 1'777,,btu .:?:):....,A.. Heal) 'r I 1 / iPukr -� MKAVy _ : ' 1 iiir ' • cam c. cat urs. rt IA.adows r • t %j,`!„ •saw rib.14 Gall �CKEE-T• DE AIRPOR •'r- . � -- ' pliErlikcp. `•4i ..SPECIFIC P AN % 4 I = ii° ¢ I < 1 PROPERTY R 7 l S a I mppioune - .. .._ .. ___s^sa 4._— _ _ EVADA CO_ _ - NEVADAICO___—_—_—___—____ ];` :�"t�_ ..:• .;.:—-- � . - :;�• *_'_:,...___IC_'_ . I. ._ ',� /J� _ cEn co. —k—-�'_ -Pu��E�+coca \. I W ,LIJ .1s I 13 gnoao.<r� .—: Cate I bG U , u za I Ruth.' _ l Q 0 Lv 4 L - E Y,...0 X ( a • .ose L r i t ,e _,. MARTIS CREEK LAKE •'' rr raw NATIONAL RECREATION AREA II 0 s stns:., -7 . I Can course s..e A L F O R E S T { (r,j — �a N7 JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3 7-2: Drainage Features and General Topography in the Vicinity of the Project Site u•.,.,.. Pt.naruy r• ' I Data sources:USGS,Storm Water Consul irg Map date:October 2011. r.,..r>•,....,,y 1•c o-. r•eri r... `$ .. �x. `"°1-I .r -a�� (:.. 1r; • r ' . 4 -t N `+� t " •. fA.,.1 fit, ., • b t., 4 .. 1. .f-. '. .:%. +.0; * ". '4 LEGEND 4! � -^ ' • - $• .. •,.�,. Existing Drain Pipe 5 r 1.. ° I • 6 Existing Catch Basin and Pipe Outlet • �~'` �-• �I Drainage Flow Direction >k4 " • ' , EXISTING DRAIN PIPES rt \Aga. 2- 72"x48" CMPA's (Cross Drainage , :a�hr ,P " :' • Brockway Road) • °' ` • : O2 24" HDPE Cross Drainage SR 267 "''Jo;, Y #'' 24" HDPE (Cross Drainage SR 267) 04 h ,. .. F - x. , , • ® 18" HDPE (Cross Drainage Joerger Drive) `' *„ `, •fig,r O 36" RCP(Cross Drainage Soaring Way) • V t © 18" HDPE (Cross Drainage SR 267) 11'• ``'4, v Catch Basin and Pipe Outlet (Street .�„ - '*„ ,, :. Drainage, 0 nIY) i's a. " �'4 " yts : `a te , • is `e 0. . ..w F y«a ►.. _ • 1-it ti R * 4„:"**NA till•t[ 4 _,A-16, ! • y N. V. R V%.** :� .I !.. •.'t. /. ) 44411tr 17 • ...Peek 1 a I W 1, : . 4. P 1141 -. - ' ' - * f, .17 ek; ., , 4,, ,,_.,',. gt*,.. -.A ..: - i -,,,f,j. .-1111iii rr !f ; r i' • ..fi d`- Y l � I ♦ ,I�A..0, ••' ,. -4� • MIL o IA; , „....4,,,.4„., 1.0. ... ‘411001:addjk ,11 ,,,.. '41 ".. 4 illielp 4,, taki tit,: JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.7-3: Aerial Photograph Showing Existing Drain Pipes and Local Drainage Features Pertinent to PC-3 I,,...,,• ri.."1"H .,„"r i■■■ .:.,,, r. 51: ....!(: ,.l ltii y I, F ,l,,1 Or (--l-.:...:U1 ,,...1".•n...+.. ti..J ....-.....,.I .- 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.7-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) --rot Ir.T♦ SHIP I)NORfN,�R PI t�EA T. .. r 4.. F + N 04, r / !f!tll2V I1 ' JON AEr fyf 10n1 x - - A1. y Ei , I x l . R_�_ ,y ,� •6' � a �` ` ' T . E •... -__ .�- ." � :.' .cr:l < • 12W 414% x•. +w'1,3A' ..•. .. , o 4110- !•- .✓ i- r- NEXT: r �'/. YY _ �'yyyt y {,f ' , , yr - $•..q1)' ' 1 ! RHdH} :mj 111)11"65441111"17'.' e'L.X . 1'i�1'• 1 t - 1 ♦ ' �) •f^�`• "W+'L •L 1' 111 r�HfH 444111111146-05.44 I ,n S. '. . •Anl '1/NNORTH RT IS PAW F S1CATE0 �.]HF Ils'11M.T' 7 'N To/ANIS, NON1H H.RN,I I EAST //NO F � T 02'•- I„WHyH F IT NUHiH.R .!.It EAS, mow P � . � .�•<gip. • X .: ••'i �' „dl•�r �I ` RUCKEE T�NOE' ^?GD�� 1. ' •% - -I. - � z,',.1" k `�.•H'.'T.S' M.TJ 'PORT , "• 'CZ �y i _ --- RiliVE OATS ,:.10%,,41 F{° .'p • 7 / ` `I'7' R y f ,yam +y-v..„p��¢.. i r I 'rO '-�`e f T •. 't/;� ter , " . /' ✓ 71, de"C A'q I/r'T'^ 'Lo 4-$ti- < , '; PC-3 SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY t 4� "r,PorFt 'A?*-' < - Y • ..• �. � -"a •• _ 060•21•0 f �1: �/ +_4. r r 7 s 4 6 yL i • y I s .7 g 1 - Y a'{I: RAr SSVy .� e 7 Sr y1�1....(q1.? _ - �•a .. 1' F ~ —•,16...r...-' l• S 'rv- `{. 'yNl�,, t. u. ? •-_ -4 (1.' / k,--,' . ,01,,'414:41 ZONE deO,UNN••�-a- • j _l ' s -• 1]�H��j�,��(�/f1,l 1).{4 1 11 4 Tr. ,,., // pNEDENr a ;4 r ' {„ !N 6 yY..• F' ` ~ 7.. COR SEILIMIT4 ivE . l,��-- � 7 it 4,r } A.•�4 / v.' `4 /k, , i4 1" N. X111 s_ •1 w 1 T ?i' .�''-• - -1 . 1111 ` I '' 4/ t` y '1a '✓' iA rY1 ` 3 •is -_ri14i: 4 , ILir9 ._�•-'-` 1 000 NAZARO INTERNAM IS NOT SHOWN ON THIS I «• i S �•.• 4 - ' ,.� Y N , �•X. A NAP IN ARF AS OUTSIDE Of NEVADA COUNTY "t JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Map scale: 1"=800' Figure 3.7-4: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 1 i DNA scums.f EMA Fbca Insurers Rid.,Nap Panels 533 aM 534 lell¢ch.Feeruay 3.20101. 11. • 1'1.•H H I I.k .I..n)• O■■. Sohn WIN.CamuRing Inc Map dale Ocecee.2011 s t..-J H.IL T 1..,......11 ....AI... LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 The purpose of this EIR section is to identify the existing land use conditions within the Joerger Ranch (PC-3)Specific Plan Area and the surrounding areas, analyze the project's compatibility with existing land uses, analyze the project's consistency with relevant planning documents and policies, address the potential for the project to result in population growth, and recommend mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the significance of potential impacts. 3.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING REGIONAL SETTING The Town of Truckee is located in eastern Nevada County. The Town is situated in the Lake Tahoe region of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.Truckee is less than 10 miles west of the California/Nevada state line, 30 miles west of Reno, Nevada, 12 miles north of Lake Tahoe, and 100 miles east of Sacramento.The Town also lies just east of Donner Pass,which marks the Sierra Nevada summit. Truckee is generally considered the major urban area in the Sierra Nevada, north of Lake Tahoe. The town is physically divided by Interstate 80 (I-80) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), both major transcontinental transportation routes, and also the Truckee River. These elements pass through Truckee on an east to west axis. LOCAL SETTING Truckee is a mountain town located at 5,980 feet above sea level on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada and, at 34 square miles, it constitutes the largest portion of developed land in Nevada County. Strategically located along 1-80, State Highways 89 and 267, and the transcontinental railroad, Truckee is the primary gateway to Lake Tahoe, one of the most popular tourist destinations in the State of California. Tourists are drawn to the Truckee area for the multitude of outdoor recreational opportunities, the pristine environmental quality, small town mountain character and the historic flavor and retail amenities of its historic Downtown. Truckee's outstanding mountain environment, plentiful recreation opportunities, and strategic location along key transportation trans ortation routes have contributed to the town's desirability as a place to live, work and visit. These assets have allowed Truckee to sustain strong growth in residential development and tourism, even as other communities in California have suffered from declining economic fortunes. However, broader economic development in Truckee has lagged behind residential and tourist development. While local employment conditions and the economic vitality of the Downtown has shown improvement since the Town prepared the Economic Development Strategic Plan in 2001, Truckee continues to face economic challenges. These challenges stem in large part from the character of the local economy, which is dominated by the retail and service sectors and by seasonal recreation-based tourism. The services and retail sectors employ the most people in Truckee, accounting for 31 percent and 27 percent of local jobs, respectively (2025 Truckee General Plan, Economic Development Element). These sectors are followed by the government sector, accounting for 18 percent of total Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-1 i III 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING employment, and mining and construction, accounting for 15 percent of total employment. The high number of employees in the mining and construction category can be attributed to the amount of housing construction in and around Truckee. Truckee's visitor-based economy is highly seasonal in nature, which generates large annual fluctuations in demand for goods and services and in the staffing requirements of local employers. Annual retail business sales patterns reflect the highly seasonal nature of the Truckee economy: approximately 48 percent of retail sales are earned during the summer, 39 percent during the winter, and only 13 percent during the spring and fall seasons combined.This creates challenges for employers in sustaining a viable business on a year- round basis, and in managing human resources (2025 Truckee General Plan, Economic Development Element). As described in the Land Use Element of the 2025 General Plan, existing land use patterns in Truckee are reflective of the historic development patterns of the community, the legacy of land use planning that occurred under Nevada County's jurisdiction, prior to Truckee's incorporation, and the more recent policies established through the Town's own land use policy framework. About thirty percent of the land within the Town limits is vacant or undeveloped, and another 25 percent is in open space uses, including parks and recreation areas, Donner Lake, golf courses, permanent open space easements, and forestry lands. Remaining land within the Town limits is developed in some form, as described below: • Residential. Residential uses comprise about 25 percent of land within the town limits, accommodating about 10,800 housing units. Of this, the vast majority is single family housing. Housing areas are spread throughout the Town, in Downtown Truckee, and the Donner Lake and Gateway areas, and in a series of residential subdivisions that include Tahoe Donner, Glenshire Devonshire, the Prosser Lake neighborhoods, Olympic Heights, and Sierra Meadows. Multi-family housing comprises about three percent of residential land use in terms of area, but represents about 13 percent of the total housing stock in Truckee. Multi-family residential development is concentrated in locations closer to the Town center, primarily in southeast Truckee neighborhoods along the Brockway Road corridor, and in Gateway. Several multi-family developments, primarily condominium projects, are located in the Donner Lake area and along Northwoods Boulevard in Tahoe Donner. There are four major mobile home parks in Truckee, one along Brockway Road, one at the west end of West River Street, one northwest of the Interstate 80/Highway 89 North intersection, and one in the Gateway area. • Commercial. Commercial uses, including both retail and office development, comprise approximately four percent of all developed land in Truckee. The majority of commercial uses in Truckee are concentrated in the Downtown area and in the Gateway commercial district. Smaller retail commercial centers are located elsewhere in the town, including the Crossroads Plaza south of the Interstate 80/Highway 89 South intersection, and neighborhood centers along Donner Pass Road in Donner Lake, on Glenshire Drive on the west side of the Glenshire neighborhood, and along Northwoods Boulevard in Tahoe Donner. Brockway Road has an assortment of commercial uses, including both retail and office use, along its length. Larger commercial developments in this area include the 3.8-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 Martis Village commercial center at the intersection of Palisades Drive and a cluster of office development located near the airport, just north of the Placer County line. The Pioneer Commerce Center, located at the east end of Pioneer trail, houses a number of professional offices and service commercial uses. • Industrial. Industrial uses comprise a very small percentage of total land use (approximately 80 acres) in Truckee. The largest industrial areas in Truckee are located around the Tahoe-Truckee Airport and in the newer Pioneer Commerce Center along Pioneer Trail north of 1-80. Older industrial uses are located in central Truckee adjacent the railroad, and along West River Street. • Public/Institutional. Existing (non-open space) public/institutional land uses in Truckee include schools, government and utilities offices and facilities, the Tahoe Forest Hospital, and a number of churches and religious institutions. A number of these uses are concentrated along the west end of Donner Pass Road in the Gateway Area; Truckee's Town Hall and Police Department are both accommodated within the office/ light industrial area near the Airport,while other community-serving facilities are located within neighborhood areas. • Other Land Uses. Other major land uses not included among those described above include land dedicated to infrastructure such as roads and the railway, which accounts for approximately 13 percent of all land within the Town limit, and the mining operations in the southeast part of Truckee,which cover about 200 acres. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Plan Area is largely undeveloped and is dominated by an open meadow on a relatively level valley floor. The open meadow is largely comprised of Great Basin sagebrush scrub. Existing stands of mature Jeffery pines and lodgepole pines that reach over 50-60 feet in height are clustered in the southern and southeastern portion of the Plan Area. The center of the Plan Area is marked by the intersection of SR 267 and Brockway Road/Soaring Way. These roads bisect the Plan Area on elevated earth berms, reaching a high point at their intersection, approximately 25 feet above the valley floor. The Plan Area contains a single business structure (Truckee River Winery) and it's associated small parking lot near the western boundary. There is also an existing well house located along an ephemeral drainage in the western portion of the Plan Area SURROUNDING LAND USES The Truckee-Tahoe Airport, a general aviation facility, is the major land use east of the Plan Area. Areas north, west and south of the Plan Area are characterized by a mix of low and medium density residential, commercial and recreational uses. The Ponderosa Golf Course borders a portion of the Plan Area directly to the west. Surrounding land uses are shown in greater detail in Figure 2-4 in the Project Description Chapter. 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-3 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 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. 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. EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING The 2025 Truckee General Plan designates the Plan Area as Planned Community 3 (PC-3). The entire Plan Area is zoned Planned Community(PC)on the Town of Truckee Zoning Map. POPULATION The Town of Truckee is one of three incorporated cities located in Nevada County. It represents approximately half of the total population living in incorporated areas.The population of the Town grew significantly between the 1990 and 2000 census periods, with a 4.9 percent annual growth rate between 1980 and 1990 and a 4.5 percent annual growth rate between 1990 and 2000. Since 2000,Truckee's population has continued to grow, but at a significantly slower rate. From 2000 to 2010,the population increased at an annual rate of about 1.7 percent. According to the California Department of Finance, the Town's population as of January 1, 2012 was 15,918, which is a slight decrease from the 2010 population. However, this population figure does not account for seasonal residents, who occupy approximately 44 percent of the Town's housing stock, as those residents are not counted among the Town's total population in the Census.Therefore, during peak tourism periods, in the summer and winter, the Town's population can effectively double on a temporary basis, as described in the Town of Truckee General Plan EIR (2006). Even with its high proportion of vacation homes, Truckee is Nevada County's most populous community. HOUSING STOCK Since the Town incorporated in 1993,development within the Town has accounted for nearly all of the new housing units constructed within the eastern portion of Nevada County. The Town continues to receive, and has approved, a number of applications for more homes within Truckee. 3.8-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 The result is a growing housing presence as Truckee housing development outpaces the rest of the County. Truckee has experienced a relatively high residential construction rate since its incorporation. Between 2001 and 2010, an average of 214 residential units were built annually. However, with the continuation of the current economic slowdown, the rate of residential construction growth has slowed to less than one-half of a percent (0.3 %). In 2011, 38 residential units were completed-36 single-family and 2 multi-family. This is approximately 82% less than the 2001 to 2010 average but only 29%less than 2010 where 53 units were completed. Of the homes built between 2000 and 2010, approximately 76%are detached single family homes. The percentage of detached single family homes is slowly declining from 85% of housing units in 2000 to approximately 82%in 2010. No affordable units were constructed in 2010 or 2011. Population and housing data from the benchmark years of 2000 and 2010 are shown in Table 3.8-1 below. TABLE 3.8-1:HOUSING AND POPULATION CENSUS DATA:2000 AND 2010 BENCHMARKS APRIL 1,2000 APRIL 1,2010 PERCENT CHANGE AVERAGE GROWTH 2000-2010 RATE PER YEAR Total Population 13,864 16,180 16.7% 1.7% Total Housing Units 9,757 12,803 31.2% 3.1% Occupied Housing Units 5,149 6,343 23.2% -- Vacant Housing Units 4,608 6,460 40.2% -- SOURCE:2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT,TOWN OF TRUCKEE,MARCH 16,2012 As shown in Table 3.8-1 above, Truckee's housing stock grew by 3,046 units between 2000 and 2010 which is an average 3.1%growth rate per year.The Department of Finance's January 1, 2011 adjusted housing unit estimate for Truckee is 12,807 units, or a 0.3%housing growth rate from the adjusted 2010 housing estimate and a 2.8% decrease in growth rate from the previous 10-year average. With 38 units completed in 2011, Town staff estimates that there were a total of 12,845 residential units in Truckee as of January 1, 2012. This equates to a rate of growth in housing units of 0.3% for 2011 and approximately 16,258 persons as of January 1, 2012. This would be approximately 48 new permanent residents and a 0.3% increase in population. Both the rate of growth in housing units built and number of new residents were similar in 2011, indicating that the two are keeping pace where housing in previous years far exceeded population growth. Based on Department of Finance estimates from the past several years, Truckee's vacancy rate (and hence the proportion of permanent to second homes) continues to increase slightly (currently up to 50.4% from 47.2% in 2010) and Truckee's occupancy (the number of persons in each occupied housing unit)continues to decline slightly(down from 2.52 in 2010 to 2.49 in 2011). Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-5 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING JOBS AND EMPLOYED RESIDENTS Truckee's local employment base is largely dependent on tourist, resort, second home, and retirement activity. As described in the Economic Development Element of the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan, the service employment sector (31 percent) and retail employment sector (27 percent) account for the majority of employment opportunities in Truckee. Conversely, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and transportation and communication employment represent less than 5 percent of total area employment. The 2010 Census recorded 9,914 employed residents in Truckee, and a study prepared in 2005 for the Town's 2025 General Plan indicates that there are approximately 6,200 total jobs in Truckee. Although these data points are not for the same year, it is reasonable to assume that there are more employed residents than there are available jobs in the Town, and that some residents are required to out-commute to find work. Census 2010 journey to work data also confirms that many Truckee residents commute to jobs outside of the Town. The 2010 Census reported that the average commute time to work for Truckee residents was 20.5 minutes. According to the 2010 Census, Truckee's unemployment rate was 9.6 percent, compared to 9.2 percent unemployment for the County overall and 10.1 percent for the State. JOBS-TO-HOUSING BALANCE The term "jobs-to-housing balance" is used to refer to a relationship between jobs and housing units within a community. A jobs-to-housing units ratio of 1.5 is considered ideal, which takes into account residents who do not participate in the labor force (e.g., those who are retired, disabled, or students).The 1.5 jobs-to-housing units ratio indicates a community has an adequate number of jobs to meet the demand for jobs by its residents,and therefore, is in balance. A more helpful indicator of balance, however, is the relationship between the number of jobs provided to the number of residents seeking employment (i.e., employed residents). An ideal jobs- to-employed residents ratio is 1.0, which indicates that every resident seeking a job could find one within the community. A jobs-to-employed residents ratio that is greater than one indicates the community provides more jobs than it has residents seeking those jobs. With this out-of-balance condition, the community is likely to experience in-commuting traffic congestion from people coming to jobs from outside the area, as well as intensified pressure for additional residential development to house the labor force demanded. Conversely, a jobs-to-employed residents ratio of less than one indicates a community has fewer jobs than employed residents demanding employment. With this converse out-of-balance condition, residents would need to commute outside of the community (i.e., out-commute) for employment. The resulting commuting patterns can lead to traffic congestion and adverse effects on both local and regional air quality. This ratio does not, however, account for regional in- or out-commuting due to job/labor mismatches or housing affordability. Even if a community has a numerical balance between jobs and housing/ employed residents, sizeable levels of in-commuting and out-commuting are likely, 3.8-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 where employment opportunities do not match the skills and educational characteristics of the local labor force. In such instances, regional commuting tends to occur. For example, a numerically balanced community may have high housing costs and low-wage jobs, thus encouraging its residents to out-commute for their high wage jobs elsewhere, and its workers to in-commute from outside the community where housing costs are affordable to their low wage incomes. This condition is often referred to as a jobs-to-housing mismatch. A jobs-to-housing match would indicate that the types of jobs provided "matched" the income needs of the employed workers within the community. The most current available data regarding the number of jobs in Truckee is from the 2005 economic report prepared in support of the 2025 General Plan Economic Development Element. This report indicates approximately 6,200 jobs in Truckee. It is possible that the total number of jobs in Truckee has increased since 2005, however, updated jobs data is not readily available. The 2011 Community Development Annual Report states that in 2010, there were 6,343 occupied housing units in Truckee. The data indicates that Truckee has a jobs-to-housing ratio of approximately 1.0. 3.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL There are no applicable federal plans or policies related to land use and population. STATE There are no applicable state plans or policies related to land use and population. LOCAL 2025 Truckee General Plan The current General Plan contains the following policies to guide development of PC-3: PC-3 Policy 1: Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Services for employees, such as day care facilities and food sales, shall be encouraged. PC-3 Policy 2: The Specific Plan shall include design standards to provide for architectural consistency of development on the site, in accordance with the Town of Truckee design guidelines. PC-3 Policy 3:Site Design shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267,via Brockway Road and Soaring Way,and shall minimize visual impacts from the Highway 267 corridor. PC-3 Policy 4: The Specific Plan shall include standards for the design of retail shopping areas which avoid "strip commercial" site layout, and that are oriented and scaled to the pedestrian realm. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-7 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING PC-3 Policy 5: Specific Plan design standards shall include requirements for parking areas which promote attractive streetscapes, recognize the need for snow storage and removal, and reduce the visual impacts of large, unscreened parking lots through distributed landscaping, landscaped berms, and other measures. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Town of Truckee Design Guidelines. PC-3 Policy 6:The Specific Plan shall include provisions for supplying, on-site, the required housing for 50 percent of the very-low, low- and moderate-income workforce associated with development of the site. If land use or noise compatibility requirements of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan preclude or reduce the total amount of housing that can be developed on PC-3, required workforce housing may be permitted to be located off-site. PC-3 Policy 7: All development on PC-3 shall support community character goals and policies for the Brockway Road Corridor. PC-3 Policy 8: Ensure that the mix of land uses in the PC-3 Specific Plan will generate an amount of traffic that, in addition to buildout of the General Plan (considering all planned circulation improvements), would not result in the need for four lanes on Highway 267 between Interstate 80 and the Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. Land Use Element Relevant General Plan policies from the Land Use Element are as follows: Policy 1.1: All new development shall meet important community goals for design quality, open space preservation, and promotion of a livable, sustainable community. Development that does not fulfill these goals shall not be allowed. Policy 1.2: Projects that exceed minimum requirements and mandated levels for provisions of affordable and workforce housing shall be given a higher priority for development approval. Such projects maybe considered for application of less stringent development standards in order to facilitate their development. Policy 2.1: Ensure adequate supplies of residential, commercial and industrial land, located appropriately,to manage projected growth Policy 2.2: Ensure that the primary use of Industrial designated land is for industrial, rather than general commercial uses. Policy 2.3: Ensure that new residential development meets minimum density standards, based on those described in Section C of the Land Use Element. Policy 3.1: In order to prevent new linear commercial sprawl along major transportation corridors, locate new freeway-oriented commercial development outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area excludes the existing developed interchanges of Interstate 80 at Donner Pass Road/Cold Stream Road and Highway 89 South. New freeway-oriented development may be appropriate within the Downtown,as determined through the Downtown Specific Plan. 3.8-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 Policy 3.3: To provide for projected population growth in an efficient manner, accommodate development at the highest densities in infill areas, consistent with goals for environmental protection and land use compatibility. Policy 4.1: Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, to ensure that development within the Town is coordinated with provision of services. Policy 4.3: Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate services are available, or when a program to provide services has been approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truckee. Standards of services for new development applicable to this policy are shown in Table LU-6. Policy 5.4: Discourage new "strip" commercial development and encourage site design for new commercial projects that provides for pedestrian/bicycle access and proper building scale and proportion relative to the pedestrian realm. Policy 5.6: Require that the feasibility of residential uses, including affordable housing, be considered as part of any new mixed use development proposal for the Downtown, and to the extent feasible, be incorporated into final project design. Policy 5.7: Require buffering, screening, setbacks, and other measures for new and expanded industrial uses adjacent to residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts and compatibility conflicts. Policy 6.1: The maximum size limit for a single retail commercial use building shall be 40,000 square feet. Policy 6.2: Maintain and enhance Downtown as the heart of Truckee and as the Town's premier tourist destination through the following methods,and through Action A6.2: • Aggressively facilitate pedestrian-oriented development in the Downtown through implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan • Give some priority in the expenditure of capital improvement funds to projects that will enhance appropriate uses Downtown and facilitate new development, thereby implementing the Downtown Specific Plan. • Allocate staff resources to implement the Downtown Specific Plan. • Actively encourage the relocation of industrial uses from the Downtown area to other more appropriate locations in Town, such as the Pioneer Trail industrial area, or Airport industrial zone. Policy 6.4: Require buildings to be located closer to the street,where appropriate,and for offstreet parking areas to be located to the rear of commercial buildings, where feasible. Ultimate building locations must accommodate snow removal and snow storage, and should maximize solar orientation. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-9 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Policy 7.1: For all residential developments, require clustering where appropriate. Clustered development as defined in the General Plan includes the following considerations: • Clustering of residential development will allow flexibility of site design in responding to the natural features and resources of an individual site. - Clustering means that structures will be located on a site so that larger areas are left as undeveloped open space. • Undeveloped areas may either be preserved in private or public open space, or may be a portion of an individual lot, with deed restrictions prohibiting construction in that portion. Policy 7.2: Residential development shall be clustered to avoid areas of significant natural resources, including wildlife habitat and migration corridors and visual resources. Policy 7.3: Clustered development types shall be applied within the Town according to the location and character of the development site. Clustered development types and their corresponding recommended locations are summarized in Table LU-7 Policy 7.4: Clustered development shall incorporate preservation of open space areas as an integral and primary consideration in the overall development plan for a site. Consideration in preserving open space through clustering shall include the following: • Maximizing preservation of open space types that reflect the Town's priorities as stated in the Conservation and Open Space Element. • Maintaining an appropriate relationship of the site to the character and context of adjacent neighborhood areas and nearby and adjoining open space areas. • Respecting individual site features and characteristics, including topography, natural features, natural hazards and constraints, and the presence of sensitive biological resources. Policy 7.5: Preserve the portions of parcels not developed with clustered residential used as undeveloped open space. Preservation and management options for open space include: • Dedication to a homeowners association. • Dedication to a public agency such as the Parks District, or to a land trust or other non- profit agency. • Use of building envelopes in conjunction with conservation easements or deed restrictions Truckee Development Code, Chapter 18.216: Workforce Housing The purpose of this chapter is to establish a workforce housing requirement and an in-lieu fee for commercial, industrial, and other non-residential development projects to mitigate the impacts caused by these development projects on the additional demand for more affordable housing. It is intended to implement the Housing Element of the General Plan to ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet the housing needs of all segments of the community and provide a permanent 3.8-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of very-low, low-, and moderate-income workers generated by new commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, and residential resort projects. It is also intended to implement Housing Program 1.3.4 of the Housing Element of the General Plan to balance the need for workforce housing for commercial, industrial, and other non- residential development with the other goals and policies of the General Plan including the goals and policies of the Economic Development Element. A development project shall construct and complete workforce housing unit(s) for employees calculated for the project as set forth in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 18.216.040(B) of the Development Code.The number of workforce housing units to be constructed and completed for a development project, by which employees are calculated as full-time equivalent employees (FTEE) in accordance with Sections C.1,shall be as follows: i. For development projects that generate less than seven FTEE, the development project shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter; ii. For development projects that generate seven or more but less than 20 FTEE, the development project shall pay a fraction of an in-lieu affordable housing fee equivalent to the number of FTEE divided by 28. iii. For development projects that generate 20 or more but less than 40 FTEE, the development project shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each 14 FTEE. iv. For development projects that generate 40 or more FTEE, the development project shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each seven FTEE. A developer of a development project may propose to meet the requirements of this Chapter by an alternative equivalent action, subject to review and approval by the review authority of the project. A proposal for an alternative equivalent action may include, but is not limited to, the construction of workforce housing units on another site within the Truckee region; the dedication and conveyance of land to the Town or its designee; purchase of workforce housing credits from other development projects with excess affordable units; and acquisition and enforcement of required rental and/or sales price restrictions on existing standard market-rate dwelling units. A proposal for an alternative equivalent action may also address, but is not limited to, tenure of units, higher or lower rents or sales prices, and a lesser or greater number of affordable units. Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was updated in 2004. The purpose of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is to regulate development within the vicinity of the airport to ensure that land use conflicts do not result.The Plan includes zones that establish appropriate land uses for property within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Area. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-11 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with land use, population or housing if it will: • Physically divide an established community; • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; • Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure); • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or • Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.8-1: The project may result in the physical division of an established community (Less than Significant) The Plan Area is adjacent to the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, existing residences, the Ponderosa Golf Course, and is bisected by SR 267 and Brockway Road. The Town of Truckee General Plan designates the Plan Area as "Planned Community-3", which is anticipated for development. Development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, as the surrounding land uses include a variety of unconnected land uses that are currently separated from one another by the Plan Area. This is considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. 3.8-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project may conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect (Less than Significant) The analyses provided throughout the various sections of the Draft EIR include discussions of the proposed project's consistency with applicable plans and policies applicable to the Plan Area that were adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact. For example, Impact 3.2-8 in the Biological Resources section includes a detailed discussion of the project's consistency with plans and policies that reduce potential impacts to natural resources, including species, habitat and open space. Impact 3.6-4 in the Hazards section of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the project's consistency with the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which includes provisions and restrictions to protect public safety in areas near and adjacent to the airport. As described in the 2025 Truckee General Plan, Planned Community-3 (PC-3) consists of an area identified for future commercial and industrial land uses. Viability of this area for development has been substantially increased by the completion of the Highway 267 bypass in 2002. The proposed project consists of a variety of commercial, industrial, and high-density residential uses, and as such, is consistent with the General Plan's intended uses of this site. Residential uses in PC-3 are allowed at a maximum density of 12 housing units per acre. There are 3.48 acres of Multi-Family Residential (RM) proposed within the Plan Area, which would allow for 41.76 residential units. The 41 units proposed within the RM Zone as part of the project are consistent with the allowable residential densities identified in the General Plan for the PC-3 site. The remaining 56 housing units proposed by the project to meet the Town's workforce housing requirements would be located throughout the Plan Area, and are allowed within all proposed zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit. An expanded discussion of the project's consistency with the Town's workforce housing requirements is provided below under Impact 3.8-4. As described above in the Regulatory Setting,the 2025 Truckee General Plan includes eight policies that specifically address the future development of the PC-3 site. The proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan has been developed to be consistent with these policies,as described in greater detail in Table 3.8-2 below. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-13 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING TABLE 3.8-2:PC-3 POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR PC-3 CONSISTENT ANALYSIS PC-3 Policy 1: Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and The proposed project includes a range of residential uses. Services for employees, such as Yes commercial,industrial and residential day care facilities and food sales, shall be uses. The Specific Plan is consistent with encouraged. this policy. PC-3 Policy 2: The Specific Plan shall include Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan includes design standards to provide for architectural detailed design and architectural consistency of development on the site, in Yes standards for all future development accordance with the Town of Truckee design within the Plan Area. These design guidelines. standards were developed to be consistent with the Truckee Development Code. The Specific Plan proposes to utilize PC-3 Policy 3: Site Design shall consider Brockway Road and Soaring Way to appropriate access to Highway 267,via Brockway provide adequate access to SR 267. Road and Soaring Way,and shall minimize visual Yes Existing trees on the Plan Area will be retained in order to provide visual impacts from the Highway 267 corridor. screening from SR 267,as described in greater detail in Section 3.13 of this Draft EIR. PC-3 Policy 4: The Specific Plan shall include Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan includes standards for the design of retail shopping areas standards to require pedestrian access and which avoid "strip commercial" site layout, and Yes orientation for all buildings within the Plan that are oriented and scaled to the pedestrian Area. The Specific Plan includes design realm. standards that prohibit"strip commercial" buildings. PC-3 Policy 5:Specific Plan design standards shall include requirements for parking areas which promote attractive streetscapes, recognize the The Specific Plan includes parking need for snow storage and removal, and reduce standards,parking lot design and lighting the visual impacts of large, unscreened parking Yes standards,and snow storage standards lots through distributed landscaping, landscaped consistent with the requirements of the berms, and other measures. Parking shall be Town's Development Code and Design provided in accordance with the Town of Truckee Guidelines. Design Guidelines. As described below under Impact 3.8-4, the project is required to provide 97.37 PC-3 Policy 6: The Specific Plan shall include workforce housing units. Currently,41 provisions for supplying, on-site, the required workforce housing units are proposed housing for 50 percent of the very-low, low- and within the RM Zone on the project site.The moderate-income workforce associated with remaining 56 workforce housing units development of the site. If land use or noise would be located throughout the Plan Area compatibility requirements of the Airport Land Yes as commercial and industrial uses are Use Compatibility Plan preclude or reduce the constructed. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 total amount of housing that can be developed on requires the construction of on-site PC-3, required workforce housing may be workforce housing commensurate with the permitted to be located off-site. pace of non-residential development on the project site in order to meet the project's obligations,as set forth in section 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code. 3.8-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR PC-3 CONSISTENT ANALYSIS The Specific Plan Design Guidelines PC-3 Policy 7: All development on PC-3 shall include standards and provisions that support community character goals and policies would ensure development on the Plan for the Brockway Road Corridor. Yes Area is consistent with,and complimentary to,the existing and planned development along the Brockway Road Corridor. PC-3 Policy 8: Ensure that the mix of land uses in the PC-3 Specific Plan will generate an amount of traffic that, in addition to buildout of the General As described in section 3.11 Plan (considering all planned circulation (Transportation and Circulation),the improvements), would not result in the need for Yes proposed project would not result in the need for four lanes on Highway 267 four lanes on Highway 267 between Interstate 80 between Interstate 80 and the Brockway and the Brockway Road/Soaring Way Road/Soaring Way intersection. intersection. SOURCE:DE Novo PLANNING GROUP(2013). As described above, and throughout the various sections of this Draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable plans and policies adopted by the Town of Truckee to guide development of the PC-3 site and to reduce environmental impacts of new development. The mitigation measures provided throughout this Draft EIR ensure that this impact is less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. Impact 3.8-3: Implementation of the proposed project may conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan (No Impact) There are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that pertain to the project site. There is no impact. 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Implementation of the proposed project would provide for 41 new multi-family housing units within the RM Zoning District of the Plan Area. Based on an average household size of 2.52, this would result in housing for approximately 103 new residents. The project would also provide employment opportunities for approximately 681.6 full time equivalent employees (FTEE). As described in section 18.216.040(C) of the Truckee Development Code, employees generated by a development project shall be calculated using 1 FTEE for 500 s.f. of gross floor space for commercial uses (including retail, service, office, and restaurant), and 1 FTEE per 1,000 O. of gross floor space for industrial uses. The Specific Plan proposes to establish the following three Commercial Zones, which would yield 1 FTEE for every 500 s.f. of gross floor space: Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Support Commercial (CRS), and Lifestyle Commercial (CL). Additionally, the Specific Plan proposes to Draft Environmental Impact Report—joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-15 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING i establish the following two Industrial Zones, which would yield 1 FTEE for every 1,000 s.f. of gross floor space. Table 3.8-3 identifies the acreage, development potential, and FTEE for each of the proposed commercial and industrial zones within the Plan Area. TABLE 3.8-3:COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE GENERATION POTENTIAL Development Full Time Zoning Designation Acreage potential Equivalent Employees Regional Commercial (CR) 11.69 101,843 sf 203.7 Regional Support Commercial (CRS) 6.07 52,881 sf 105.8 Lifestyle Commercial (CL) 7.59 66,124 sf 132.2 Manufacturing/Industrial (M1) 13.57 118,222 sf 118.2 Business Innovation Zone(BIZ) 13.97 121,707 sf 121.7 Total 52.89 460,777 sf 681.6 As shown in the table above,the proposed project would generate up to 681.6 full time equivalent employees. As required by section 18.216.040(B)(2)(iv) of the Truckee Development Code, projects that generate 40 or more FTEE shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each seven FTEE. As such, the proposed project would be required to construct and complete 97.37 workforce housing units(681.6/7= 97.37). As proposed, the project could provide up to 41 onsite workforce housing units within the 3.48- acre Multi-Family Residential (RM)Zone. Using the workforce housing standards established in the Truckee Development Code, the project results in the demand for 97.37 new workforce housing units in the Town of Truckee to support the Specific Plan Area development potential. An additional 56.61 workforce housing units would be required to be constructed onsite in order to meet the Town's workforce housing requirements for the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 includes requirements that the 41 proposed multi-family housing units within the RM Zoning District be constructed and made available for sale or rent as workforce housing units, consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 also requires that at least 56 additional workforce housing units be constructed within the remaining zoning districts (excluding the Open Space Zoning District) on the project site, commensurate with the pace of non-residential development on the site. With an average household size of 2.52, the proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 245 new residents in Truckee (97 workforce housing units x 2.52 persons per unit). The 2025 General Plan projects a buildout population in Truckee of approximately 25,280. The proposed PC-3 Specific Plan is consistent with the projected development of the PC-3 site, which 3.8-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING 3.8 was analyzed in the 2025 General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase population growth in Truckee beyond the buidout levels assumed in the 2025 General Plan. The potential for the proposed project to induce substantial population growth in Truckee is considered less than significant. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 would ensure that the requisite number of workforce housing units are constructed on the project site at a pace commensurate with the development of non-residential uses on the site, consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: A minimum 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. 111 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(6) 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. Impact 3.8-5: Implementation of the proposed project may displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing (No Impact) There are no existing homes or other types of residential structures on the project site. Therefore,the project would not displace any persons or existing housing. There is no impact. 111 Draft Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.8-17 it 3.8 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING This page left intentionally blank. 3.8-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 This section provides a general description of the existing noise sources in the project vicinity, a discussion of the regulatory setting, and identifies potential noise impacts associated with the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) project. Project impacts are evaluated relative to applicable noise level criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. Mitigation measures have been identified for significant noise-related impacts. The analysis in this section was prepared with assistance from j.c. brennan &associates, Inc in their Environmental Noise Assessment PC-3 EIR. 3.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING KEY TERMS Acoustics The science of sound. Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given area consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study. Attenuation The reduction of noise. A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response. Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, defined as ten times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. CNEL Community noise equivalent level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours (10 p.m.to 7 a.m.)weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging. Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic acoustic signal, expressed in cycles per second (Hertz.) Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting. Leg Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level. Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time. L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the one hour period. Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound. Noise Unwanted sound. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-1 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION SEL Sound exposure levels. A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one-second event. FUNDAMENTALS OF ACOUSTICS Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz). Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel 111 scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted. The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all- encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady- state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. 3.9-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Ioerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 The day/night average level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. CNEL is similar to Ldn, but includes a +5 dB penalty for evening noise. Table 3.9-1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. TABLE 3.9-1:TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL(DBA) COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES --110-- Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) --100-- Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m(3 ft) --90-- Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), Food Blender at 1 m(3 ft) --80-- at 80 km/hr(50 mph) Garbage Disposal at 1 m(3 ft) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn Mower,30 m(100 ft) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 90 m(300 ft) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m(3 ft) Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime --SO-- Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40__ Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 Bedroom at Night,Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE:CALTRANS,TECHNICAL NOISE SUPPLEMENT, TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL.NOVEMBER 2009. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech,sleep, and learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-3 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level,the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments,a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response. Stationary point sources of noise — including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles — attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles,would typically attenuate at a lower rate. EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Existing Land Uses in the Project Vicinity 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 site 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. 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. I 3.9-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 Existing Background Noise Levels During the period of July 16th — July 20th, 2010, j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. conducted two sets of continuous noise level measurements for a period of 48 hours on the Plan Area, and in the vicinity of the Plan Area. The results of the noise level measurements are shown in Table 3.9-2. Appendix B of the j.c. brennan & associates Environmental Noise Assessment graphically shows the results of the continuous noise level measurements. The intent of the noise level measurements was to determine the overall daily noise exposure on the Plan Area, and the temporal distribution of noise levels. Figure 3.9-1 shows the location of the continuous and short-term noise measurement sites. Based upon the noise measurement results, the Plan Area and surrounding area can be characterized as ranging from moderately loud to fairly quiet. Major noise sources included local roadway traffic, traffic on State Route 267, and aircraft operations associated with the Truckee-Tahoe Airport. Equipment used for all noise level measurements included Larson-Davis-Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meters. The sound level meters were calibrated in the field using an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure accuracy. TABLE 3.9-2:EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS AVERAGE MEASURED HOURLY NOISE LEVELS,(DBA) DAYTIME NIGHTTIME 24-HR (7:00 AM-10:00 PM) (10:00 PM-7AM) SITE. DATE LOCATION DURATION LDN LEQ L50 LMAX LEQ L50 LMAX Continuous Noise Measurement Sites 1 7/16/2010 Regional Commercial 24 hours 61.7 59.8 58 75.9 53.8 48 69.0 7/17/2010 Zoning 60.3 58.2 56 73.5 52.5 47 67.2 2 7/19/2010 Multi-Family 24-hours 57.6 51.2 47 70.1 51.2 46 64.5 7/20/2010 Residential Zoning 55.8 50.3 48 68.4 49.3 47 62.2 SOURCE-J.C.BRENNAN&ASSOCIATES,INC. Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels One of the primary noise sources at the Plan Area is traffic along State Route 267 (SR 267) and the local roadway system. The existing traffic noise on the Plan Area can be quantified through the continuous noise measurements, or through existing traffic volumes and truck mix percentages provided by the project traffic consultant and Caltrans. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. utilized the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA RD77-108) Traffic Noise Prediction Model to determine the existing traffic noise levels on the Plan Area and the project vicinity. The FHWA model is the analytical method currently used for highway traffic noise prediction by most state and local agencies. The FHWA model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration,distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-5 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict CNEL values, it is necessary to determine the day/night distribution of traffic and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by the project traffic consultant, and truck mix percentages for existing conditions were obtained from Caltrans. The effective day/night split was based upon the measured hourly noise levels on the Plan Area. The FHWA Model inputs are contained in Appendix C of the Environmental Noise Assessment. Table 3.9-3 shows the predicted existing traffic noise levels at a reference distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline. TABLE 3.9-3:EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS LDN/CNEL DISTANCE TO CONTOURS(FEET)* ROADWAY SEGMENT AT 100 FEET* 70 oB CNEL 65 DB CNEL 60 DB CNEL S.of I-80 East Interchange 60 dB 21 45 96 Donner Pass Rd East of Bridge Street 57 dB 15 31 68 West of Bridge Street 58 dB 15 33 71 I-80 to Brockway 66 dB 54 117 252 Brockway to Town Limit 67 dB 60 129 278 S.R.267 Town Limit to Airport Rd 67 dB 59 126 272 Airport Rd to Northstar Dr 66 dB 54 117 253 Northstar Dr to Summit 65 dB 50 107 231 Summit to S.R.28 64 dB 39 84 182 S.R.267 to Project Access 60 d6 21 46 98 Brockway Rd ProjectlAccess to Martis Valley 60 dB 21 45 97 Martis Valley Rd to Palisades Dr 64 dB 38 82 176 Palisades Dr to West River Rd 62 dB 30 65 140 SOURCE:FHWA-RD-77-108 WITH INPUTS FROM LSC,CAL TRANS AND J.C.BRENNAN&ASSOCIATES,INC. Note:*Distances to traffic noise contours are measured in feet from the centerlines of the roadways. Existing Truckee-Tahoe Airport Noise Levels The Tahoe-Truckee Airport is located to the east of the Plan Area. Based upon the Nevada County Transportation Commission Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC) for the airport, there are approximately 135 based aircraft with an anticipated 224 based aircraft in the year 2020. There are approximately 48,000 annual aircraft operations, with an estimated 120,000 annual operations in the year 2020. Figure 3.9-2 shows the noise contours used for land use compatibility planning. In addition, noise measurements of individual aircraft operations were conducted in July of 2010. Maximum noise levels from aircraft operations on the portion of the Plan Area which is zoned for multi- family residential ranged between 65 dB Lmax and 75 dB Lmax. Based upon the ALUC, more than 90% of the aircraft operations occur during the daytime hours (7 am- 7 pm). 3.9-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 3.9.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK STATE Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) The State of California General Plan Guidelines (State of California 1998), published by OPR provides guidance for the acceptability of projects within specific CNEL contours. The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used in order to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community's sensitivity to noise, and the community's assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. Title 24 The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses and dwellings other than single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ld„ or CNEL in any habitable room. Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noise-sensitive uses to be located where the Ld1 or CNEL exceeds 60 dB, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept close, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment. LOCAL Town of Truckee General Plan The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan identifies specific goals and policies regarding air quality. Table 3.9-4 analyzes the project's consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. TABLE 3.9-4:CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENT ANALYSIS Noise Element Goal 1:Minimize community noise exposure to excessive noise by ensuring compatible land uses relative to noise sources. Noise Element Policy 1.1:Allow new development only if consistent with the ground transportation noise The Environmental Noise Assessment compatibility guidelines and policies of this Element. completed for the proposed project Noise measurements used in establishing compatibility Yes determined that traffic noise impacts were shall be measured in dBA CNEL and based on worst case within the prescribed ranges. noise levels,either existing or future,with future noise levels to be predicted based on projected 2025 levels. Noise Element Policy 1.2:Require new development to mitigate exterior noise to"normally acceptable"levels in Exterior noise levels were determined to be outdoor areas where quiet is a benefit such as in the Yes acceptable backyards of single-family homes. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-7 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES CONSISTENT ANALYSIS Noise Element Policy 1.3:Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards for interior noise levels attributable All future residential development to exterior sources for all proposed new single-and Yes (workforce housing)will be required to multi-family residences.(Note:This is an interior noise demonstrate compliance with this policy level of 45 dB Ldn/CNEL) Noise Element Goal 2: Address noise issues through the planning and permitting process. Noise Element Policy 2.1:Require mitigation of all Mitigations measures are provided in this EIR significant noise impacts as a condition of project Yes and implementation of these measures approval. reduce all noise impacts to a less than significant level. Noise Element Policy 2.2:Require preparation of a noise As noise analysis was prepared. analysis which is to include recommendations for Recommendations were made to reduce all mitigation for all proposed projects which may result in Yes potential impacts to a less than significant potentially significant noise impacts to nearby noise levels sensitive land uses. Noise Element Policy 2.3:Require preparation of a noise analysis which is to include recommendations for As noise analysis was prepared. mitigation for all proposed development within noise Yes Recommendations were made to reduce all impacted areas that may be exposed to levels greater than potential impacts to a less than significant "normally acceptable." levels Noise Element Policy 2.4:Discourage the construction of sound walls and require development projects to evaluate The project is subject to this policy.The site design techniques,building setbacks,earthen berms, Yes placement of sound walls will be considered alternative architectural layouts and other means to meet as the actual site plans are developed. noise reduction requirements. Noise Element Goal 3:Reduce noise levels from sources such as domestic uses,construction and car stereos,and from mobile sources,including motor vehicle traffic and aircraft operations. Noise Element Policy 3.13:Require the following standard construction noise control measures to be included as requirements at construction sites in order to minimize construction noise impacts. • 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 Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 provide technology exists. mitigation for construction noise impacts. • The project sponsor shall designate a"disturbance Yes Implementations of these measures reduce coordinator"who would be responsible for all construction noise impacts to a less than responding to any local complaints about significant level. 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 project site. 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. 3.9-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 SOURCE:DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP(2011). The Town of Truckee Noise Element guidelines which are applicable to the land uses located in the project vicinity are provided in Table 3.9-5. TABLE 3.9-5:TOWN OF TRUCKEE NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Land Usc Category Exterior Noise Exposure(CNEL,dB)' 50 55 6C 65 7C 75 S;r Residential.Mobile 1 bonzes Residential in Mixed Use • Development Hospitals,Schools,Congregate Carr Office;Itledic*al; Light Industrial __ 1 Intel;Commercial NeighborhoodParks;RV Parks /��!///� Other Recreation;Community and Keg I Parks • •Baird mi mount sax level..both existing and 2023 NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is compatible. New land uses should be discouraged, but assuming standard construction development may be allowed after a detailed practice.are used, smile analysis is performed.noise reduction and insulation features necessary to reduce exterior noise to "normally acceptable" kvrk and infector nesse kvrls as appropriate are included in protect design,and the Ituid tries are drown ten serve the greater public tnteress,of the citizens of Trucker. CONDITIONALLY ACCE.PTARI_ UNACCEPTABLE New Land tram may he allowed if a deviled New construction or deselopmenr of these Lard non(analusis is performed and noise minx- tars should generally. not be permitted because tion and insulation features urcessary to re- mitigation is usually not feasible. dine exterior noise levels to 'normally acsrptablr'levels and interior rnsit levels as Note: The Truckee-Tahoe Airport has separate appropriate ata included in the project rlrsi�,. guidelines addressing airport noise. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-9 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION Town of Truckee Development Code The Town of Truckee Development Code essentially contains the Noise Ordinance referred to in the Town of Truckee Noise Element policies. Section 18.44.020 of the development code states that noise complaints associated with the types of commercial uses (loading docks, stationary noise sources, etc.) would be directed to the Community Development Department. Section 18.44.040 states that exterior noise levels, when measured at a noise-sensitive receiving land use, shall not exceed the noise level standards set forth in Table 3.9-6 (Table 3-8 in the Code). In the event that the ambient noise environment exceeds the Table 3.9-6 standards, the applicable standards shall be adjusted to equal the ambient noise level. In addition, the Table 3.9-6 standards shall be reduced by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. TABLE 3.9-6:NOISE STANDARDS BY RECEIVING LAND USE TOWN OF TRUCKEE DEVELOPMENT CODE CUMULATIVE DURATION OF INTRUSIVE SOUND NOISE METRIC DAYTIME NIGHTTIME (7 AM TO 10 PM) (10 PM-7AM) Hospital,Library,Religious Institution,Residential or School Uses: 111 Cumulative period of 30 minutes per hour Lu) 55 50 Cumulative period of 15 minutes per hour Lzs 60 55 Cumulative period of 5 minutes per hour Loa 65 60 Cumulative period of 1 minuteper hour Luz 70 65 Level not to be exceeded for any time during hour L,nax 75 70 Commercial Uses: Cumulative period of 30 minutes per hour Lso 65 60 Cumulative period of 15 minutes per hour Lzs 70 65 Cumulative period of 5 minutes per hour Los 75 70 Cumulative period of 1 minute per hour Loz 80 75 Level not to be exceeded for any time during hour L1,1. 85 80 SOURCE:TOWN OF TRUCKEE, TITLE 18-DEVELOPMENT CODE,CHAPTER 18.44—NOISE,AMENDED MARCH 6,2009 Note: Each of the noise limits specified above shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulsive or simple tone noises or for noises consisting of speech or music.If the existing ambient noise levels exceed that permitted in the first four noise-limit categories, the allowable limit shall be increased to encompass the ambient. Section 18.44.070 — Exceptions states that the provisions of the chapter do not apply to noise sources associated with non-single family residential construction provided that the activities do not take place before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m. on any day except Sunday, or before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. on Sunday. The 3.9-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 provisions of the chapter do not apply to noise sources associated with single family residential construction on a single family lot. 3.9.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,the project will have a significant impact related to noise if it will result in: • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project. A substantial increase in noise levels is defined as being 3 dB if the resulting total noise level would exceed that considered "normally acceptable" for a given land use category; • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Project-Related Noise Level Increase Criteria Besides the Town Noise Element and Draft Development Code standards, the significance of project- related noise level increases may be determined by comparison of no-project noise levels to the expected change in noise levels which will occur because of the project. It is generally recognized that an increase of 3 dB is usually required before most people will perceive a change in noise levels, and an increase of 5 dB is required before the change will be clearly noticeable. A common practice is to assume that a minimally perceptible increase of 3 dB represents a significant increase in ambient noise levels. Table 3.9-7 is based upon recommendations made in August 1992 by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these criteria have been applied to other sources of noise similarly described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-11 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION as the CNEL or Ldn. This metric is generally applied to transportation noise sources, and defines noise exposure in terms of average noise exposure during a 24-hour period with a penalty added to noise that occurs during the nighttime. According to Table 7, an increase in the traffic noise level of 3 dB or more would be significant where the ambient noise level is between 60 dB and 65 dB CNEL. TABLE 3.9-7:SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE <60 dB +5.0 d6 or more 60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more >65 dB +1.5 dB or more SOURCE: J.C. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON NOISE, FEDERAL AGENCY REVIEW OF SELECTED AIRPORT NOISE ANALYSIS ISSUES,AUGUST 1992 Vibration Standards Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person's perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating. Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities. The Town of Truckee does not contain specific policies pertaining to vibration levels. However, vibration levels associated with construction activities are discussed in this report. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Criteria have been developed by Caltrans, showing the vibration levels which would normally be required to result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second. The threshold for damage to structures ranges from 2 to 6 in/sec. One-half this minimum threshold or 1 in/sec p.p.v. is considered a safe criterion that would protect against architectural or structural damage. The general threshold at which human annoyance could occur is noted as 0.1 in/sec p.p.v. 3.9-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report— joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project may generate unacceptable traffic noise levels at existing receptors (Less than Significant) To describe future noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used. Direct inputs to the model included traffic volumes provided by LSC Transportation Consultants. The FHWA model is based upon the CALVENO reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. To determine the future traffic noise levels on the Plan Area and in the project vicinity, and relative increases in traffic due to the project, j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. used local roadway traffic information provided by the project traffic consultant. Appendix C of the Environmental Noise Assessment shows the complete inputs to the FHWA Noise Prediction Model. Table 3.9-8 shows the noise levels associated with traffic on the local roadway network under the existing and existing plus project traffic conditions. As indicated by Table 3.9-8, the related noise level increases under development of the proposed project are predicted to range between 0 to 2 dB. The project's contribution to existing and cumulative traffic noise increases is predicted to be 2 dB, or less. The proposed project is not predicted to cause increased noise levels exceeding the Town of Truckee 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at existing noise-sensitive residential/mobile home receptors. Additionally, these increases do not exceed the FICON standards shown in Table 3.9-7.Traffic associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to result in exposure of persons to traffic noise levels in excess of the Town's standards, nor would project traffic result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.Therefore,this impact is less than significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-13 NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 TABLE 3.9-8:PREDICTED EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to Contours Traffic Noise Levels(CNEL) Distance to contours Existing+Project(in @ 100 feet Existing(in feet) feet) Existing Existing+ 65 dB 60 dB 65 dB 60 dB Roadway Segment Project Change CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL Donner Pass Rd S.of 1-80 East Interchange 60 dB 60 dB 0 45 96 46 100 Donner Pass Rd East of Bridge Street 57 dB 58 dB +1 dB 31 68 32 68 Donner Pass Rd West of Bridge Street 58 dB 58 dB 0 33 71 32 70 S.R.267 1-80 to Brockway 66 dB 67 dB +1 dB 117 252 141 305 S.R.267 Brockway to Town Limit 67 dB 67 dB 0 129 278 133 286 S.R.267 Town Limit to Airport Rd 67 dB 67 dB 0 126 272 130 281 S.R.267 Airport Rd to Northstar Dr 66 dB 66 dB 0 117 253 122 264 S.R.267 Northstar Dr to Summit 65 dB 66 dB +1 dB 107 231 111 240 S.R.267 Summit to S.R.28 64 dB 64 dB 0 84 182 86 184 Brockway Rd S.R.267 to Project Access 60 dB 62 dB +2 dB 46 98 64 138 Brockway Rd Project Access to Martis Valley Rd 60 dB 61 dB +1 dB 45 97 57 122 Brockway Rd Martis Valley Rd to Palisades Dr 64 dB 64 dB 0 82 176 89 191 Brockway Rd Palisades Dr to West River Rd 62 dB 62 dB 0 65 140 68 146 Source:j.c.brennan&associates,Inc.-2013 Predicted noise levels and distances to contours are from the roadway centerline. 'Distances to traffic noise contours are measured in feet from the centerlines of the roadways. Actual distances may vary due to shielding from existing noise barriers or intervening structures. Traffic noise levels may vary depending on actual setback distances and localized shielding. SOURCE:J.C.BRENNAN&ASSOCIATES,INC.2012(FHWA-RD-77-108 WITH INPUTS FROM LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS). Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-14 NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 Impact 3.9-2: Construction of the project may generate significant noise (Less than Significant with Mitigation) During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Noise levels from construction activities are expected to occur as part of the project development, and infrastructure improvements. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 3.9-9, ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. TABLE 3.9-9:CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT MAXIMUM LEVEL,DB AT 50 FEET Backhoe 78 Compactor 83 Compressor(air) 78 Concrete Saw 90 Dozer 82 Dump Truck 76 Excavator 81 Generator 81 Jackhammer 89 Pneumatic Tools 85 SOURCE:ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL USER'S GUIDE.FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. FHWA-HEP-05-054.JANUARY 2006.J.C.BRENNAN&ASSOCIATES,INC.2012. Activities associated with construction on the Plan Area and for roadway improvement projects will result in elevated noise levels within the immediate area. Activities involved in construction would typically generate maximum noise levels ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities could result in periods of elevated noise levels at existing residences. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-15 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION MEASURES 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 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 3.9-3: Construction of the project may result in vibration impacts (Less than Significant) The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and parking lot construction occur. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 100-200 feet or further from the Plan Area. At this distance construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. Table 3.9-10 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment. 3.9-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 TABLE 3.9-10:VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARYING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY AT 25 FEET APPROXIMATE VELOCITY LEVEL(VDB) TYPE OF EQUIPMENT (INCHES/SECOND) AT 25 FEET Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 87 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Vibratory Hammer 0.070 85 Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 94 SOURCE:FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION,TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES,MAY 2006 Construction of the proposed project could result in temporarily vibration levels during construction. Although the impact may be noticeable at distances within 50 feet,the vibration levels are not expected to result in any type of structural damage. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 3.9-4: The project will result in on-site stationary noise (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed project would create on-site noise due to operation of the retail/commercial and industrial and manufacturing uses. The following is a discussion of potential noise impacts associated with these stationary noise sources: On-Site Retail/Commercial Noise Source Impact Assessment Methodology While all of the uses located within the commercial development will potentially generate on-site truck traffic, the greatest potential for that truck traffic to create excessive noise will occur along truck access and delivery routes. These routes generally occur along the back sides of commercial developments, although many small truck deliveries such as UPS deliveries can occur at the front facades. Although design plans are not available for the commercial uses, the loading docks could be located at any location on the sites zoned for commercial use. Since it is not possible to determine the typical daily or peak hour number of trucks which may provide deliveries at this time,the typical truck activity for the center can be based upon observations of other commercial uses. It is expected that peak hour activity would occur in the mornings and will consist of up to four tractor-trailer truck deliveries, and up to four step-size vans per peak hour. Based on file data for these types of heavy truck passages and unloading activity noise level data,the sound exposure level (SEL) at a reference distance of 50 feet from a loading dock, and 30 feet from the truck circulation route is approximately 85 dB, and a maximum noise level of 80 dB. Typical medium truck arrivals and departures and unloading are approximately 78 dB SEL and 73 111 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-17 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION dB Lmax at 50 feet. Based upon the data described above, the following formula can be utilized to determine the hourly noise level due to the truck traffic passbys and loading dock activities: Leq =85 + 10 * (log N„) - 35.6,dB where: 85 is the mean sound exposure level (SEL) for a heavy truck arrival and departure (80 for medium trucks), and 10 * (log NeQ) is 10 times the logarithm of the number of truck arrivals and departures during an hour,and 35.6 is 10 times the logarithm of the number seconds in an hour. Based upon the above formula,the hourly Leq generated during the peak hour of truck activity with four heavy truck arrival/departure and unloading and four medium truck arrival/departure and unloading, would be approximately 56 dB Leq/L50, and 80 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Based upon the analysis, the loading docks would either need to be located a minimum distance of 160 feet from the nearest residential area,or include mitigation for shielding loading dock activities. On-Site Manufacturing and Industrial Noise Impact Methodology j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. conducted reference noise level measurements for industrial facilities in the Yuba County Industrial Park. Noise measurements included operations at the Hanson Truss, Inc., American Wood Fibers, and Medallion Millwork sites. Sources measured included a combination of woodworking equipment(i.e., saws,routers, hammers, nail guns),vacuum units, mobile equipment(i.e., fork lifts, trucks), among other site-specific equipment. The reference noise level data indicated typical levels of 62 dB Leq,58 dB L50 and 67 dB Lmax at a distance of 500 feet. Exterior Traffic Noise Impacts at the Plan Area Based upon the analysis,the predicted future traffic noise at residential zoned parcel would be less than 60 dB CNEL, the future traffic noise at the office, commercial and industrial zoned parcels would be less than 75 dB CNEL. Therefore,this is a less than significant impact. Interior Traffic Noise Impacts on the Plan Area for All Options Typical construction practices will result in an exterior to interior reduction in traffic noise levels of 20 dB to 25 dB. Predicted traffic noise levels at proposed residential uses are not expected to exceed 60 dBA CNEL. Therefore, interior noise levels are expected to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL standard. Therefore,this is a less than significant impact. On-Site Retail/Commercial Noise Source Impacts The types of commercial uses which are expected to be included within the portion of the Plan Area which is designated for mixed use commercial and retail are expected to range between the 5,000 and 8,000 square feet in size, and can include large box stores. The most significant noise-producing components of this project with respect to the potential effects on nearby residential uses, are on-site truck traffic circulation and associated loading activities. Each of these noise sources were evaluated 111 separately through a combination of noise level measurements and application of accepted noise prediction methodologies. 3.9-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 On-site truck traffic and loading dock activities could exceed the Development Code hourly noise level criteria at the existing residences located to the south and across S.R. 267. On-site truck traffic and loading dock activities could also exceed the Truckee Development Code standards for future onsite workforce housing units. The peak hour of truck activity with four heavy truck arrivals/departure, and unloading and four medium truck arrivals/departures and unloading, would be approximately 56 dB L50 and 80 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-3 will reduce this impact to less than significant. On-Site Industrial and Manufacturing Noise Source Impacts Parcels zoned for Manufacturing or Industrial uses are generally located in areas which are a considerable distance from any existing noise-sensitive uses, and adjacent to either S.R. 267 or the airport environs. However,these types of uses can have noise sources and associated noise levels which exceed acceptable noise level criteria and can cause annoyance. Since no specific uses have been identified on the areas zoned for manufacturing or industrial use, it is difficult to determine specific impacts. Industrial and Manufacturing noise sources could exceed the Development Code hourly noise level criteria at the existing residences located to the south and across S.R. 267, and both existing and proposed residences to the west across S.R. 267. Noise levels could exceed the Development Code standards at distances up to 1,000 feet. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-4 will reduce this impact to less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES 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 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. Draft Environmental impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-19 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION Impact 3.9-5: The project may be exposed to airport noise at proposed receptors (Less than Significant) The proposed project is located adjacent to the Tahoe-Truckee Airport. As a means of evaluating noise levels associated with the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, the noise contours contained in the County Airport Land Use Plan was compared to the criteria contained in the Truckee General Plan Noise Element land use compatibility criteria by j.c. brennan & associates during the noise study. This study determined that based upon the locations of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport noise contours, none of the Plan Area will be exposed to aircraft noise levels which exceed the Town of Truckee Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact. Impact 3.9-6: The project may result in cumulative ambient noise impacts (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, would not result in a substantial contribution to exterior cumulative noise levels. The project's contribution to future cumulative exterior noise levels would be primarily associated with potential increases in vehicle traffic noise along area roadways and stationary noise sources associated with the commercial and industrial components of the project. Area roadways primarily affected by the proposed project include portions of S.R. 267, Donner Pass Road and Brockway Road. Predicted future cumulative exterior traffic noise levels with and without implementation of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.9-11. As depicted, implementation of the proposed project would result in projected increases ranging from 0 to 2 dB along these primarily affected roadway segments. Noise levels associated with the commercial, industrial and manufacturing portions of the Plan Area will add to the background noise environment. The potential for this impact is specific to the nearest residences to the south and west of the site. However, based upon background noise measurements conducted on the site, and mitigation measures required to reduce overall noise levels associated with the on-site activities, the resulting increase in noise levels will be less than 3 dB. Therefore, the project's contribution to noise increases in the cumulative setting area is considered less than cumulatively considerable. 3.9-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report— joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 TABLE 3.9-11-PREDICTED FUTURE AND FUTURE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS(CNEL) DISTANCE TO CONTOURS DISTANCE TO CONTOUF ROADWAY SEGMENT AT 100 FEET FUTURE(IN FEET) FUTURE t PROJECT(IN FI FUTURE 2032 FUTURE 2032 65 DB 60 DB 65 DB 60 Di No PROJECT +PROJECT CHANGE CNEL CNEL CNEL CNE, S.of 1-80 East Interchange 61 dB61 dB p 52 113 58 125 Donner Pass Rd East of Bridge Street 58 dB 58 dB 0 37 79 37 79 West of Bridge Street 56 dB 56 dB 0 26 55 25 54 I-80 to Brockway 69 dB 70 dB +1 dB 176 379 203 438 Brockway to Town Limit 69 dB 70 dB +1 dB 199 429 201 434 S.R.267 Town Limit to Airport Rd 69 dB 70 dB +1 dB 198 426 200 430 Airport Rd to Northstar Dr 69 dB 69 dB 0 173 374 177 382 Northstar Dr to Summit 68 dB 69 dB +1 dB 169 364 172 371 Summit to S.R.28 64 dB 65 dB +1 dB 93 200 93 201 S.R.267 to Project Access 62 dB 63 dB +1 dB 59 128 76 164 Brockway Rd Project Access to Martis Valley Rd 62 dB 62 dB 0 59 126 64 139 Martis Valley Rd to Palisades Dr 65 dB 65 dB 0 101 217 103 222 Palisades Dr to West River Rd 64 dB 64 dB 0 81 174 81 175 SOURCE:1.C.BRENNAN&ASSOCIATES,INC.-2013 Predicted noise levels and distances to contours are from the roadway centerline. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-21 NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 This page left intentionally blank. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.9-22 'MS -� 7. ♦ • E N., 1-"` • 3 r a. ifs 1. ,. . . ` f • r _ _ : :r . tt•-aJ✓Tt° Nef 0, { _ -- .__.. -.. MANX-VIM r..r«r ri37ect • \, UN .i \11•••••----1.. ____............ .-- '. •...4- .., .141 PP ' r 1 aZow'Trat/. Am**-4,4-- a trr t. < " -A reorar+.:.¢-s. . opt".;'411 41 - ehn i LW y�.+\^�. ,, K -g w ' POcr.oc�na.ai, .A. ,!'�.4 2t .Il j 4 . "3 0t -' awai►a uesrea araeMOa se; A Continuous Noise Measurement Silo N wsiwawe cnonn,. As ss ® ewusessumnwxaew _ rneuaAr+�SCUICAer JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Q fun wmouIR-11wlrvw Abp M Aral%W 1 i% Figure 3.9-1: Noise Measurement Sites ens.,oe*ewe Qs ".......4.4":477=7::=r.'''. 411.1111 _ MI OM 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION II I This page left intentionally blank 3.9-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) i 1 )/:),„:"<.,:iii://1(bs;j • i . i 1-111 - .., --7,•----,(7--. .- 0(7/./ 1.- I --;"..*"....."-• .}.- ► / C\74/.... , , f .R ` I . '` \�f 1.e a `� `% .400, . -.......„, s• EL ti. , 1/4 . _) ,.v _ / fie to, he Sc \ -....€1.4.3 \ ) 6 ......„ .• [1 ' \- ... . 1 , ......... .. • , , , . ..,,. . v....p , .4,4..4 ..4..... r.sp_ °PeN..t.'‘.:r".-7"*%46'..7"....."...... 1. .../ r' r N o FEW.' 8,007 • 1 l\ JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.9-2: Truckee-Tahoe Airport Noise Contours Data sources:Mead&Hunt(May 2003),Truckee Tahoe t'r••.••• i'I."'•'„r '•'•••C - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(December 2004) •''�I-w•�.,n,,-,..k,.,,..,n,.,,_,....,,,.,n•,.. ^.€w� 1 l 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION This page left intentionally blank 3.9-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 This section describes and evaluates potential impacts associated with the provision of fire protection and emergency services, police protection, schools, parks and recreation, and snow removal services for the proposed project. 3.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Fire Protection service are provided by the Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD), which is an independent special district and public agency established in 1894 that provides fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical care and/or transportation, assorted rescue services, and public education services to the Town of Truckee. The TFPD has 49 full-time and 9 part-time employees and/or volunteers. The TFPD currently has four fire stations that are staffed on a 24- hour basis. The Fire District has a total of eight fire stations. The TFPD has type I and III engines, tenders, a truck, ambulances, regional hazardous materials vehicle, medium rescue with low and high angle capabilities, air boat and swift-water/dive rescue boat. The closest fire station to the Plan Area is Station 96 located at 10277 Truckee Tahoe Airport Road, adjacent to the Truckee Town Hall immediately south of the Plan Area. Station 96 is staffed on a full-time basis by a Fire/Captain and three Firefighter/Paramedics. Truckee Fire Protection District shares the site with Cal Fire and the Tahoe Truckee Airport. Apparatus at this station include a Type I Fire Engine, two Paramedic Ambulances, and the Placer County OES Hazardous Materials response vehicle. POLICE PROTECTION Truckee Police Department Police service in Truckee is provided by the Truckee Police Department. The Police Department provides all police-related services including: Administration, Uniformed Patrol, Boat Patrol on Donner Lake, Investigative Services, a School Resource Officer, and Traffic Enforcement. The Police Department operates out of its headquarters at 10183 Truckee Airport Road, and has 26 sworn officers and four non-sworn personnel who provide service to the town's over 16,000 permanent residents as well nonresident weekend and holiday visitors. This equates to a 1.63 ratio of police per thousand people.There is no established standard staffing ratio. The Town is under contract with the Nevada County Sheriffs Office for dispatch services. All calls are responded to from the Truckee Police Department's headquarters. Response times to calls range from 30 seconds up to ten minutes, depending on the location within Truckee as well as the type of call received. An officer is typically on scene within 3 to 5 minutes for emergency calls, whereas non-emergency calls tend to be responded to within ten minutes if an officer is available. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-1 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Sheriffs Nevada County Department- Truckee The Nevada County Sheriff's Department Operations Division provides police protection services for the unincorporated parts of Nevada County. The Sheriff's Department operates out of their Truckee Office located at 10879 Donner Pass Rd. The Sheriff's Department provides dispatch services to the Town of Truckee and will respond to calls in the Town of Truckee when requested. The Nevada County Sheriff's Office Corrections Division provides jail services for all of Nevada County, including the Town of Truckee. The facilities include: the Truckee Jail and Court Holding. Long-term detainees are transported to the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada City. California Highway Patrol The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides law enforcement services, primarily traffic control, for State roads in the region.These services include traffic control, accident investigation, licensing of vehicles, and inspection. The CHP maintains an area office at 10077 State Route 89 South Truckee and an inspection facility at Donner Pass on 1-80.The CHP will respond when requested by the Town of Truckee. SCHOOLS The Plan Area is located with the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD), which covers an area of approximately 720 square miles, encompassing portions of Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado Counties. The TTUSD consists of five elementary schools, two middle schools, one alternative middle school, two high schools, and one continuation high school. According to the California Department of Education Educational Demographics Unit's District Enrollment Report the TTUSD had a combined enrollment of approximately 3,917 students for the 2012-13 school-year. Students residing within the Plan Area would generally attend the following schools: Truckee Elementary School with an estimated maximum attendance capacity of 664 (556 estimated enrollment 2012- 13); Alder Creek Middle School with an estimated maximum capacity of 802 (544 estimated enrollment 2012-13); and Truckee High School with an estimated maximum capacity of 905 (604 estimated enrollment 2012-13), for an estimated total capacity of 2,371 students. All three of these schools are currently operating below the maximum capacity of the schools. PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District One of the most important defining features of the Truckee area is the abundance of open space and outdoor recreational opportunities, including those offered by Truckee's public parks and community facilities. Most parks and recreation facilities in Truckee are operated by the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD). TDRPD was founded in 1963 as a Special District to provide parks and recreation facilities in eastern Nevada County. 3.10-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 Within Truckee, TDRPD maintains a number of parks and recreational facilities. TDRPD's largest site is the Truckee River Regional Park, a 62 acre park located along the south side of the Truckee River, near Brockway Road to the northwest of the Plan Area. This park offers a wide range of recreational facilities including a skate park, seasonal ice-skating rink, ballfields, tennis and volleyball courts, a rodeo arena, and an amphitheater. The Riverview Community Sports Park, located on Joerger Drive just north of the Plan Area, offers sports fields, a baseball diamond and BMX bicycle tracks. In addition to the larger community parks described above, there are smaller neighborhood parks located within Truckee, including Billy Rose Park in the Gateway area and Meadow Park in the Donner Trail subdivision. West End Beach is a public (paid entry) beach area at the west end of Donner Lake where TDRPD also operates non-motorized rentals. The TDRPD also operates the public a smaller shoreline public park and a boat launch facility, and provides a series of public piers on the north side of the lake. TDRPD also operates a number of smaller facilities, including a swimming pool (at Truckee High School), Community Center, a Community Art Center(located on Church Street), and Truckee Veterans Hall. These facilities offer a broad range of activities such as adult education, sports and fitness programs, and space for community meetings and functions. The Town of Truckee's standard for providing parkland is five acres for each 1,000 population. Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District While their primary function is education, schools also play an important function as recreational facilities. Students in Truckee have access to the athletic fields, pool, track, basketball facilities, volleyball facilities,soccer fields, and an outdoor amphitheater. State Parks The Donner Memorial State Park is the closest state park to the Town of Truckee and is partially within the Town limit. Donner Memorial State Park is located on Donner Lake. The State Park recently acquired 750 additional acres of land, and now covers 1,750 acres. In addition to the Donner Party memorial and educational exhibits, the park offers a variety of recreational opportunities,including hiking, boating, camping, cross-county skiing, and snowshoeing. The park also offers fishing boat and other watersport equipment rentals through a private vendor. There is a short section of hiking trails that link the Emigrant Trail to the National Forest and the Pacific Crest trails beyond the park. Camping facilities in the park include 154 sites, day use and picnic tables. The Park also includes the Emigrant Trail Museum and Pioneer Monument and provides groomed cross-country trails for winter use. National Forests The Town is surrounded by the Truckee Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest (TNF). The TNF comprises 800,000 acres of public land interspersed with 400,000 acres of private land in a checker board ownership pattern. Recreational opportunities provided by the TNF include Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-3 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION camping, hiking, picnicking, backpacking, equestrian use, snowmobiling, back country skiing and snowshoeing, and off-highway vehicle use. Several commercial downhill ski resorts are operated with special-use permits on TNF land. Existing Town Trail System Publicly accessible trail systems in Truckee and the surrounding area include a network of informal trails and well-known trails, such as the Pacific Crest Trail, Commemorative Emigrant Trail, Tahoe Rim Trail, Legacy Trail, and Sawtooth Rim Trail. According to the Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the current Truckee recreational trail system, including the network of trails and unpaved roads on the Plan Area, is characterized by a series of informal trails that lack cohesiveness or planned connections. Privately Owned Recreation Facilities Several privately-owned and operated recreational facilities are located within the Town boundary such as the Tahoe Donner marina,ski hill,etc. and the Old Greenwood clubhouse, pool,etc. Other privately owned recreational facilities are located in close proximity to the Town boundary, including Northstar and numerous golf courses. These facilities are private fee-based facilities that offer additional recreational opportunities for Truckee's residents and visitors. SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES The Town of Truckee Public Works Department and their contractors are responsible for snow removal on the majority of non-State and non-federal public roadways starting in November and ending in April. Nevada County, Placer County, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 3 are responsible for snow removal on designated county and State roadways. Caltrans District 3 provides snow removal services from the Truckee Maintenance Station located in Downtown Truckee adjacent to Interstate 80. Roadway maintenance and snow removal on private roads and private property is the responsibility of the land owners. Depending on conditions, snow removal on Truckee roadways occurs seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Top priority is given to support for emergency agency responses in an effort to achieve the Town's goal of safe and timely snow removal operations.Other priorities are as follows: • Main arterial and school bus routes. • Secondary residential streets • Cul-de-sacs. • High elevation areas subject to high winds. Snow is stored along roadways in the Town rights-of-way, and in designated snow storage areas (such as snow storage easements).The Town also hauls some snow from areas such as Downtown Truckee on an as-needed basis. The Town currently requires the dedication of 20-foot snow storage easements across new commercial and residential development fronting public roadways. 3.10-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) i PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 In a large storm event, the easement alone may not be capable of containing the entire quantity of the snow. During intense snow storm periods, equipment and facilities can be overburdened and unable to maintain the roads clear of snow within the Town's goal of clearing each street twice daily. 3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING STATE Fire Protection and Emergency Response CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sections 1270"Fire Prevention" and 6773 "Fire Protection and Fire Equipment" the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all fire fighting and emergency medical equipment. The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster. EMERGENCY RESPONSE/EVACUATION PLANS The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster. FIRE PROTECTION The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions to protect and assist first responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new existing buildings and premises. UNIFORM FIRE CODE The Uniform Fire Code with the State of California Amendments contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-5 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-saf ct requirements for new and existing buildings and the surroundingets specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety. premises. The Fire Code contains CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Code. This includes regulations for buildingSafety standards (as Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices f hsuch in h as extinge uishers Building smoke alarms,high-rise buildingand childcare facilitystandards, and fire suppression iruining. and g ppression training. Schools CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the State. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The California Department of Education (CDE)School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) re School Site Selection and Approval Guide that provides criteria for locatinge a P Pared a in the State of California. School site and size recommendations were changedbytheschool sites CDE to reflect various changes in educational conditions, such as lowering of class sizes useandlof of advanced technology. The expanded use of school buildings and grounds for community agency joint use and concern for the safety of the students and staff members also influenced the modification of the CDE recommendations. Specific recommendations for school size are provided Analysis Development Guide. This document suggests a rat oof 2 betwe n buildings'te and land. C and DE is aware that in a number of cases, primarily in urban settings, smaller sites cannot accommodate this ratio. In such cases, the SFPD may approve an amount of acreage less than the recom gross site size and building-to-ground ratio. mended Certain health and safety requirements for school site selection are governed by state re ul and the policies of the SFPD relating to: g ations • Proximity to airports, Power high-voltage roadways; transmission lines, railroads/ and major • Presence of toxic and hazardous substances; • Hazardous facilities and hazardous air emissions within one-quarter mile; • Proximity to high-pressure natural gas lines, pressurized sewer lines, or high-pressure water pipelinestorage facilities, gasoline lines, s • 6DraftEnvironmentaJImpactR eport-Ioerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 • Noise; • Results of geological studies or soil analyses; • Traffic and school bus safety issues. THE KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2002(PROP 47) This act was approved by California voters in November 2002 and provides for a bond issue of $13.05 billion to fund necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older schools. Funds will be targeted at areas of greatest need and must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds will also be used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California in order to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate growing student enrollment. LEROY F. GREENE SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT OF 1998(SB 50) The "Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998," also known as Senate Bill No. 50 or SB 50 (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998), governs a school district's authority to levy school impact fees. This comprehensive legislation, together with the $9.2 billion education bond act approved by the voters in November 1998 known as "Proposition 1A", reformed methods of school construction financing in California. SB 50 instituted a new school facility program by which school districts can apply for state construction and modernization funds. It imposed limitations on the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provided the authority for school districts to levy fees at three different levels: • Level I fees are the current statutory fees allowed under Education Code 17620.This code section provides the basic authority for school districts to levy a fee against residential and commercial construction for the purpose of funding school construction or reconstruction of facilities. These fees vary by district for residential construction and commercial construction and are increased biannually. • Level II fees are outlined in Government Code Section 65995.5, allowing school districts to impose a higher fee on residential construction if certain conditions are met. These conditions include having a substantial percentage of students on multi-track year-round scheduling, having an assumed debt equal to 15-30 percent of the district's bonding capacity (percentage is based on revenue sources for repayment), having at least 20 percent of the district's teaching stations housed in relocatable classrooms, and having placed a local bond on the ballot in the past four years which received at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast. A Facility Needs Assessment must demonstrate the need for new school facilities for unhoused pupils is attributable to projected enrollment growth from the construction of new residential units over the next five years. Level Ill fees are outlined in Government Code Section 655995.7. If State funding becomes unavailable, this code section authorizes a school district that has been approved to collect Level II fees to collect a higher fee on residential construction. This fee is equal to twice the amount of Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.10-7 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Level II fees. However, if a district eventually receives State funding, this excess fee may be reimbursed to the developers or subtracted from the amount of state funding. Parks and Recreation QUIMBYAC7' The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that "the legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map." Requirements of the Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with new residential development. The County collects fees imposed by the park and recreation districts impact fees. The impact fees are collected at the time of building permit and include both capital impacts and land acquisition. LOCAL 2025 Truckee General Plan Land Use Element P1.1: All new development shall meet important community goals for design quality, open space preservation, and promotion of a livable, sustainable community. Development that does not fulfill these goals shall not be allowed. P4.1: Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, to ensure that development within the Town is coordinated with provision of services. P4.2: Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable future sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the local population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimizing potential environmental impacts. P4.3: Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate services are available, or when a program to provide services has been approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truckee. Standards of services for new development applicable to this policy are shown in Table LU-6. Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivisions creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and industrial uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four or fewer lots in areas currently without sewer may be developed with residential uses using septic systems with the approval of the appropriate health and environmental agencies. Such lots may be required to 3.10-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 establish connections to the sewer system if they are located in close proximity to existing or future sewer lines. P5.3: Support development of neighborhood centers through establishment of uses and facilities that provide a direct benefit to the neighborhood, such as educational and recreation facilities, day care services, places of worship, community meeting centers, fire stations, small parks, libraries and other public facilities, telecenters, and neighborhood commercial uses. P7.5: Preserve the portions of parcels not developed with clustered residential used as undeveloped open space. Preservation and management options for open space include: • Dedication to a homeowners association. • Dedication to a public agency such as the Parks District, or to a land trust or other non-profit agency. • Use of building envelopes in conjunction with conservation easements or deed restrictions. Community Character Element P1.1: Utilize the mechanisms and strategies identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan as a tool to actively protect open space in Truckee, including that containing or contributing to the town's scenic mountain qualities. P1.3: Cluster new development so as to preserve the maximum amount of desired types of open space, as identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element. P1.4: Create a connected network of open spaces in Truckee that is accessible to the community for outdoor recreation and other use and enjoyment, as a key aspect of local community character. P10.2: Create new neighborhoods centers or focal points in neighborhoods where they do not currently exist. Such centers may include small commercial convenience centers like those found in Glenshire and Tahoe Donner, or may be focused around non- commercial community-serving uses such as those described in the sidebar opposite. P12.4: Provide sidewalks along at least one side of major roadways in Truckee's rural residential neighborhoods, except those of the most rural character, where sidewalks should be minimized and pedestrian connections enhanced instead through development of off-road trails. P12.5: Retain an expansive open space and mountain landscape quality as the dominant feature of Truckee's rural residential neighborhoods. Draft Environmental Impact Report-loerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-9 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Circulation Element P10.2: Implement the network of trails and bikeways described in the Trails Bikeways Master Plan, with priority given to establishment of a trail from Donner Lake along Donner Creek and the Truckee River to the eastern Town limit. This cross-town trail would serve as the main "artery" of the Town's trail network, with other trails connecting to it along its length, and would provide a critical link to major regional trails including a trail to the west that connects to Donner Summit and the Pacific Crest Trail, and to the east to trails that follow the Truckee River to Nevada. P10.3: Identify and implement new pedestrian facilities beyond those identified in the Trails & Bikeways Master Plan and Downtown Streetscape Plan. These facilities may include, but not be limited to, pedestrian facilities along Donner Pass Road between Cold Stream Road and South Shore Drive, along Highway 89 South, and along West River Street. Conservation and Open Space Element P1.1: Acquire and preserve open space lands in Truckee, and purchase development rights for the purpose of open space preservation, with priority given to the following open space types: • Regional parks. • Neighborhood parks. • Pristine open space and large blocks of undeveloped open space. • Open space corridors that provide connections between different open space areas. • Lands with a high level of scenic value. P1.4: Cluster new development where appropriate in order to maximize preservation of land 11 in open space. Clustering shall conform to the guidelines established in Policies and Actions listed under Goal LU-7 in the Land Use Element. P1.5: Adhere to the following criteria for open space preserved through direct actions of the Town, through open space and clustered development requirements and incentives, and through the development review process: • Provide the maximum possible degree of community benefit, as expressed through the Vision for Truckee and the guiding principles, goals and policies of the General Plan. • Preserve open space that, to the greatest possible extent, occurs in large blocks and is contiguous and connected. 3.10-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 • Provide the greatest possible level of public access while respecting private property rights,sensitive habitat values, and safety concerns. • Provide maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation. • Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain community. P3.2: Support appropriate trail construction to provide public access to and across wilderness and other pristine open space areas. P8.1: Require land or in-lieu fees for parks to be provided by new development at a minimum ratio of 5 acres per thousand population, to conform with standards established by the Town in accordance with the Quimby Act. P8.2: Support efforts to create a new regional park, neighborhood parks in new neighborhoods, and at least an additional two new neighborhood parks for existing neighborhoods in Truckee. P9.1: Provide for links between open space areas, both within Truckee and beyond the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas and enhance public access through greater connectivity. P9.2: Support the development and construction of a town-wide system of trails and bikeways, including, as priorities, the development of the Donner Lake/ Truckee River parkway ( see Goal COS-10), and the establishment of trails linking the Downtown with the Gateway Area and surrounding developed areas. P9.3: Require new development to incorporate trail corridors identified in the Trails & Bikeways Master Plan into the overall project site plan. P9.4: Preserve existing open space corridors, and connections to adjacent open space areas, and integrate publicly accessible trails and open space corridors into new development to the extent feasible. Safety Element P4.2: Continue to cooperate with the Fire Protection District to implement fire safety ordinances to minimize wildland fire hazards, including incorporation of fire resistant building and roofing materials, and attainment and maintenance of"defensible space." Defensible space may include revegetation with less flammable species, such as fire resistant native and adapted species, and the use of mulch to prevent erosion on bare soil. P4.3: Promote fire hazard reduction through cooperative fuel management activities in association with the Truckee Fire Protection District, the California Department of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service. Such strategies may include identifying and Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-11 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION implementing opportunities for fuel breaks in very high fire hazard severity zones, and ensuring that fire breaks are provided where necessary and appropriate. P4.4: Require new development to incorporate adequate emergency water flow, emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes. P4.5: Continue to support the mitigation fee program for the Fire Protection District, to ensure that the District is able to meet the future fire protection needs of the community as it grows. P4.6: Support, as appropriate, efforts to implement the recommendations of the 2005 Nevada County Fire Plan,and programs of Fire Safe Nevada County. P4.7: Ensure that the development review process addresses wildland fire risk, including assessment of both construction- and project related fire risks particularly in areas of the Town most susceptible to fire hazards. Cooperate with the TFPD in reviewing fire safety plans and provisions in new development, including aspects such as emergency access, site design for maintenance of defensible space, and use of non-combustible materials. Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services The Town established the Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services on April 20, 2009 to identify the applicability of Truckee Fire Protection District requirements on Town- approved projects and the public official responsible for verifying compliance with the condition. The Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services policy states that the review authority must make a finding of such before the review authority may approve a zoning clearance, development permit, or use permit to ensure adequate provisions for emergency vehicle access and fire protection. The finding focuses on the installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements on or adjacent to the property and the payment of development fees for the construction of facilities and purchase of equipment to address cumulative impacts on fire services. Because land use permits are approved by the Town, a Town official should be responsible for verifying compliance with this finding in coordination with the Truckee Fire Protection District Fire Marshal. The following condition of approval shall be applied to the approval of all zoning clearances, development permits, and use permits: "As determined by the Community Development Director in coordination with the District Fire Marshal, the project shall comply with all applicable Truckee Fire Protection District ordinances and requirements related to the construction or installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements and the payment of mitigation fees for the construction of facilities and the purchase of equipment. These ordinances and requirements may include, but not be limited to, installation of fire hydrants, minimum fire 3.10-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Ioerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 flow, automatic sprinkler systems for buildings, driveway and turnaround specifications, and fuel clearance. The physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements shall be installed at the time of development and completed prior to occupancy of buildings and the land, and the mitigation fees shall be paid in accordance with adopted Council rules for administration of the mitigation fee program." Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan The Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan (TEOP) was prepared in February 2008 and serves as an extension of the California Emergency Plan. The TEOP addresses the Town's responsibilities in emergencies associated with natural disasters, including wildfires. It provides a framework for coordination of response and recovery efforts within the Town in coordination and with local, State, and federal agencies. The TEOP establishes the emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies, and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements utilizing the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The plan also meets requirements established by the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Nevada County Fire Plan The Nevada County Fire Plan (NCFP) was prepared to reduce the risk from wildland fires to life, property, and natural resources in Nevada County and comply with the Disaster Management Act of 2000 and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. This NCFP was accepted by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in 2005. The NCFP includes an extensive series of recommendations for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors aimed at reducing wildland fire risk in Nevada County, including fuel management and defensible space enforcement strategies, public education, infrastructure improvements to increase fire-fighting capacity, and coordination with local fire agencies to ensure consistent and effective wildland fire mitigation efforts. Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD) Impact Fee New development in Truckee is required to pay impact fees to Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD) to address the impacts of new population on school facilities. According to the TTUSD, a fee of $2.63 per square foot is required for new residential development to pay for the construction of new school facilities. A higher rate is applied for new development in a few areas under a Mutual Benefit Agreement. The commercial rate is $0.42 per square foot of any new commercial or industrial space. The rate for commercial self-storage units is $0.21 per square foot of space. These impact fees are subject to change and the actual fee charged/assessed is determined at the time the impact fee must be paid. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Master Plan The Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD) adopted a Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Master Plan (TDRPD Master Plan) for the community in 1990 formulated to "facilitate the establishment of a balanced park, recreation and open space system that satisfied Draft Environmental Impact Report-)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.10-13 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION current needs and planned for future growth." The TDRPD Master Plan specifies a series of standards and goals for various types of parkland. Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan The Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (TBMP) is intended to supplement and implement the TDRPD Master Plan by providing the more-detailed analysis necessary for the development of a town-wide trail and bikeway system. The purpose of the TBMP is to have a community-based planning effort promoting the development of a local multi-use trail and bikeway system designed to increase recreational, educational, and alternative transportation opportunities for the benefit of local residents and visitors to the Truckee area. The TBMP is considered a community plan to be used by all public and private entities proposing development of a recreational trail or on-street bikeway project within its boundaries. It is intended to be used as a guide for future local, State, and federal roadway improvement projects and all future recreational trail projects. When reasonable and warranted, all local, State, and federal sponsored projects providing an opportunity to implement the objectives of the TBMP will be strongly encouraged to expand or modify the scope of these individual projects to be consistent with the TBMP. The goals and policies of the TBMP provide guidance for the planning, development, and management for the type, design, and general location of trail corridors within the Town. Recreation Facilities Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2008-28 is a resolution of the Town Council, which adopted a recreational facilities mitigation fee and established rules for the administration of the Recreational Facilities Mitigation Fee Program. The fee shall be applied to all applications for a building permit submitted to the Town on or after August 1, 2008 and to any building permit issued by the Town, regardless of the date of submittal of the application, on or after December 1, 2008. A single family detached unit would require a payment of $0.86 per square foot and $1.27 per square foot for a multi-family unit. Subdivision Park and Recreational Fee Resolution No. 2008-29 is a resolution of the Town Council, which adopted a Subdivision Park and Recreational Fee and established rules for the administration of the Subdivision Park and Recreational Fee Program. The fee shall be applied to all applications for a tentative map or tentative map waiver submitted to the Town and determined to be complete on or after June 16, 2008. A single family detached unit would require a payment of$3,832 per parcel and $2,633 per parcel for a multifamily unit. I 3.10-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 Town of Truckee Impact Fee Program In accordance with California Government Code sections 66000-66025, the Town of Truckee administers development impact fees through its AB1600 Impact Fee Program. These fees are levied on all new development to provide funding for the provision of parks and recreation facilities and other needed services in the Town. As of November 1, 2011 the facilities impact fee for a single-family unit is$2,602 and $1,586 for a multi-family unit. Town of Truckee Municipal Code Chapter 10.17 Snow Removal The Town of Truckee Municipal Code provides the regulatory authority for the snow removal in the Town for the health,safety, and welfare of the residences and visitors of Truckee. 3.10.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on public services if it would result in: • Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered government facilities, and/or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: o Fire Protection o Police Protection o Schools o Parks o Other public facilities IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed project is anticipated to generate 2.52 persons per household, which would result in approximately 245 new residents for the project's required 97.37 workforce housing residential units. Because the proposed project would result in new population and development on an undeveloped site that is currently limited to open space, the proposed project would result in an increased potential for fire and emergency incidents. Thus, the project would create an increased demand for fire protection services. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-15 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION The TFPD collects development impact fees from new development. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the project proponent, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the project, would assist in maintaining existing fire facilities. There are currently adequate fire services within proximity to the Plan Area. The proposed project would not result in the need for new fire facilities that could have an adverse physical environmental impact. The Truckee Fire Protection District submitted a Letter to the Town of June 20, 2012 outlining several requirements for the proposed project related to: hydrants and fire flow, automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, roadways and driveways, wildland fire protection, and construction. These requirements are discussed below. The TFPD requires hydrants to be spaced a maximum distance of 500 feet apart in the residential area, so that no point on any road is more than 250 feet from a hydrant. The TFPD also requires hydrants in the commercial and industrial areas; however, the hydrant locations will be dependent on the building plans which will undergo review by the fire department prior to approval. All hydrants are required to be dry barrel type and must be identified with an 8' snow stake and protected with bollards.The minimum fire flow for hydrants is 1500-gpm for a 2-min duration with 20-psi residual in the residential area. Fire flow in the commercial and industrial area is a minimum of 2000-gpm; however, the fire flow requirements may be larger depending on building plans. 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. The water system must be installed and serviceable prior to any construction. The TFPD requires the installation of an approved fire sprinkler system in all non-residential structures in excess of 3,600 square feet, and in all residential structures. The sprinkler systems must comply with NFPA 13 requirements and must be approved by the TFPD prior to installation. An approved fire alarm systems must be installed where required. The TFPD requires all roads and driveways to be a minimum of 24' wide with an all weather surface capable of supporting a 40,000-lb vehicle. This requirement also applies to emergency fire access roads. Any gated access requires the installation of a Knox box system for fire district access and approved radio operation. Roads and driveways must have a minimum unobstructed height of 13'6" and a minimum 50' radius.Access roads are subject to approval by the TFPD. The TFPD requires the removal of all flammable vegetation that could pose a threat within 30' of all structures.A 15-foot fuel modification zone is required on both sides of all roads and driveways. The TFPD requires construction to comply with all current codes and local ordinances, including the State Public Resource Code Section 4290&4291.The TFPD requires mitigation to be applied to all building construction at the applicable rate. Full building plans/drawings must be submitted to the TFPD for review and approval prior to construction. The TFPD prohibits shakes or shingles of any kind for roofing materials. The TFPD noted in their NOP comment dated June 20, 2012, that 3.10-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 the proposed project must provide mitigation revenue for the new multi-family unitsnew non- residential n- residential square footage, at the current rate in the year that the project is developed. The manner and means of such payment will be determined by the Fire Chief or his designee after consultation with the applicant. The proposed project does not specifically address hydrants and fire flow, automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, fire standards related to roadways and driveways, wildland fire protection, and construction. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following measure will ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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. 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.10-17 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 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 30'of all structures. 2. A 15 foot fuel modification zone shall be required on both sides of all roads and driveways. Impact 3.10-2: The proposed project has the potential to increase demand for police services or require the construction of police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts (Less than Significant) The proposed project would result in 97.37 new residential units with an estimated population increase of 245 new residents.The proposed project would also result in commercial and industrial development potential of over 460,000 sf of building space. The new residents and businesses on the Plan Area would require police services from the Truckee Police Department. There are a number of factors that contribute to the crime rate and police demand in any given area, such as police presence, crime prevention measures, and on-going legislation/funding. The crime rate directly affects the "needs" projection for staff and equipment for the Truckee Police Department. The Truckee Police Department Monthly Activity Reports for 2009 through 2012 shows that overall calls for service decreased from 15,715 to 13,337 and violent crimes largely remained the same at 411 and 417 respectively. 3.10-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 While the proposed project would increase the number of persons and level of business activity on the Plan Area, the proposed project is not expected to result in a large increase in the amount of crime in Truckee. The Truckee Police Department determines the need for police equipment and staff levels to serve the entire Town of Truckee on an annual basis based on a variety of factors that affect demand for police services. The project proponent would be required to pay the appropriate impacts fees for public services and future residents and business owners would be required to pay property taxes, which provide funding for law enforcement. The project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies aimed at maintaining adequate police protection services for the Truckee area. The proposed project is not anticipated to create a need for new or altered police facilities. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact on police services and facilities. Impact 3.10-3: The proposed project has the potential to increase demands for school services or require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts (Less than Significant) The proposed 97.37 multi-family workforce housing residential units would generate a total of 28.3 students (17.3 students in K-6; 5.0 students in 7-8; and 6.0 students 9-12) according to the Student Yield Rates for Multi-Family Residential presented in Table 3.10-1 below. TABLE 3.10-1:MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED STUDENT YIELD RATES GRADE LEVEL STUDENT YIELD STUDENT GENERATION K-6 0.178 17.3 7-8 0.051 5.0 9-12 0.062 6.0 Total 0.291 28.3 SOURCES:TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FIVE-YEAR FACILITY MASTER PLAN UPDATE(2007) These new students would attend Truckee Elementary School, Alder Creek Middle School, and Tahoe-Truckee High School. These three schools are currently operating well below their enrollment capacity. The Truckee Elementary School has a maximum capacity of 664 students and 556 students were enrolled in 2012-13. Alder Creek Middle School has a maximum capacity of 802 students and 544 students were enrolled in 2012-13. The Tahoe-Truckee High School has a capacity of 905 students and 604 students were enrolled in 2012-13 (California Department of Education-Educational Demographics Unit 2013). The 28.3 total students generated by the proposed project is a negligible increase in students and is not anticipated to increase enrollment above capacity. The project proponent would be required to pay impact fees to Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD) to address the impacts of the new population on school facilities. At the time that this Draft EIR was prepared, the fee is $2.63 per square foot for new residential development and $0.42 per square foot for new commercial or industrial space.The rate for commercial self-storage units is $0.21 per square foot of space.These impact fees are subject to change and the actual fee Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-19 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION charged/assessed is determined at the time the impact fee must be paid. This fee pays for the construction of new school facilities. As provided in Section 65996 of the California Government Code, the payment of such fees is deemed to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school services. Therefore, with payment of these required developer fees and property taxes, project impacts to school services would be less than significant. 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Parks: Based on the existing estimated population of approximately 16,200,the current parks ratio in Truckee is approximately 7.4 acres per thousand which exceeds the Quimby Act and Town policy standard of 5 acres per thousand. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 2.52 persons per household,which would result in approximately 245 new residents.The additional need based on the new residents is 1.23 acres of dedicated parkland.The proposed project will be required to contribute the appropriate park impact fee to cover the cost of 1.23 acres of park. Open Space: In addition to the park requirements, The Development Code includes open space standards for development projects.The Open Space standard is described in Section 18.46.050 as follows: Multi-Family, Commercial and Manufacturing Zones: The minimum amount of open space required within the property for the multi family residential, commercial, and manufacturing/industrial zoning districts (i.e., RM, DRM, DRH, CN, CG, CH, CS, M, DMU, DC, DVL and DM)shall be either: a. The sum of all areas listed in Section 18.46.010 and all those OS zoned portions of the property;or b. As identified in the applicable open space standards in Article 11, whichever is greater. The reference to "sum of all areas listed in Section 18.46.10" under (a) above includes the following: 100-year flood plains, environmentally sensitive areas; lakes and ponds; and slopes in excess of 30 percent. The only item applicable to the Plan Area within this list is the environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands). The Plan Area includes two wetlands (0.22-acre intermittent stream and 0.11-acre ephemeral stream) for a total of 0.33 acres of environmentally sensitive habitat as defined by the Development Code. The total open space proposed is 10.24 acres;therefore,the proposed project exceeds the standard under(a) above. The Section 18.46.050 open space standard described under (b) above refers to Article II of the Development Code, which is the zoning requirements. The Open Space requirements described in Article II for Special Purpose Districts, including Planned Communities, states "Permanent open 3.10-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 space shall be provided in compliance with 18.46 (Open Space/Cluster Requirements)," which in effect requires 0.33 acres of open space due to the presence of two wetlands. The total open space proposed is 10.24 acres; therefore, the proposed project exceeds the standard under (b) above. The proposed project includes additional open space requirements for each zone. The CR and CRS zone has a 20 percent open space requirement,which would require 3.55 acres of open space.The CL, Ml, and RM zones do not have an open space requirement defined in the proposed project, although the minimum setback and landscaping requirements defined in the proposed project will inevitably provide some open space in these zones that will not have open space zoning. The total open space proposed is 10.24 acres; therefore, the proposed project exceeds the standards set by the proposed project. The proposed 10.24 acres of open space land is primarily intended to protect natural resources on the Plan Area and to establish a buffer zone and setbacks from SR 267. The open space located at the Hope Court/ Brockway Road intersection is intended to provide an opportunity for a trailhead to access the Northstar trail segment, park & ride, public art and a portion of the remaining area for use by a public or nonprofit organization. Parking for the trailhead and park & ride will consist of 8- 12 parking spaces. Bicycle and Trail Network:The proposed project includes a 10-foot wide separated Class 1 bicycle path along Brockway Road (north side). This bicycle path starts on the west end of the Plan Area and runs easterly, crossing Brockway Road at Hope Court. The bicycle path then travels easterly along Hope Court (north side) until its terminus at the Plan Area boundary on Hope Court. This bicycle path will eventually link the path to the future Martis Valley Trail to the southeast and the Truckee Regional Park to the northwest. The proposed project also includes a Class 1 bicycle path on the westerly side of Martis Drive that extends to the northern boundary of the Plan Area. This path will allow for a future extension to connect to the Legacy Trail to the north. The proposed project integrates Class II bicycle paths into the various roadway sections, including each side of Brockway Road, Soaring Way and along Joerger Drive fronting the Plan Area. These proposed onsite bicycle and tails facilities are consistent with the Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The project does not currently propose any offsite bicycle or trail network connectivity that would directly link the Plan Area to the larger bicycle and trail network throughout the Town. The Truckee General Plan includes a number of policies that require new projects to construct and implement trail connections to the existing and planned network of trails throughout the Town. Offsite trail connections are called for in the following General Plan policies, which are described in greater detail in the Regulatory Setting section of this chapter: Community Character Element, Policy 1.4, Circulation Element Policies 10.2 and 10.3, Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 3.2, 9.1, 9.3, and 9.4. As currently proposed, the project does not include offsite trail connections that would meet the requirements of the Truckee General Plan policies listed above. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-21 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION As such, this is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following measure will ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Conclusion: The proposed project would require payment of park impact fees in accordance with the Quimby Act and Town policies to compensate for the park impacts caused by the proposed project. The proposed project includes open space that exceeds the requirements outlined in the Development Code. The proposed project's onsite bicycle and trail network includes both Class I and II paths and is consistent with the Town requirements. However, the proposed project does not currently include offsite bicycle and trail connections to existing and planned trails throughout the Truckee area, as required by the General Plan. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-4 would require the project proponent to provide offsite trail connections to key recreational corridors in the Truckee area, which would satisfy the requirements of the General Plan, and reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 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 3.10-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Ioerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.10 Impact 3.10-5: The proposed project has the potential to have adverse effects on other public facilities (Less than Significant) Snow storage and snow removal are important considerations on-site and within the adjacent public road and highway rights-of-way. The Town of Truckee Municipal Code provides the regulatory authority for the snow removal in the Town for the health, safety, and welfare of the residences and visitors of Truckee (Town of Truckee Municipal Code Chapter 10.17 Snow Removal). 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, it will be hauled off -site to a permitted disposal site such as the Eastern Regional Landfill Transfer Station. Storm water runoff from snow storage areas will be routed through water quality treatment facilities prior to discharge. A Maintenance Agreement between property owner and the Town for snow removal and storage will be required to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residences, businesses, and visitors in the future. With the execution of the Maintenance Agreement in accordance with Development Code Section 18.30.105, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.10-23 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION This page left intentionally blank. 3.10-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation system including roadways, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and transit facilities/services. This chapter identifies the significant impacts of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to lessen their significance. The PC3 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.was the basis of all referenced material in this section. 3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)is located in the Town of Truckee, CA. The project site is bordered on the south by Hope Court and State Route (SR) 267. SR 267 also splits the site north to south. To the northeast of the site is the Truckee - Tahoe Airport and Joerger Road. Brockway Road/Soaring Way transverses the site east to west. The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of an existing winery accessed via Martis Drive. To the north, west, and south of the project site is a mix of low and medium density residential, commercial, and recreational uses including the Ponderosa Golf Course to the west and the Riverview Sports Park to the north. The site is also located near the Town of Truckee municipal offices and various commercial uses near the airport. Figure 3.11-1 displays the project site in relation to the study intersections included in the transportation analysis. STUDY AREA ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS The Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated traffic data, intersection capacity, level of service, and traffic impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, Placer County and Caltrans standards. This study also included an analysis and estimation of Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) associated with the proposed project. Based upon input provided by the Town of Truckee,the following intersections were identified for analysis: • SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • SR 89 North/SR 267/1-80 Westbound • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street Ramps • West River Street/Bridge Street • SR 89 North/SR 267/1-80 Eastbound • West River Street/McIver Crossing Ramps • Brockway Road/Palisades Drive • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Truckee Airport Road/Schaffer • Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road Mill Road (Placer County) • Brockway Road/Martis Drive(Site • SR 267/Northstar Drive(Placer County) Access) • SR 267/SR 28 (Placer County) • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Proposed • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail Site Access • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Proposed Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp Site Access • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern • Site Access/Joerger Drive(Proposed Interchange Westbound On-Ramp Intersection) In addition to the intersections described above, the following roadway segments were identified for analysis: Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-1 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Bridge Street, Across Railroad Tracks • SR 267, Between Airport Road and • Donner Pass Road, South of SR 89 North Northstar Drive • Donner Pass Road, South of 1-80 Eastern • SR 267, Between Northstar Drive and Interchange Brockway Summit • Donner Pass Road, East of Bridge Street • SR 267, North of SR 28 • Donner Pass Road, West of Bridge Street • Brockway Road, Between SR 267 and • SR 89, North of 1-80 Project Access • SR 267, Between 1-80 and Brockway • Brockway Road, Between Project Access Road and Martis Valley Road • SR 267, Between Brockway Road and • Brockway Road, Between Martis Valley Town Limit Road and Palisades Drive • SR 267, Between Town Limit and Airport • Brockway Road, Between Palisades Drive Road and West River Street Key roadways in the project vicinity include Interstate 80 (1-80), SR 267, Brockway Road, Soaring Way and Joerger Drive. These roadways are described below. Interstate 80 provides interregional highway connections east to Reno, Nevada and beyond, and west to Sacramento, California and the San Francisco Bay Area. The Town of Truckee area lies along both sides of 1-80, 34 miles west of Reno and 90 miles east of Sacramento. This section of I- 80 is currently a four-lane divided highway with limited truck climbing lanes, and with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. There are a total of eight interchanges serving Truckee on 1-80, 111 including the Donner Lake Road and Hirschdale Road interchanges. The two closest interchanges to Joerger Ranch Development are SR 267 and Donner Pass Road (Eastern). State Route 267 is a two-lane highway running in a general northwest-southeast alignment between the Interstate-80/SR 89 North/SR 267 interchange in Truckee and SR 28 in Kings Beach. SR 267 is of local and regional significance, providing access to residential, industrial, commercial and recreational land uses. It serves as the major route between the 1-80 corridor in the Town of Truckee and the North Lake Tahoe communities of Kings Beach and Incline Village, Nevada. It also serves as the sole existing access to the Northstar California Resort and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Brockway Road is a 1.5 miles long roadway, which runs in a generally east-west orientation between SR 267 and South River Street in Downtown Truckee. On its west end Brockway Road turns into Bridge Street which continues through downtown Truckee. It provides access to many residential, commercial, and recreational land uses. Throughout its length, Brockway Road is a 2 lane road way with left turn lanes at major intersection and driveways. The speed limit varies from 45 mph on the east side to 35 mph on its west side. Soaring Way is an arterial roadway that provides access to the proposed project site. Soaring Way runs approximately two-thirds mile between SR 267 on the west and Airport Road on the east. The posted speed limit along Soaring Way is 40 miles per hour. The project site is located near the western end of the roadway. The eastern end of Soaring way provides access to the commercial land uses and the Truckee Tahoe Airport. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-2 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Joerger Drive is a two-lane roadway providing access from Soaring Way to the Riverview Sports Park, the Truckee Sanitation District, and a quarry. Joerger Drive has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Existing Traffic Volumes The Traffic Impact Analysis identified impacts on study roadways which were determined by measuring the effect that site-generated traffic has on traffic operations at key intersections and along roadways during the 10th-highest summer weekday PM peak hour. In addition, the 30`h- highest winter PM peak hour was analyzed for intersections within Placer County.The winter peak hour is technically defined as the 30`h-highest hour of travel demand during the ski season (Placer County, 2003).The 30`h-highest winter PM peak hour generally corresponds to a busy (but not the busiest) weekend day during ski season during the hour that ski areas are closing and skiers departing ski areas mix with local and inter-regional traffic. EXISTING SUMMER TRAFFIC VOLUMES Year 2012 summer peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes were estimated at the study intersections as described below. PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted at the following study intersections as a part of the Truckee 2009 Traffic Count Program: • SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road • SR 89 North/SR 267/1-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 89 North/SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastbound Off Ramp(Eastern Intersection) • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Westbound On Ramp(Eastern Intersection) • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing • Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road • Brockway Road/Palisades Drive • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way In addition, PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted for this study during the summer of 2009 at the following intersections: • SR 267/Truckee Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road (Placer County) • SR 267/Northstar Drive (Placer County) • Brockway Road/Hope Court • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive All 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-3 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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. II PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the following two intersections were counted during the summer of 2012: • West River Street/Bridge Street • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail These counts were adjusted to reflect 10th-highest summer weekday PM peak-hour traffic levels, based upon the hourly directional traffic volumes on Donner Pass Road in 2009. Finally,an intersection turning movement count was conducted at the SR 267/SR 28 intersection in Kings Beach on a peak summer day in August of 2010. According to Caltrans traffic count data along SR 28 and SR 267 in Kings Beach, traffic volumes between 2010 and 2012 have actually declined slightly. Therefore, the 2010 traffic counts are considered to be a reasonable estimate of 2012 traffic volumes. The intersection volumes were finally adjusted so that entering and exiting traffic balances between adjacent intersections. The resulting 2012 summer intersection turning movement volumes without the PC-3 project are displayed in Figure 3.11-2. EXISTING WINTER TRAFFIC VOLUMES Year 2012 winter peak hour turning movement volumes without the proposed project were estimated for the following three study intersections in Placer County: • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road • SR 267/Northstar Drive • SR 267/SR 28 Traffic counts were conducted at these three intersections during March of 2010 as a part of the traffic analysis. In addition, a more recent count was conducted at the SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection during the busy Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend in January of 2011. All counts were adjusted to represent the 30th-highest hour of traffic during the winter, based on Caltrans hourly traffic counts at a point on SR 267 between Brockway Road and Airport Road (the only location on SR 267 for which hourly count data is available). The Caltrans data indicates that there was no significant traffic growth on SR 267 in Martis Valley between 2011 and 2012. Therefore, the SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection count is assumed to reflect 2012 conditions. The SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection count was then increased to balance with SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection volumes. Based upon a review of Caltrans historical traffic count data at a point on SR 267 north of SR 28 in Kings Beach, an average annual growth rate of approximately 2 percent was applied to the SR 28/SR 267 intersection counts, in order to adjust them to 2012 conditions. The resulting 2012 winter peak-hour intersection turning movements without PC-3 are presented in Table 3.11-1. 3.11-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-1:WINTER INTERSECTION TURING MOVEMENT VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTERSECTION —I S z g• T 2? g• s a TOTAL 2 5 2 IP 2 SR 267/Airport Rd/ 19 1,123 15 8 560 21 42 1 9 5 2 18 1,823 Schaffer Mill Rd SR 267/Northstar Dr. 89 303 - - 385 189 854 - 513 - - • 2,333 SR 267/SR 28 0 0 0 452 0 451 240 574 0 1 445 264 2.427 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES This section describes the existing bicycle facilities in the study area. Truckee's existing trail and bikeway system includes recreational trails/Class I (separated) bike paths that are in place through the Truckee River Regional Park between Brockway Road and SR 267, east of SR 267 to the Riverview Sports Park, and in short sections north of the Pioneer Commerce Center, Gray's Crossing and Old Greenwood developments, along Brockway Road, and along Deerfield Drive. Class II bike lanes are also provided along Donner Pass Road through the Gateway area. A Class I bike path is provided adjacent to The Rock retail center along the north side of Brockway Road, and additional trails/Class I bike paths will be built in conjunction with smaller development projects in the Brockway Road area. Several other facilities are proposed in the 2002 Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, which describes a comprehensive system of bikeways located along Truckee's existing and future roadways,as well as a dedicated network of trails and pathways for use by pedestrians, equestrians, cyclists and cross-country skiers. The facilities proposed in the Master Plan include a major East-West Recreational Trail, Multi-User Recreational Trails, Class I Bike Paths,Class II Bike Lanes, and Class Ill Bike Routes. TRANSIT SERVICE Both the Town of Truckee and Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) transit services operate within the vicinity of the Plan Area. Truckee Transit: The Town of Truckee offers both fixed route and Dial-A-Ride service in the Truckee area. The fixed route service varies by season. During the winter season (mid-December through the end of March) a free fixed route/ski shuttle service is offered 7 days per week throughout Truckee and the Donner Summit area from approximately 6:00 AM to Noon and 2:45 PM to 6:15 PM. This shuttle passes the PC-3 site as it travels south over the SR 267 Bypass and west on Brockway Road. The closest stop to PC-3 is at the intersection of Brockway Road and Martis Valley Road.The shuttle passes this stop 4 times eastbound each day. During the non-winter season (April through mid-December) buses serve the Truckee and Donner Lake areas on a fixed hourly schedule from 9:00 AM to 1:10 PM and from 2:10 PM to 5:00 PM, every day except Sunday. The westbound bus travels south over the SR 267 Bypass, east on Soaring Way to the airport, then north on SR 267 and west on Brockway Road. The closest existing Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-5 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION stops to PC-3 are at the airport and at the intersection of Brockway Road and Martis Valley Road. The shuttle passes these stops 7 times each day. The Truckee Dial-A-Ride service is offered year-round to the general public with priority service for seniors and persons with disabilities. This paratransit service is available for trips within the Town limits,over the same hours and days as the fixed route service. Reservations must be made at least 24 hours in advance to schedule a Dial-A-Ride trip. Tahoe Area Regional Transit: Placer County's Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) fixed route buses serve the north and west shores of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee area. This service also varies by season. During the winter season (mid-December through mid-April),the SR 267 route between Truckee and Crystal Bay operates 7 days a week from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This bus passes near the PC-3 area as it travels along SR 267 and Brockway Road, with stops at the Truckee Airport, the Hampton Inn on SR 267, and at the intersection of Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road. The bus passes these stops 11 times each day in each direction. During the non-winter months (mid-April through mid-December), no service is provided along SR 267, although service is provided between Tahoe City and Truckee (with a connection provided at the Truckee Depot where passengers can transfer to the Town of Truckee Bus serving the SR 267 Bypass and Brockway Road near the PC-3 site). FREIGHT RAIL The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) operates the Overland Route, freight service only, which runs east-west through Truckee. At grade crossings within Truckee exist at Bridge Street. Overpass crossings exist at SR 267 and McIver Crossing within the town. According to the Federal Railroad Administration (website at:http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/crossing/xinggrylo c.aspx),this line is used by an average of 15 trains per day. 3.11.2 ANALYSIS METHODS Traffic operations at the study intersections are assessed in terms of Level of Service (LOS) and delay. LOS is a concept that was developed by transportation engineers to quantify the level of operation of intersections and roadways (Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010). LOS measures are classified in grades "A" through "F," indicating the range of operation. LOS "A" signifies the best level of operation, while"F" represents the worst. For signalized intersections, LOS is primarily measured in terms of average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. LOS at unsignalized intersections is quantified in terms of delay per vehicle for each movement. Unsignalized intersection LOS is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for side-street stop sign-controlled approaches, while signalized intersection LOS is based upon the assessment of volume-to-capacity ratios and control delay. Roundabout LOS is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for the traffic entering the roundabout, and an assessment of the conflicting circulating flow. A microscopic traffic simulation was created for the SR 267 corridor using the SimTraffic software package (Version 8, TrafficWare). The simulation model includes four of the study intersections along SR 267. Listed from north to south, the following intersections are evaluated in the simulation: 3.11-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road The intersection Level of Service (LOS)at the four intersections above is based on the results of the simulation. Intersection (LOS) for the remaining study intersections is largely evaluated using the methodologies documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), as applied in the Synchro 8.0 Software package developed by TrafficWare. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2010) is utilized for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, in order to be consistent with other recent studies of this intersection, and to reflect the calibrated driver behavior discussed below. As the HCM 2010 methodology is not applicable for roundabouts with more than two circulating lanes, the SIDRA software (Version 4) is used to analyze LOS for three-lane roundabouts. ANALYSIS SCENARIOS The operations of the study intersections were evaluated for the following four scenarios: 1. Existing(2012)without Project 2. Existing(2012)with Project 3. Future(2032) Full Buildout of General Plan without Project 4. Future(2032) Full Buildout of General Plan with Project DATA COLLECTION All study intersections were evaluated to determine existing operational conditions for the 2012 summer PM peak hour. The three study intersections located in Placer County (SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road,SR 267/Northstar Drive, SR 28/SR 267)were also evaluated for the winter PM peak hour. Using the traffic volumes presented as part of this study, it is possible to evaluate the LOS provided during peak periods at the intersections serving the study area. Existing Intersection Operations Existing operations were analyzed for the summer PM peak hours at the study intersections. The three study intersections located in Placer County (SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road, SR 267/Northstar Drive,SR 28/SR 267)were also evaluated for the winter PM peak hour.Table 3.11-2 displays the intersection analysis results. TABLE 3.11-2:PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE—EXISTING CONDITIONS—NO PROJECT LOS PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CONTROL'.2 THRESHOLD DELAY' LOS Summer LOS 1. SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road Roundabout D 6.1 A 2. SR 267/SR 89 North/1-80 Westbound Signal D 18.4 B Ramps3 3. SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps3 Signal D 12.2 B 4. Donner Pass Road/1-80 Westbound On Uncontrolled D 8.8 A ramp 5. Donner Pass Road/1-80 Eastbound Off-ramp Stop Controlled D 28.9 D Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-7 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION INTERSECTION CONTROLS 1 LOS PM PEAK HOUR THRESHOLD DELAY' LOS 6. Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail Roundabout D 9.3 A 7. Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive Stop Controlled E OVF F 8. Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street Unconventional4 E OVF F 9. Bridge Street/West River Street Stop Controlled E OVF F 10. West River Street/McIver Crossing Stop Controlled E 71.9 F 11. Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road Roundabout D 8.1 A 12. Brockway Road/Palisades Drive Signal E 6.1 A 13. SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Ways Signal D 21.2 C 14. SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road' Signal E 16.7 B 15. SR 267/Northstar Drive Signal E 9.8 A 16. SR 267/SR 28 Signal D/Es 30.7 C 17. Brockway Road/Hope Court Stop Controlled D 13.3 B 18. Brockway Road/Martis Drive Stop Controlled D N/A 19. Soaring Way/Joerger Dr/Site Access Stop Controlled D 9.4 A 20. Joerger Dr/PC-3 Commercial Access Stop Controlled D N/A Winter LOS 14.SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road Signal E 17.4 B 15.SR 267/Northstar Drive Signal E 15.3 B 16.SR 267/SR 28 Signal DIES 37.1 D SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC. BOLD text indicates that LOS standard has been exceeded.OVF=Overflow.Overflow indicates a delay greater than 200 seconds per vehicle,which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 1:Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2:Level of service for roundabouts and other unsignalized intersections is reported for the worst movement. NOTE 3:Level of service at these intersections is based on SimTraffic simulation. NOTE 4:The Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street intersection is controlled with stop signs on three approaches,with the northbound Bridge Street approach uncontrolled. NOTE 5:LOS E is acceptable at this intersection for no more than 4 hours during the design day,per TRPA LOS standards. As indicated,the following study intersections currently exceed level of service standards: • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • Bridge Street/West River Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing The remaining study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels during the summer (and winter for applicable intersections) PM peak hour periods without the proposed project. Table 3.11-3 summarizes the results for existing 2012 roadway segment conditions without the project. 3.11-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-3:ROADWAY LOS ANALYSIS-2012 WITHOUT PROJECT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK•HOURVOLUME TWO-WAY PEAK" ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFICI EXCEEDED? SUMMER Bridge Street,across Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,077 580 N/A N/A No railroad tracks + Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 907 523 N/A N/A No SR 89 North Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 916 475 N/A N/A No 1-80 Eastern Interchange , Donner Pass Road,East of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 990 639 N/A N/A No Row) Donner Pass Road,West of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 1,068 717 N/A N/A No Row) . SR 89,North of 1-80 Town of Highway D N/A 1 771 413 N/A N/A No Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between 1-80 and Town of Highway D N/A 1 1,291 766 N/A N/A No Brockway Road Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between Brockway Town of Highway D N/A 1 1,493 846 N/A N/A No Road and Town Limit Truckee/Caltrans _ SR 267,between Town Placer Highway E 25,000 1,448 801 11.19 16,200 No Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans _ SR 267,between Airport Placer Highway E 25,000 1,295 669 11.19 14,490 No Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,130 647 11.19 12,640 No Summit _ _ , SR 267,north of SR 28 TRPA/Placer Highway D 25,000 1,306 659 11.19 14,610 No County/Caltrans , _ _ , Brockway Road,between project access and Martis Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 935 496 N/A N/A No Valley Road Brockway Road,between Martis Valley Road and Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,249 733 N/A N/A No Palisades Drive Brockway Road,between _ Town of Truckee _ Minor Arterial _ E 1,600 1,609 997 N/A N/A J No Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-9 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK-HOUR VOLUME TWO-WAY PEAK ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFIC 1 EXCEEDED? Palisades Drive and West River Street 1 WINTER T -- y SR 267,between Town Placer Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 1,772 1,183 10.19 18,100 No SR 267,between Airport Placer Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 1,731 1,157 10.19 17,600 No T SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,290 898 10.19 13,100 No Summit _ SR 267,north of SR 28 TRPA/Placer Highway D 25,000 1,407 903 10.19 14,300 No County/Caltrans SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC. NOTE 1:Threshold Volume is not applicable to these roadway segments,as traffic conditions on these segments were evaluated using a SimTraffic microsimulation. 3.11-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.11.3 PROJECT TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS The project location, the size of the project, and the time of the project completion are all important elements that need to be considered to determine the safety and capacity impacts of the development. It is also important to examine how the project will operate with the existing transportation system, estimate how much new traffic it will generate, identify how it would impact existing traffic patterns, and identify how traffic generated by the project site will be distributed. The Joerger Ranch Development Project includes planning areas located on 14 parcels in the four quadrants of the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. The proposed development consists of residential, retail commercial and non-retail commercial uses. A potential grocery store (about 50,000 square feet) is included in the retail commercial area.The specific elements of each planning area of the proposed development used for the traffic analysis are summarized in Table 3.11-4. TABLE 3.11-4:LAND USE ELEMENTS PARCEL PARCEL ZONE ITE LAND USE CODE A M XED SIZE FAR QU UNITS (ACRES) BIZ 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 50% 60.86 KSF 1&2 BUSINESS CENTER 13.97 0.2 INNOVATION ZONE 770 BUSINESS PARK 50% 60.86 KSF RM 220 APARTMENT 3 MULTIFAMILY 100% 3.48 12 42 DU RESIDENTIAL CL 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 4&5 LIFESTYLE 100% 7.59 0.2 66.12 KSF COMMERCIAL CENTER CL 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 70% 46.28 KSF 6 LIFESTYLE CENTER 7.59 0.2 COMMERCIAL 932 HIGH-TURNOVER 30% 19.84 KSF RESTAURANT 7 OS PARK AND RIDE 2,73 n/a 12 Spaces OPEN SPACE LOT/TRAILHEAD PARKING MI 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 70% 33.91 KSF 8 MANUFACTURING / 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 5.56 0.2 INDUSTRIAL CENTER 30% 14.53 KSF CRS 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 70% 9.88 KSF 9 REGIONAL SUPPORT CENTER 1.62 0.2 COMMERCIAL 932 HIGH-TURNOVER 30% 4.23 KSF RESTAURANT CRS 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 10 REGIONAL SUPPORT CENTER 100% 1.20 0.2 10.45 KSF COMMERCIAL M1 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 70% 0.2 23.97 KSF 11&12 MANUFACTURING / 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 3.93 INDUSTRIAL CENTER 30°/6 10.27 KSF 13 M1 130 INDUSTRIAl.PARK 70% 4.08 0.2 24.88 KSF Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-11 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PARCEL PARCEL ZONE ITE LAND USE CODE ASSUMED SIZE FAR QUANTIT UNITS MIX (ACRES) Y MANUFACTURING / 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 30% 10.66 KSF INDUSTRIAL CENTER 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 70% 19.82 KSF CENTER CRS 932 HIGH-TURNOVER ' REGIONAL SUPPORT RESTAURANT 20% 3.25 0.2 5.66 KSF 14 COMMERCIAL 946 GAS/SERVICE STATION WITH CONY.MARKET AND CAR 10% 8.00 KSF WASH CS 820 SHOPPING CENTER 75% 153.69 KSF REGIONAL 850 SUPERMARKET11.69 0.4 25% 50.00 KSF COMMERCIAL SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC.,TABLE 2. Trip Generation Trip generation analysis is the process by which transportation analysts identify the number of vehicle-trips that a specific proposed land use plan will add to the surrounding roadway network. For a simple proposal such as a single land use, this can be a relatively straightforward process of applying trip generation rates (the number of trips per unit of land use)observed at similar existing developments, and then potentially adjusting for specific local characteristics. For the proposed project, however, the variety of mixed uses proposed to be constructed, the need to estimate traffic volumes on internal roadways, and the effects of pass-by and intercepted trips require a more complex trip generation analysis. The need to evaluate traffic conditions at intersections both external to the site as well as internal to the site also complicates this analysis. First, it is necessary to identify a number of planning assumptions for this analysis: • All residential units are assumed to be 100 percent occupied during the period of analysis. • A public parking lot with about 12 parking spaces is proposed to be provided in the southwest area of the PC-3 site (accessed via Hope Court). This lot could potentially be used as either a park n ride lot or trailhead parking for the existing and future Class I trail network on the south side of State Route (SR) 267.Approximately 21 one-way vehicle trips (10 entering and 11 exiting) are assumed to be made to/from this parking lot during the PM peak hour, based on the traffic volumes projected for the potential trailhead parking lot at the northern terminus of the Martis Valley Trail (reference the Martis Valley Trail Parking Alternative Access Intersections Analysis, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., March 13, 2012). In addition, about 40 percent of the total daily trail use is estimated to occur during the peak hour on a typical busy summer day (reference the Martis Valley Trail Use Forecasts, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2011).This assumption is applied in estimating the daily trip generation of the potential public parking lot in the project. Base Trip Generation Prior to Application of Reductions The trip generation analysis is summarized in Table 3.11-5. This analysis is conducted by first identifying appropriate "base" trip generation rates, multiplying these rates by the proposed land 3.11-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION use quantities associated with the development proposal, and then applying a series of adjustment factors to reflect the specific characteristics of the project and its location. The traffic engineering profession developed an extensive database regarding the traffic generated by common land use types,as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's(1TE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition manual (ITE, 2012). This document is typically used as the basis for traffic analyses in the Town of Truckee. The trip generation associated with the proposed project is primarily based upon the ITE trip rates, modified as discussed below to reflect various factors that tend to reduce the traffic generation of the project. Standard ITE trip generation rates are applied to all of the land use quantities to estimate daily and PM peak hour trip generation, with the exception of the shopping center and the research and development center uses. For these land uses, regression equations are applied rather than average trip rates, in accordance with the "Recommended Procedure for Selecting between Trip Generation Average Rates and Equations" methodology presented in the Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition(ITE, 2012). Reductions for Non-Auto Trips The trip generation rates presented in the ITE Trip Generation manual reflect a negligible level of transit use and the modest level of pedestrian/bicycle travel found in typical suburban settings. For the purposes of this analysis, no reductions are applied for trips made via transit, as the transit service currently provided in the Town of Truckee is relatively limited in scope and frequency. Portions of project-generated trips are expected to be made by pedestrians or bicyclists, especially some of the internal trips made within the shopping center/grocery store parcel (Parcel 14). However, in order to remain conservative in this analysis, no additional reduction is applied for trips made via non-auto modes, as the number of non-auto trips that would impact external roadways is expected to be minimal. Reductions for internal Trips Made Within Each Project Zone As is typical of mixed-use developments, a portion of the total trips generated are expected to be comprised of trips remaining within the site. For example, some trips generated by the retail uses can be expected to be made from one retail use to another retail use within the same parcel (such as Parcel 14). It is appropriate to apply a reduction for these internal retail-to-retail trips, as they would not affect the parcel driveways. The internal trip generation of the proposed retail parcels is estimated based upon the internal capture rates for trip origins and destinations within a multi-use development presented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The estimated portion of the trip generation that would be internal to each retail parcel is shown in the middle column of Table 3.11-5. Although Parcel 14 has multiple driveways, it is assumed that trips can be made from one point to another point within the parcel without leaving the parcel. As indicated, the overall reduction for trips made internal within each project zone equates to about 17 percent. Resulting Total Trip Generation - At Site Driveways Applying the reductions for internal trips made within each zone from the total trip generation yields the number of trips generated at the site driveways.As indicated in the lower portion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-13 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION table, an estimated 23,271 daily one-way vehicle trips and 1,992 PM peak-hour trips (908 entering and 1,084 exiting) would occur at the site driveways. Note that not all of these trips would be "new" trips to the area. Reductions for Internal Trips Made Between Project Zones Some of the project trips can be expected to be made from one project zone to another project zone. For instance, some trips generated by the shopping center on Parcel 14 can be expected to be made to the retail uses on Parcel 6, and vice versa. Though considered a single project, the separate planning areas of project create a situation where the typical internal trips generated do not necessarily remain internal with regards to accessing public roadways. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the internal trips which require the use of public roadways. The number of project trips that would affect the site driveways, but would remain internal to the project site was estimated as follows: 1. The internal trip generation of multi-use sites is directly related to the mix of on-site land uses, which are usually combinations of shopping centers/retail, office, and residential. The methodologies contained within the ITE Trip Generation Handbook were used to estimate the number of PM peak-hour trips that would occur between the residential, retail and office (non- retail commercial) uses. For the purposes of calculating internal trips, all land uses were categorized within the residential, retail or office uses. The internal trips were analyzed for the entire project as a whole, rather than for each planning area separately. Internal trips made between the supermarket/shopping center parcel and other PC-3 retail zones (retail-to-retail trips) were also estimated. The resulting reductions for trips made from one PC-3 zone to another PC-3 zone are shown in Table 3.11-6. 2. Next, the calculated internal trips were subtracted from the total trips generated by the entire project. 3. The internal trips were redistributed back to each individual planning area based on the proportion of land use quantities in each area. As shown in Table 3.11-6, about 5 percent to 25 percent of trips associated with each planning area are assumed to remain internal to the entire project site. Overall, the calculated portion of internal trips made between project zones is about 14 percent. The number of internal trips per planning area was subtracted from the total trips generated, in order to determine the number of external trips generated per planning area. A total of approximately 19,669 daily external one-way trips, with 1,706 (773 entering and 933 exiting) are 3.11-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-5:PC-3 JOERGER RANCH-TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS TRIP GENERATION RATES1 - PROJECT GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS AT SITE ACCESS PARCEL DESCRIPTION/ITE PM PEAK HOUR ' REDUCTION FOR DAILY LAND USE CODE DAILY INTERNAL TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT IN OUT 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 8.11 EQUATION3 0% 494 12 69 1&2 CENTER 770 BUSINESS PARK 12.44 0.33 0.93 0% 757 20 57 3 220 APARTMENT 6.65 0.40 0.22 0% 279 _ 17 9 4&5 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 44.32 1.19 1.52 0% 2,930 79 100 CENTER 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 44.32 1.19 1.52 20% 1,641 44 56 CENTER 6 932 HIGH-TURNOVER 127.15 5.91 3.94 13% 2,195 102 68 RESTAURANT PARK AND RIDE7 N/A 0% 55 11 11 LOT/TRAILHEAD PARKING _ 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 6.83 0.18 0.67 0% 232 6 23 8 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 8.11 EQUATION3 0% 118 3 16 CENTER 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 44.32 1.19 1.52 19% 355 10 12 9 CENTER 932 HIGH TURNOVER 127.15 5.91 3.94 12% 473 22 15 RESTAURANT 10 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 44.32 1.19 1.52 0% 463 12 16 CENTER , 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 6.83 0.18 0.67 0% 164 4 16 11&12 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 8.11 EQUATION3 0% 83 2 12 CENTER -� 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 6.83 0.18 0.67 0% 170 4 17 13 760 RESEARCH AND DEV 8.11 EQUATION3 0% 86 2 12 CENTER 14 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 44.32 1.19 1.52 40% 527 14 18 CENTER 932 HIGH-TURNOVER 127.15 5.91 3.94 40% 432 20 14 RESTAURANT Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-15 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TRIP GENERATION RATES1 PROJECT GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS AT SITE ACCESS2 DESCRIPTION/ITE REDUCTION FOR PARCEL PM PEAK HOUR DAILY PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE CODE DAILY — INTERNAL TRIPS — IN OUT IN OUT 946 GAS/SERVICE STATION WITH CONY. MARKET AND 152.84 7.07 6.79 40% 734 34 33 CAR WASH 820 SHOPPING CENTER EQs __ EQUATION6 17% 7,453 _ 318 _ 345 850 SUPERMARKET 102.24 -iii----1 4.65 29% 3,630 172 165 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 17% 23,271 908 1,084 SOURCE:CSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 3. NOTE:FAR=Floor Area Ratio,KSF=1,000 square feet of floor area,DU=dwelling unit,VFP=Vehicle Fueling Positions. NOTE 1:Trip generation rates are based on Trip Generation,9th Edition(ITE,2012),unless noted otherwise. NOTE 2:The trips at the site driveways are not all new trips on the adjacent roadway network. NOTE 3:Peak hour trip generation for ITE land use 760 is estimated using the equation: Ln(T)=0.83 Ln(x)+1.06. NOTE 4:Trips are estimated based on Martis Valley Trail use Forecasts.Trip rate per space is not applicable. '1, NOTE 5:Daily trip generation for ITE land use 820 is estimated using the equation:Ln(T)=0.65 Ln(x)+5.83. NOTE 6:Peak hour trip generation for ITE land use 820 is estimated using the equation:Ln(T)=0.67 Ln(x)+3.31. 3.11-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION associated with the project, as a whole, during the PM peak hour. Note that these trips are not all new to the adjacent roadway network. 4. Finally, internal trips which use public roadways were then inserted back into the model and assigned to the intersections they would affect. Reductions for Pass-By Trips A portion of trips associated with the proposed land uses are expected to be "pass-by" trips, or trips attracted from traffic passing the site on SR 267 or Brockway Road. Pass-by trips generate traffic on the access driveways, but do not add new traffic on regional roadways (as they are made by vehicles already passing by the site that will divert to the new land use as part of a longer trip). As an example, a Northstar resident commuting to work in downtown Truckee passing by the site along SR 267 might stop at the site, thereby generating new trips on the site access driveway but not generating new trips along SR 267. The portion of pass-by trips generated by the proposed retail uses is estimated based upon a review of average pass-by trip percentages provided in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook for various retail land use types. As shown in Table 3.11-6, the estimated pass-by trip percentages for each land use type range from 34 percent to 56 percent. No pass-by trips are assumed to be associated with the non-retail uses. Overall, about 30 percent of project-generated external trips are estimated to consist of pass-by traffic. Some of the trips that are currently made between the area and other areas will be "intercepted" by the proposed development, reflecting existing trips past the site to a more remote destination that instead will terminate at a site land use (such as a grocery store). These reductions are discussed after the project trips are assigned to the various study roadways. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of project-generated traffic was developed using the Truckee TransCAD traffic model. A"Select Zone Analysis" was performed to identify the proportion of trips generated by the site to and from each distribution area/gate in the study area. Adjustments were made to reflect the types of trips generated by the proposed project land uses, the site's location with respect to inter-regional access (access to Central Valley/Bay Area, SR 89 and SR 267 to the south, and Truckee/Reno to the east) as well as local access (access to other commercial, recreational, and residential areas within Truckee). Trips made by the proposed project residents would have different distribution patterns than trips made by the proposed project commercial customers and employees. The distribution pattern for the project commercial non-retail uses was estimated based upon a review of the residence locations for Truckee employees (as provided in the Town of Truckee Mobility Needs Assessment, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.,June, 2012). Distribution zones were categorized into the origin/destination locations shown in Table 3.11-7. As indicated in the table, the project-generated trips are widely distributed, with the heaviest distribution of project residential trips (16 percent) to the Gateway area, the heaviest distribution of project retail trips (9 percent) to points along nearby Martis Valley Road, and the heaviest distribution of project commercial non-retail trips(15 percent)to points along 1-80 to the east. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-17 iiiii Mil MO 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-6:PC-3 JOERGER RANCH-EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION REDUCTION FOR PROJECT IMPACT OF EXTERNAL TRIPS MADE GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS EXTERNAL TO PROJECT REDUCTION DESCRIPTION/ITE ROADWAYS PARCEL BETWEEN FOR PASS-BY LAND USE CODE PM PEAK HOUR DAILY PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT ZONES DAILY TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT 760 RESEARCH AND 9% 450 11 63 0% 450 11 63 1&2 DEV CENTER 770 BUSINESS PARK 9% _ 689 18 52 0% 689 18 52 3 220 APARTMENT 25% 209 13 7 0% 209 13 7 4&5 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 24% 2,227 60 76 34% 1,470 40 50 CENTER 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 24% 1,247 33 43 34% 823 22 28 6 CENTER - 932 HIGH TURNOVER 24% 1,668 78 5 43% 958 45 29 RESTAURANT - PARK AND RIDE 5% 7 LOT/TRAILHEAD 52 10 11 0% 52 10 11 PARKING 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 9% 211 5 21 0% 211 5 21 8 760 RESEARCH AND 9% 107 3 14 0% 107 3 14 DEV CENTER 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 24% 270 8 9 34% 178 5 6 9 CENTER 932 HIGH-TURNOVER 24% 359 17 11 43% 206 10 6 RESTAURANT 10 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 24% 352 9 12 34% 232 6 8 CENTER 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 9% 149 4 14 0% 149 4 14 11&12 760 RESEARCH AND 9% 76 2 11 0% 76 2 11 DEV CENTER 130 INDUSTRIAL PARK 9% 155 4 15 0% 155 4 15 13 760 RESEARCH AND 9% 78 2 11 0% 78 2 11 DEV CENTER 14 826 SPECIALTY RETAIL 11% 469 12 16 34% 310 8 10 CENTER Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-18 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION REDUCTION FOR PROJECT IMPACT OF EXTERNAL GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS EXTERNAL TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ITE TRIPS MADE REDUCTION ROADWAYS PARCEL BETWEEN PMPEAK HOUR FOR PASS-BY PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE CODE DAILY TRIPS DAILY PROJECT ZONES IN OUT IN OUT 932 HIGH-TURNOVER 11% 384 18 12 43% 220 10 7 RESTAURANT 946 GAS/SERVICE 11% STATION WITH CONY. 653 30 30 56% 284 13 13 MARKET AND CAR WASH 820 SHOPPING 11% 6,633 283 307 34% 4,347 185 202 CENTER 850 SUPERMARKET 11% 3,231 153 147 36% 2,068 98 94 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 14% 19,669 773 933 30% 13,272 514 672 ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS IN 2012 INTERCEPTED TRIPS TO/FROM SOUTH(MARTIS VAI.I.EY/NORTHSTAR AREAS) -55 -56 INTERCEPTED TRIPS TO/FROM WEST(BROCKWAY ROAD AREA) -5 -5 SUBTOTAL INTERCEPTED TRIPS IN 2012 •60 •61 2012 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON EXTERNAL ROADWAYS 454 611 ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS IN FUTURE 2032 INTERCEPTED TRIPS TO/FROM SOUTH(MARTIS VALLEY/NORTHSTAR AREAS) -53 -54 INTERCEPTED TRIPS TO/FROM WEST(BROCKWAY ROAD AREA) -9 -9 SUBTOTAL INTERCEPTED TRIPS IN 2032 -62 -63 2032 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON EXTERNAL ROADWAYS 452 609 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC.,TABLE 4. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-19 OM Mill 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.11-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan(PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-7:PC-3 JOERGER RANCH EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION-SUMMER PM EXISTING YEAR 2012 FUTURE YEAR 2032 1 ern o Zo rn c Zo ORIGIN/DESTINATION p rn 3 ? p rn x ? en en a en m 'zit N n S. c —i 'e- n y r, sz ea+ S. r r tr-- r- eT. SR 89 North of Truckee 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% SR 28 West of SR 267 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% SR 28 East of SR 267 7% 3% 12% 7% 3% 12% SR 267,between Northstar Dr and SR 28 2% 3% 5% 2% 3% 5% (Kings Beach) 1-80,West of Truckee 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1-80 East 4% 3% 15% 0% 3% 15% West River Street 5% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% SR 89 South of Truckee 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% Gateway Area&Donner Lake 16% 7% 5% 14% 7% 5% Crossroads/Save Mart Area 4% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% Tahoe Donner 1% 5% 6% 1% 3% 6% Downtown Truckee 12% 4% 2% 11% 5% 2% Railyard(future) - - - 8% 8% 2% Glenshire Dr 2% 7% 12% 2% 6% 12% Palisades Dr 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% Brockway Rd,between Palisades Dr and 4% 6% 3% 3% 5% 3% Martis Valley Rd Martis Valley Rd 4% 9% 8% 4% 7% 7% Pioneer Trail 11% 8% 1% 11% 6% 1% SR 89 North,between Donner Pass Rd and 3% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% Alder Creek Northstar Dr 3% 8% 2% 2% 7% 2% Schaffer Mill Road 2% 8% 1% 3% 8% 1% Hope Court 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% Joerger Dr(North of Project) 2% 1% 0% 3% 1% 0% Truckee Airport Road 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 5. Travel Time and Trip Assignment A key step in this analysis is to estimate the assignment of site-generated trips to the various travel paths. The total travel times between the project site and the various origin/destination locations were calculated using the actual travel distance, estimated travel speeds, and estimated average intersection delays. A key question is whether the proposed project drivers would use the Bypass or Brockway Road for trips made to/from locations in Truckee to the west of the site, such as the Crossroad/Save Mart shopping area. The estimated traffic assignment between the Bypass and Brockway Road routes are shown in the right-hand columns of Table 3.11-8 for existing and future cumulative year conditions, respectively. The following assumptions and methodologies are used in the estimation of the route choice: Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-21 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Drivers generally tend to consider travel time to be more important than travel distance when choosing a travel route. In the consideration of routes with faster travel times as opposed to routes with shorter mileage, transportation modelers have generally found that travel time has ten times more "weight" in route decisions than travel distance. However, the trip assignment assumptions reflect that drivers inherently have a range of preferences that affect route choice, and thus do not all choose to use a single route unless that route has a clear and consistently shorter travel time. • Consistent with the findings of other traffic studies in the Truckee area, Truckee drivers (all other things being equal) tend to choose a route that remains on local roadways and avoids the stress of entering and merging with I-80 traffic. Consequently, the results of the travel time analysis are adjusted to provide a 60 second travel time "penalty" to routes that include merging onto the interstate. After these adjustments are made, the results indicate that a substantial portion of project trips using Brockway Road under existing conditions would instead use the Bypass under future cumulative conditions to access the areas listed above, with the exception of trips made to/from points along West River Street west of McIver Crossing (for which Brockway Road would serve all drivers). This reflects the increase in traffic delays that are forecast in Downtown Truckee with future development and provision of traffic signals on Bridge Street at West River Street and Donner Pass Road. Finally, for trips made between the shopping center (Parcel 14 including the proposed supermarket) and points along SR 267 to the south of the site, approximately 75 percent of the outbound trips are assumed to access the site via the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection, and the remaining 25 percent of the outbound trips are assumed to use Airport Road. All of the inbound trips to the shopping center from points to the south on SR 267 are assumed to access the site via the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. Based upon the distribution patterns and the route choice assumptions, the assignment of project- generated traffic is established. The reductions for pass-by trips were allocated to the various roadways based on the distribution of the "no project" turning movement volumes. TABLE 3.11-8:PC-3 EXISTING 2012 TRIP ASSIGNMENT—SR 267 BYPASS VERSUS BROCKWAY ROAD ASSUMED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT LOCATION EXISTING YEAR 2012 FUTURE YEAR 1032 BROCKWAY ROAD SR 267 BYPASS , BROCKWAY ROAD SR 267 BYPASS West River Street West of McIver 100% 0% 100% 0% Crossing SR 89 South of Truckee 95% 5% 45% 55% Gateway/Donner Lake 5% 95% 0% 100% Crossroads/Save Mart area 55% 45% 5% 95% Tahoe Donner 50% 50% 0% 100% Downtown Truckee(north of rail tracks) 90% 10% 20% 80% Glenshire Drive 30% 70% 0%1 100% RAILYARD 10% 90% SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLES 6 AND 7. 3.11-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Note 1:All inbound trips from Glenshire Drive are assumed to use bypass.About 35 percent of outbound trips from PC-3 west side(on Brockway)to Glenshire Drive are assumed to use the Brockway Road route. Reductions for Intercepted Trips The project would provide a new "intervening trip opportunity" for persons currently driving from points along SR 267 to the south of the site (Martis Valley, Northstar, Kings Beach) to Truckee or Reno (or elsewhere)to accomplish their trip purpose. For instance, a resident of Martis Valley who currently shops at one of the existing two supermarkets in Truckee (in Gateway Center and Crossroads Center) may choose to patronize a future supermarket located in the project, thereby intercepting an existing trip. As a result, some of the trips that are currently made between the area and other areas will be "intercepted" by the proposed development, resulting in reduced traffic volumes on the Bypass and other select off-site intersections and roadways. About 30 percent of the project's retail trips made to/from the south on SR 267 are expected to be intercepted trips. This estimate was developed based upon a review of the origin-destination tables from the Truckee TransCAD traffic model, adjusted to reflect the fact that the current proposed project includes more retail floor area than the project development assumed in the TransCAD model. Under existing year conditions, this equates to approximately 111 summer PM peak-hour intercepted trips (55 inbound and 56 outbound) made to/from the south (Martis Valley/Northstar areas). Similarly, under future cumulative year conditions, approximately 107 summer PM peak- hour trips(53 inbound and 54 outbound) made between project retail uses and points to the south are intercepted. These reductions are shown in the lower right corner of Table 3.11-6. Under existing and future winter conditions, approximately 119 PM peak-hour (59 inbound and 60 outbound) made between project retail uses and points to the south are expected to be intercepted trips. Similarly, the project would provide new opportunities for those making trips to/from the neighborhoods along Brockway Road, particularly under future cumulative conditions when the route through downtown Truckee is expected to have substantial travel delays. Based on origin- destination data from the TransCAD model, the fact that the current project proposes more retail floor area than the project development in the TransCAD model, and the relative travel times via the downtown routes versus the Bypass, approximately 14 percent of the project's retail trips made to/from the neighborhoods along Brockway Road would shift from another shopping destination, resulting in reduced traffic volumes at select off-site intersections and roadways. Of these trips, about 10 summer PM peak-hour trips (5 inbound and 5 outbound) are expected to be intercepted trips under existing year conditions, and 18 summer PM peak-hour trips (9 inbound and 9 outbound) would be intercepted under future cumulative conditions. These reductions are also shown in the lower right corner of Table 3.11-6. Note that it is not necessary to estimate intercepted trips to/from Brockway Road in the winter, as the winter analysis does not include intersections and roadways within the Town of Truckee Limits. All other proposed land uses are assumed to have no intercepted trips, as these non-retail land uses are assumed to be a primary origin/destination of a vehicle-trip. Overall, about 10 percent of external trips generated by the site are estimated to be intercepted trips. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-23 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ------- --------- Resulting Project Impact - On External Roadways Subtracting the number of pass-by and intercepted trips from the total external trips yields the number of new trips generated on external roadways (such as the Bypass). As indicated in the lower right corner of Table 3.11-6, an estimated 1,065 new PM peak-hour trips (454 inbound and 611 outbound) would be generated on the external roadway network with the proposed project under 2012 summer conditions. Similarly, an estimated 1,061 new PM peak-hour trips (452 inbound and 609 outbound) would be generated on the external roadway network with the proposed project under future cumulative 2032 summer conditions. The 2012 and 2032 project net impact on summer PM peak-hour turning-movement volumes through the study intersections are illustrated in Figures 3.11-3 and 3.11-4, respectively. In addition, the project net impact on winter PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the three study intersections located in Placer County in 2012 and 2032 are shown in Tables 3.11-9 and 3.11-10, respectively. Adding the 2012 "no project" volumes to the "project net impact" volumes yields the "2012 with project" volumes shown in Figure 3.11-5 (summer). The "2012 with project" volumes through the Placer County intersections in the winter are shown in Table 3.11-11. Finally, the project is estimated to result in a net increase of approximately 426 PM peak-hour trips (231 northbound and 195 southbound) on the SR 267 Bypass under 2012 summer conditions. Similarly, the net increase under 2032 summer conditions is estimated to be approximately 579 total two-way PM peak-hour trips (319 northbound and 260 southbound). Note that the project impact on Bypass volumes under winter conditions is not included in this study, given that winter conditions are only evaluated at intersections and roadways located within Placer County. TABLE 3.11-9:PROJECT NET IMPACTS OF 2012 WINTER INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES-PLACER COUNTY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTERSECTION S Z2 s s r, TOTAL c c c c •SR 267/Airport Rd/ 0 10 2 4 71 2 8 0 0 32 12 4 145 Schaffer Mill Rd SR 267/Northstar Dr. 0 9 - - 30 73 3 - 0 - - - 1 1 5 SR 267/SR 28 0 0 0 14 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 26 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE S. TABLE 3.11-10: PROJECT NET IMPACTS OF 2032 WINTER INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES- PLACER COUNTY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTERSECTION s ? z L— —1 =" TOTAL 00 Fe 5i' oa— SR267/Airport Rd/ 2 Schaffer Mill Rd 0 21 2 4 67 6 11 0 0 24 4 168 SR 267/Northstar Dr. 0 17 0 0 37 59 6 0 0 0 0 0 119 SR 267/SR 28 , 0 0 0 18 , 0 _ 11 8 0 0 0 0 4 ! 41 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 9. 3.11-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-11: WINTER 2012 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES WITH PROJECT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTERSECTION p2.? 'j 70 TOTAL as s 2 s 2 2 s SR 267/Airport Rd/ 19 1,133 17 12 631 23 50 1 9 37 14 22 1.968 Schaffer Mill Rd SR 267/Northstar Dr. 89 312 - - 451 262 857 • 513 - - • 2,448 SR 267/SR 28 0 0 0 466 0 459 244 574 0 1 445 264 2,453 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC.,TABLE 10. Comparison between Proposed Project and Assumptions in General Plan The proposed project has been compared to the assumed PC-3 project in the General Plan.The PC- 3 land use assumptions in the current Truckee TransCAD model were revised several times subsequent to adoption of the General Plan.The land use assumptions in the 2025 General Plan, in the current Truckee TransCAD model, and in the proposed project are listed in Table 3.11-12. As indicated, the proposed project has fewer multi-family units, more commercial floor area, and less light industrial use than previously assumed. The total PM peak-hour trip generation at the site access points was reviewed under all three models. As shown in the table, the proposed project has a lower level of trip generation than that assumed in the General Plan. However, the proposed project generates more trips at the site access points than that assumed in the current Truckee TransCAD model. Note that these figures include internal trips made from one project zone to another project zone, and they do not reflect reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips. Finally, the external trip generation of the proposed project can be compared to that assumed in the current TransCAD model. As indicated in Table 3.11-6, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,706 PM peak-hour trips on external roadways, not including reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips. After reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips, the proposed projectgenerates a net increase of approximately 1,061 PM peak-hour trips on the external roadway network. In comparison, a review of the intersection PM peak-hour turning movements in the current TransCAD model indicates that about 1,300 external trips are generated by the proposed project. However, the TransCAD model does not reflect reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips. Consequently,the proposed project is estimated to result in a smaller increase in external roadway volumes than the PC-3 project assumed in the TransCAD model. TABLE 3.11-12:COMPARISON OF CURRENT PROJECT,GENERAL PLAN,AND TRUCKEE MODEL TRUCKEE PROJECT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS TOTAL PM PEAK- NET INCREASE IN PM MODEL SOURCE MULTIFAMILY COMMERCIAL LT HOUR TRIP PEAK-HOUR TRIPS ON TAZS (D U) (KSF) INDUSTRIAL GENERATION AT SITE EXTERNAL ROADWAYS (KSF) ACCESS Potters 60, 61 GENERAL PLAN 355 360 140 2,130 NA AND 62 CURRENT CITY 47 161 243 1,725 1,300 TRANSCAD MODEL CURRENT PROJECT2 42 549 83 1,992 DIFFERENCE(PROIECT-GENERAL -313 189 -57 -318 NA PLAN) DIFFERENCE(PROJECT-CITY -5 388 -160 267 -239 MODEL) SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 11. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-25 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Note: TAZ =Traffic Analysis Zone, DU = dwelling unit, KSF = 1,000 square feet of floor area (rounded to the nearest 1,000),NA=Not Available. Note 1:Includes internal trips made from one PC-3 zone to another PC-3 zone.Does not reflect reductions for pass-by or intercepted trips. Note 2: Potential trailhead parking lot on Parcel 7 is not reflected in this table. Proposed gas station on Parcel 14 is assumed to be roughly 3 KSF. 3.11.4 REGULATORY SETTING Existing transportation polices, laws, and regulations that would apply to the Proposed Project are summarized below. This information provides a context for the impact discussion related to the project's consistency with applicable regulatory conditions and development of significance criteria for evaluating project impacts. Level of Service Standards The LOS thresholds applicable to the study area are discussed below. i TOWN OF TRUCKEE The existing Town of Truckee policy on LOS is applied in this Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated in the Truckee 2025 General Plan,the Town's LOS standards are as follows: PolicyP2.1— Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road segments and for total g intersection movements in portions of the Town outside of the Downtown Study Area. Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and collector road segments and for total intersection movements within the Downtown Specific Plan Area.Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cumulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of these conditions shall be met for traffic operations to be considered unacceptable. PLACER COUNTY Placer County defines its LOS standard as "D" for locations within one-half mile of a state highway, and "C"for other locations in the study area. Roadway LOS is measured according to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) per travel lane, based on the ADT thresholds provided in the Placer County General Plan EIR. For the study area, Placer County requires evaluation of summer or winter ADT, whichever is higher. According to County policy,the County's LOS standards for the state highway system shall be no worse than those adopted in the Placer County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The LOS standard in the CMP for roadways and signalized intersections located along state highways is LOS E. If worst movement LOS at an unsignalized intersection in Placer County exceeds LOS standards, a "Peak-Hour" signal warrant analysis, consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), is required. If the intersection attains minimum signal warrant volumes, mitigation is required. Placer County may allow exceptions to its LOS standards where it finds that the improvements or other measures required to achieve the LOS standards are unacceptable based on established criteria. In allowing any exceptions to established LOS standards, the County shall consider the following factors: 3.11-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION approach or movement of an unsignalized intersection operating at LOS F would be identified as a concern. 3.11.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE This section describes the thresholds or criteria that determine whether the project causes a significant impact on the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and/or transit systems. These thresholds are based on policies from the Town of Truckee General Plan and recommended/example thresholds from the CEQA guidelines. Traffic Impacts According to the Town of Truckee General Plan, intersection and roadway operations at LOS E or better are acceptable. For the purposes of this EIR analysis, significant traffic impacts at intersections are defined when the addition of project traffic is expected to cause any one of the following: • Level of Service D or better on road segments and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside of the Downtown Study Area. • Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and collector road segments and for total intersection movements within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. • Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cumulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Impacts The Proposed Project is considered to result in a significant transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian impact if: • The project conflicts with existing or planned transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian facilities and services; • The project conflicts or creates demand for public transit services above that which is provided or planned;or • The project does not provide connections to bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems of the surrounding area. Additional Impacts The Proposed Project is considered to result in a significant impact if any of the following conditions occur: • Construction-related traffic causes significant intersection impacts as defined by the traffic system criteria described above. 3.11-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.11.6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY A microscopic traffic simulation was created for the SR 267 corridor using the SimTraffic software package (Version 8, TrafficWare). The simulation model includes four of the study intersections along SR 267. Listed from north to south, the following intersections are evaluated in the simulation: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road The intersection Level of Service (LOS)at the four intersections above is based on the results of the simulation. Intersection (LOS) for the remaining study intersections is largely evaluated using the methodologies documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), as applied in the Synchro 8.0 Software package developed by TrafficWare. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2010) is utilized for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, in order to be consistent with other recent studies of this intersection, and to reflect the calibrated driver behavior discussed below.As the HCM 2010 methodology is not applicable for roundabouts with more than two circulating lanes, the SIDRA software (Version 4) is used to analyze LOS for three-lane roundabouts. Model Calibration The default parameters in Synchro's application of the HCM 2010 methodologies were modified to calibrate the model where necessary.The following adjustments to HCM 2010 default parameters were made to calibrate the model: • The Glenshire Drive approach on the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection hasseparate left and right turn lanes. According to the HCM, the critical gap, which is the minimum time interval that allows intersection entry to one minor-stream vehicle, is 7.1 seconds for a left-turn movement and 6.2 seconds for a right-turn movement from a minor street. The HCM also indicates that more accurate capacity estimates will be produced if field measurements of the critical gap can be made. In order to estimate a critical gap that reflects conditions specific to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, delay counts were performed by LSC during the PM peak hour on Friday, August 5, 2011. Based upon the results of these measurements, the LOS calculations for the minor approach on the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection indicate critical gaps of approximately 5.8 seconds and 6.2 seconds for the left-turn and right-turn movements, respectively.This indicates that drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive tend to be more aggressive than the HCM default values would indicate. • A review of data collected at existing roundabouts in the U.S. indicates that the critical headway and follow-up headway times are generally lower than the HCM 2010 default values. In other words, drivers at roundabouts in the U.S. tend to be more aggressive than Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-29 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION the HCM 2010 default values indicate. Specifically, the HCM default critical headway is 5.2 seconds for a roundabout with one conflicting lane, or 4.3 (left lane) and 4.1 (right lane) seconds with two conflicting lanes. The adjusted critical headway values based on existing roundabouts in the U.S. are 4.2 seconds with one conflicting lane and 4.0 seconds with two conflicting lanes. Similarly, the HCM default follow-up headway is 3.2 seconds, regardless of the number of conflicting lanes, and the adjusted follow-up headway is 2.8 seconds. At locations where dual-lane roundabouts with bypass lanes do not provide adequate capacity for buildout conditions, the Sidra software was calibrated to match the HCM results for the dual-lane analysis scenarios, and then Sidra was used to evaluate the capacity of those locations assuming addition of a third circulating roadway. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS All study intersections were evaluated to determine existing operational conditions for the 2012 summer PM peak hour. The three study intersections located in Placer County (SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road, SR 267/Northstar Drive, SR 28/SR 267)were also evaluated for the winter PM peak hour. Using the traffic volumes presented as part of this study, it is possible to evaluate the LOS provided during peak periods at the intersections serving the study area. Table 3.11-2 summarizes the results for existing 2012 conditions without the project. As indicated, the following study intersections currently exceed level of service standards: • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • Bridge Street/West River Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing The remaining study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels during the summer (and winter for applicable intersections) PM peak hour periods without the proposed project. As shown in the far right columns of Table 3.11-13, implementation of the proposed project would result in similar or increased delays at all study intersections during the PM peak hour, and the LOS would degrade at some intersections. The following additional intersections would exceed the applicable LOS standard in 2012 with the project: • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access • Brockway Road/Martis Drive • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access 3.11-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION . TABLE 3.11-13:2012 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-No PROJECT AND PLUS CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT No PROJECT PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL" LOS THRESHOLD DELAY DELAY (SEC/VEHICLE)' LOS (SEC/VEHICLE,)' LOS Summer LOS 1. SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road Roundabout D 6.1 A 7.0 A 2. SR 267/SR 89 North/1-80 Westbound Ramps' Signal D 18.4 B 18.4 B 3. SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps3 Signal D 12.2 B 12.5 B 4. Donner Pass Road/1-80 Westbound On-ramp Uncontrolled D 8.8 A 9.0 A 5. Donner Pass Road/1-80 Eastbound Off-ramp Stop Controlled D 28.9 D 33.3 D 6. Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail Roundabout D 9,3 A 10.4 B 7. Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive Stop Controlled E OVF F OVF F 8. Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street Unconventional+ E OVF F OVF F 9. Bridge Street/West River Street Stop Controlled E OVF F OVF F 10. West River Street/McIver Crossing Stop Controlled E 71.9 F 141.5 F 11. Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road Roundabout D 8.1 A 11.9 B 12. Brockway Road/Palisades Drive Signal E 6.1 A 6.7 A 13. SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way:{ Signal D 21.2 _ C 100.9 F 14. SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road3 Signal E 16.7 B 16.9 B 15. SR 267/Northstar Drive Signal E 9.8 A 10.1 B 16. SR 267/SR 28 Signal DIES 30.7 C 32.2 C 17. Brockway Road/Hope Court Stop Controlled D 13.3 B OVF F 18. Brockway Road/Martis Drive Stop Controlled D N/A OVF F 19. Soaring Way/Joerger Dr/Site Access Stop Controlled D 9.4 A OVF F 20. Joerger Dr/PC-3 Commercial Access Stop Controlled 11.2 B D N/A Winter LOS Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-31 1.0 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION No PROJECT PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL!•? LOS THRESHOLD DELAY DELAY (SEC/VEHICLE,)' LOS (SEC/VEHICLE)' LOS 14.SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road Signal E 17.4 _ B 18.7 B 15.SR 267/Northstar Drive Signal E 15.3 8 15.9 B 16.SR 267/SR 28 Signal DIES 37.1 D 39.3 D SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 12 BOLD text indicates that LOS standard has been exceeded.OVF=Overflow.Overflow indicates a delay greater than 200 seconds per vehicle,which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 1:Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2:Level of service for roundabouts and other unsignalized intersections is reported for the worst movement. NOTE 3:Level of service at these intersections is based on SimTraffic simulation. NOTE 4:The Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street intersection is controlled with stop signs on three approaches,with the northbound Bridge Street approach uncontrolled. NOTE 5:LOS E is acceptable at this intersection for no more than 4 hours during the design day,per TRPA LOS standards. 3.11-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS Traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the storage capacity of turn lanes or ramps, or that block turn movements at important nearby intersections or driveways, can cause operational problems beyond those identified in the LOS analysis. The traffic queue lengths were reviewed at locations where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems. In 2012 with the PC-3 project, the 95th-percentile traffic queue on the eastbound approach to the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection would interfere with traffic entering and exiting Hope Court. Similarly, the 95th-percentile traffic queue on the westbound approach would affect traffic entering and exiting Joerger Drive. In addition, traffic queues at the Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street and West River Street/Bridge Street intersections generally interfere with the adjacent roadways and driveways, as a result of the unacceptable intersection delays in 2012, with or without the PC-3 project. Traffic queues resulting after intersection and roadway mitigation measures are implemented are discussed later in this chapter. No traffic queuing concerns are identified at the remaining study locations in 2012. ROADWAY CAPACITY Roadway capacity is evaluated in order to determine whether a specific roadway segment should be widened to accommodate existing or future traffic volumes. Different methodologies can be employed to determine capacity, but generally, the calculation will incorporate a series of factors including roadway facility type, evaluation period, and level of service thresholds. The Town of Truckee roadway capacity standards are based upon hourly traffic volumes, and the Placer County roadway volume criteria are based upon daily traffic volumes. The maximum allowable traffic volumes to obtain the LOS thresholds applicable to the study roadway segments are shown in Table 3.11-14. Note that the roadway conditions along the segments of SR 267 within the Town of Truckee are evaluated based upon the results of the micro-simulation, as discussed below. Table 3.11-14 also presents a comparison of 2012 traffic volumes with the pertinent LOS standard. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes along the study roadway segments in Placer County are estimated by applying an ADT-to-peak hour volume factor to the peak-hour volumes. This factor is calculated based upon a review of traffic data collected at the permanent Caltrans traffic trend count station located at a point along SR 267 to the south of its intersection with Brockway Road/Soaring Way. The estimated ADT-to-peak hour volume factors along SR 267 are approximately 11.19 for summer traffic and 10.19 for winter traffic. As shown in the table, all study roadway segments currently operate within the allowable traffic volume threshold for 2012 traffic conditions without the proposed project, except the segment of SR 267 within the Tahoe Basin. This segment currently exceeds the TRPA's LOS "D" standard on peak days during the summer and winter.The roadway LOS analysis with project-generated traffic volumes is presented in Table 3.11-15. As shown, implementation of the proposed project would not cause any additional all study roadway segments to exceed the allowable traffic volume thresholds in 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-33 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 'II TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON SR 267 BYPASS IN 2012 Traffic impacts on the SR 267 Bypass are evaluated, with and without the proposed project. The Synchro/SimTraffic software package was utilized to create a micro-simulation of the SR 267 corridor between Airport Road and 1-80 under 2012 traffic conditions with the project. First, the roadway network is described. Next, the simulation methodology is provided. Finally, the results of the simulation are presented. 3.11-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-14:ROADWAY LOS ANALYSIS—2012 WITHOUT PROJECT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK-HOUR VOLUME TWO-WAY PEAK- ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFICI EXCEEDED? SUMMER _ Bridge Street,across Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,077 580 N/A N/A No railroad tracks Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 907 523 N/A N/A No SR 89 North Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 916 475 N/A N/A No 1-80 Eastern Interchange Donner Pass Road,East of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 990 639 N/A N/A No Row) , Donner Pass Road,West of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 1,068 717 N/A N/A No Row) _ SR 89,North of 1-80 Town of Highway D N/A 1 771 413 N/A N/A No Truckee/Caltrans -4 - SR 267,between 1-80 and Town of Highway 0 N/A 1 1,291 766 N/A N/A No Brockway Road Truckee/Caltrans , SR 267,between Brockway Town of Highway D N/A 1 1,493 846 N/A N/A No Road and Town Limit Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between Town Placer Highway E 25,000 1,448 801 11.19 16,200 No Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans . SR 267,between Airport Placer Highway E 25,000 1,295 669 11.19 14,490 No Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,130 647 11.19 12,640 No Summit SR 267,between Brockway TRPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,306 659 11.19 14,610 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans Brockway Road Between Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 945 505 N/A N/A No SR 267 and project access Brockway Road,between project access and Martis Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 935 496 N/A N/A No Valley Road Brockway Road,between Town of Truckee Minor Arterial 0 1,420 1,249 733 N/A N/A No Martis Valley Road and Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-35 ii. OM 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK-HOUR VOLUME Two-WAY PEAK ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFICI EXCEEDED? - Palisades Drive _ Brockway Road,between Palisades Drive and West Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,609 997 N/A N/A No River Street WINTER SR 267,between Town Placer Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 1,772 1,183 10.19 18,100 No • SR 267,between Airport Placer Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 1,731 1,157 10.19 17,600 No SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,290 898 10.19 13,100 No Summit SR 267,between Brockway TRPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,407 903 10.19 14,300 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 13. NOTE 1:Threshold Volume is not applicable to these roadway segments,as traffic conditions on these segments were evaluated using a SimTraffic microsimulation. 3.11-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-15:ROADWAY LOS ANALYSIS—2012 WITH PROJECT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK HOUR VOLUME Two-WAY PEAK- ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFICI EXCEEDED? SUMMER Bridge Street,across Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,072 576 N/A N/A No railroad tracks Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,059 592 N/A N/A No SR 89 North Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 967 508 N/A N/A No 1-80 Eastern Interchange Donner Pass Road,East of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 1,009 650 N/A N/A No Row) Donner Pass Road,West of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 1,040 703 N/A N/A No Row) SR 89,North of 1-80 Town of Highway D N/A 1 1,045 559 N/A N/A No Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between 1-80 and Town of Highway D N/A 1 1,717 997 N/A N/A No Brockway Road Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between Brockway Town of Highway D N/A 1 1,562 883 N/A N/A No Road and Town Limit Truckee/Caltrans _ SR 267,between Town Placer Highway E 25,000 1,518 839 11.19 16,990 No Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans SR 267,between Airport Placer Highway E 25,000 1,383 736 11.19 15,480 No Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans - SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,201 704 11.19 13,440 No Summit - _ _ _ SR 267,between Brockway TRPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,337 683 11.19 14,960 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans _ Brockway Road Between Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,568 800 N/A N/A No SR 267 and project access _ _ Brockway Road,between project access and Martis Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,307 703 N/A N/A No Valley Road Brockway Road,between Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D _ 1,420 1,412 802 N/A N/A No Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-37 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK HOUR VOLUME TWO-WAY PEAK ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME _ VOLUME TRAFFICI EXCEEDED? Martis Valley Road and Palisades Drive Brockway Road,between Palisades Drive and West Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,712 1,039 N/A N/A No River Street WINTER SR 267,between Town Placer Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 1,871 1,205 10.19 19,100 No SR 267,between Airport Placer Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 1,846 1,169 10.19 18,800 No SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,329 928 10.19 13,500 No Summit SR 267,between Brockway TRPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,433 925 10.19 14,600 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC.,TABLE 14. NOTE 1:Threshold Volume is not applicable to these roadway segments,as traffic conditions on these segments were evaluated using a SimTraffic microsimulation. 3.11-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Roadway Network The results of this analysis are based on SimTraffic traffic simulation models of the SR 267 corridor. The model includes the following study intersections: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road Traffic signal timings used in the simulation are based on the actual signal timing parameters provided by Caltrans District 3. Traffic signal cycle lengths and splits were optimized using Synchro with "plus project" traffic volumes. As the 2012 traffic volumes with the PC-3 project would cause the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection (in its existing configurations) to exceed capacity in traffic simulation, intersection capacity improvements are assumed at this intersection. Note that these improvements were assumed, in order to avoid any potential capacity constraints and thus provide a worst-case scenario with regards to volumes on the Truckee River Bridge. Specifically, in the "2012 with PC-3" scenario, SR 267 is assumed to be widened to two through lanes for the northbound direction of travel from Brockway Road to a point south of the beginning of the grade separation for the Truckee River Bridge. This creates a merge point where the two northbound lanes narrow to one lane before the Bridge. Simulation Methodology SimTraffic reports traffic performance at each node (intersection or "bend node") within the model.' For the purpose of the Bypass capacity, the node located at the south end of the Truckee River Bridge (where the two northbound through lanes on SR 267 merge back to one northbound lane to cross the Truckee River Bridge) is considered to be a point of concern. SimTraffic reports a variety of different performance metrics, which are computed directionally over the length of the roadway link upstream of the node for which they are reported. This analysis considers the average delay approaching the merge point, and the average travel speed along the link upstream of the merge point as the best representation of the traffic conditions along the Bypass. Average delays and travel speeds are also reported for both directions of travel along the Truckee River Bridge and for southbound traffic approaching the merge point north of the bridge. Simulations were prepared for 2012 conditions without and with the proposed project. SimTraffic produces a random simulation based on the input parameters. Therefore, two simulations with the same inputs may produce different results. In accordance with standard practice, the results of this analysis are based on an average of five runs of the simulation for each scenario. Each run of In Synchro/SimTraffic, a bend node is an intersection with only two links. These are used at merge/diverge locations and roadway curves. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-39 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION the simulation represents a one-hour period for the summer PM peak hour. No changes were made from the base values in driver parameters or the length of merging activity. Simulation Results The quantitative results of the traffic simulation analysis of the SR 267 Bypass are provided in Table 3.11-16. As shown in the table, the greatest traffic impacts at the Bypass with the project occur at the northbound merge point where the two northbound travel lanes merge to one before traversing the Truckee River Bridge. The average delay to traffic approaching the merge is approximately 7 seconds per vehicle. A similar delay at an unsignalized intersection would correspond to Level of Service (LOS) A. The average travel speed for vehicles approaching the merge point is 41 miles per hour. The qualitative results of this analysis are based on visual observations of the simulations. Consistent with the model outputs provided in Table 3.11-16, northbound traffic approaching the merge point is observed to flow nearly unimpeded. It is important to note that traffic is not observed to stop at the merge point. Although SimTraffic does not report queuing data for bend nodes, no traffic queues are observed at the merge point. In addition, no traffic queues are observed to interact with the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the merge points along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge points would not affect traffic operations at either the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps intersections in 2012. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are good, with average travel speeds of 49 to 51 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that existing conditions including the project as currently proposed can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge. TABLE 3.11-16:TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE ON SR 267 BYPASS IN 2012 AVERAGE LINK PEAK HOUR AVERAGE RDADWAY267SEGMENT LENGTH DIRECTION TRAFFIC S BEDL DELAY (FEET) VOLUMES (MPH) (SEC/VEHICLE) 2032 Without PC-3 1-80 Eastbound Ramp to Merge North 1,164 Southbound 525 37 4.3 of Truckee River Bridge Truckee River Bridge(2-Lane Section) 3,142 Southbound 525 51 2.2 Truckee River Bridge(2-Lane Section) 3,142 Northbound 766 50 3.8 Brockway Road to Merge South of 2,862 Northbound 766 45 5.6 Truckee River Bridge 2032 With PC-3 1-80 Eastbound Ramp to Merge North 1,164 Southbound 720 35 5.4 of Truckee River Bridge Truckee River Bridge(2-Lane Section) 3,142 Southbound 720 50 2.9 Truckee River Bridge(2-Lane Section) 3,142 Northbound 997 49 4.6 Brockway Road to Merge South of 2,862 Northbound 997 41 7.2 Truckee River Bridge 3.11-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS Impact 3.11-1: Project implementation would result in a significant impact to local intersections and roadways (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection This intersection currently operates at LOS F during the Summer 2012 PM peak hour. Specifically, the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive is expected to operate at LOS F with more than 4 vehicle-hours of delay, with or without the project. Implementation of the proposed project would exacerbate an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in increased vehicular delays during the PM peak hour. Given that the project would add traffic to this intersection with an existing unacceptable LOS,this is a significant impact. The following potential alternatives to improve LOS are considered: • The construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location is not feasible due to the existing steep grades. The transition in and out of either improvement would create unsafe traffic conditions, particularly in inclement weather. • One option would be to provide a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL) between Glenshire Drive and Keiser Avenue. With a TWLTL, drivers are expected to make a left turn into the center lane and then move into a gap in the westbound through traffic and accelerate in the through lane, rather than accelerating in the median lane. A driver is prohibited by law from traveling more than 200 feet in a TWLTL. Again, there would be a potential for conflicts between drivers turning left from both Glenshire Drive and Keiser Avenue. Drivers in both directions would also need to accurately judge acceptable gaps in oncoming traffic by looking in their rear view mirrors. As the speed limit along this portion of Glenshire Drive is 45 miles per hour, this would create an unacceptable potential for accidents. For this reason, TWLTLs are typically not provided along roadways with speeds exceeding 35 miles per hour. • Another option would be to provide a left-turn acceleration lane (center lane) along Donner Pass Road west of Glenshire Drive, which would allow drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive to make a "two-stage" left-turn movement, first using a gap in the eastbound traffic to turn into the center lane before using a gap in the westbound traffic to merge to the right into the westbound through lane. A conceptual layout for this improvement is illustrated in Figure 3.11-8. The center lane would not be permitted for drivers turning left from Keiser Avenue. The pavement markings associated with the left- turn lane would be designed to discourage drivers making left turns from Keiser Avenue onto Donner Pass Road from pulling into the painted median area, in order to minimize the potential for traffic accidents. Table 3.11-17 summarizes the LOS and delay on the worst movement (the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive) under 2012 conditions with the new center turn lane. The presence of the center lane would improve LOS to an acceptable level (LOS E on the Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-41 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION worst movement) in 2012 without the PC-3 project With the new center turn lane, most of the PC-3 development (approximately 97 percent) could occur before the LOS threshold is exceeded. With full buildout of the PC-3 development, the LOS for drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive is calculated to be LOS F with approximately 4.12 vehicle-hours of delay, which marginally exceeds the Town's standard of 4 vehicle-hours by approximately 0.12 vehicle-hours of delay (or 7.2 vehicle-minutes, or approximately 2.3 seconds of delay per vehicle, on average). Note that the PC-3 project is estimated to add about 16 vehicles to this left-turn movement during the PM peak hour. If 4 of those vehicles turned right instead and used the Bypass to access PC-3, the LOS would meet the Town's threshold. Furthermore, implementation of the PC-3 project is expected to reduce the through traffic volumes along Donner Pass Road at this intersection, due to intercepted or diverted trips. • The addition of the left-turn lane would improve existing conditions to an acceptable LOS and would significantly improve LOS with buildout of the PC-3 project (4.12 total vehicle- hours of delay under PM peak-hour conditions compared to about 52 total vehicle-hours of delay). TABLE 3.11-17: Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection LOS With Center Turn Lane Assumes a Two-Stage Left-Turn Operation from Glenshire Drive with One-Car Storage in Median. Delay on Worst Movement Delay Delay Scenario (seclveh) (Veh His) LOS 2012 PM No Project- Existing Conditions(without Center Lane) ' OVF S2 F 2012 PM-Without PC-3 48.0 N/A E 2012 PM-With PC-3 Project 77.6 4.12 F BOLD text indicates exceedance of the Town of Truckee LOS standard for unsignalzed approaches,which states that an unsignakzed movemert at LOS F will,greater than 4 total vehicle-hours of delay is unacceptabie. ... ... .....,...................o�....wr y.......,.,.w.-w www....r... .....,,......,ww.........-�.J......w.....w...y.,...., methodology. Note 1: The Existing Condition assumes a one-stage left-turn with adjusted gap acceptance times. Source:LSC Transportation Consultants,Inc Donner Pass Road Extension In addition to the potential options discussed above, the impacts of the implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension to be constructed east of Bridge Street tying into a new T-intersection on Glenshire Drive (which is part of the approved Railyard Master Plan Project) were considered. This roadway extension would substantially reduce the left turning traffic volume from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road, as drivers faced with long delays for making left-turn movements from Glenshire Drive can be expected to shift their travel patterns to instead use the Donner Pass Road Extension. The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and it is included in the Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating new development within the Town to pay traffic impact fees. The project applicant would be required to pay the current traffic impact fee. However, according to Table CIR-6 in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 4 Project (such as the proposed project) encounters an existing unacceptable 3.11-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Level of Service on an arterial or collector road that development is allowed if both of the following are true: • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5;AND • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. The proposed project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan. It follows that development of the project would meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 of the General Plan for an allowable development if the project applicant constructs improvements to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5 (which indicates construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension). It should be noted that the General Plan Circulation Element (Policy P2.3) also allows flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards for three specific intersections, one of which is the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. Conclusion In conclusion, implementation of any phase of the PC-3 Project before construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension would result in increased delays at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection,thereby exacerbating an existing LOS deficiency. Implementation of a center lane at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection would provide an acceptable LOS under 2012 111 conditions, even with most (97 percent) of the PC-3 development. Although this intersection is calculated to marginally exceed the Town's LOS standard with full implementation of the PC-3 project (by approximately 0.12 vehicle-hours of delay on the worst movement), traffic conditions with the project and the center lane would be improved over existing conditions. There are no other feasible short-term improvements that can be implemented to improve the LOS to an acceptable level before the Donner Pass Road Extension is constructed. The Donner Pass Road Extension is included in the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program, although it is not currently funded. 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 1 of project construction and prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. Although the traffic conditions with full development of the PC-3 project and provision of the center left-turn acceleration lane are estimated to marginally exceed the LOS threshold, traffic conditions would be improved over current conditions. Considering that Circulation Element Policy 2.3 provides flexibility for LOS standards at this intersection, implementation of the center turn lane improvements is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection and would reduce this impact to less than significant. See Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1A. Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road Intersection The Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds in the 2012 summer PM peak hours, with or without the proposed project. Implementation of the project is expected Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-43 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION to result in a reduction in the total PM peak-hour traffic volume through this intersection in 2012, although it would increase the volumes on the northbound right-turn and westbound left-turn movements. Installation of a traffic signal and associated lane improvements at this intersection are included in the Town's Traffic Impact Fee Program. Based on the HCM 2010 methodology, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS with a signal, under all scenarios. However, this method does not account for the interaction between this intersection and the closely-spaced Bridge Street/West River Street intersection. According to the results of the simulation performed in 2008 as a part of the Railyard EIR,the addition of traffic signals at these two intersections would result in excessive traffic queuing, and providing an acceptable LOS E or better condition would require additional travel lanes along Donner Pass Road and Bridge Street. This level of improvement was identified by Town staff as infeasible, due to factors such as right-of-way requirements and impact on historic structures.The General Plan Circulation Element (Policy P2.3) allows flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards for the Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road intersection in cases where improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS should be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and implementation of other projects including the Railyard. As such, payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection and would reduce this impact to less than significant. See Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1B. Bridge Street/West River Street Intersection The Bridge Street/West River Street intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds in the 2012 PM peak hours, with or without the proposed project. Implementation of the project is expected to reduce the traffic volumes on the through movements, although it would increase the volumes on the northbound left-turn and eastbound right-turn movements. Installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is included in the Town's Traffic Impact Fee Program. Based on the HCM 2010 methodology, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS with a signal, under all scenarios. However, this method does not account for the interaction between this intersection and the closely-spaced Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road intersection. According to the results of the simulation performed in 2008 as a part of the Railyard EIR, the addition of traffic signals at these two intersections would result in excessive traffic queuing, and providing an acceptable LOS E or better condition would require additional travel lanes along Donner Pass Road and Bridge Street. This level of improvement was identified by Town staff as infeasible, due to factors such as right-of-way requirements and impact on historic structures.The General Plan Circulation Element (Policy P2.3)allows flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards for the Bridge Street/West River Street intersection in cases where improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS should be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and implementation of other projects including the Railyard. As such, payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection and would reduce this impact to less than significant. See Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1C. McIver Crossing/West River Street Intersection The McIver Crossing/West River Street intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds in the 2012 summer PM peak hours, with or without the proposed project. Implementation of the project would exacerbate an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in increased vehicular delays during the PM peak hour. Re-striping the existing westbound left-turn lane as a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) would improve the LOS to an acceptable level (LOS E or better) in 3.11-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 2012, as it would allow two-stage left-turn movements from McIver Crossing to West River Street eastbound. This strategy is appropriate given the low posted speed limit (25 miles per hour) and the relatively low westbound left-turn volume. Provision of a single-lane roundabout at this intersection is included in the Town's Traffic Impact Fee Program. With a roundabout, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. According to Table CIR-6 in the Truckee General Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 4 Project (such as the proposed project) encounters an existing unacceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road,that development is allowed if both of the following are true: • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5;AND • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. The proposed project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan. It follows that development of the project would meet the criteria set forth in General Plan Table CIR-6 for an allowable development if the project applicant constructs improvements to the McIver Crossing/West River Street intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5 (which indicates construction of a single-lane roundabout). The 2012 impact of the project is mitigated by restriping the existing pavement to provide a TWLTL on West River Street east of McIver Crossing. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1D would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way Implementation of the 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 roundabout would improve the LOS to an acceptable level. Specifically, a dual-lane roundabout with right-turn bypass lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches would provide an acceptable LOS (LOS 0) with the project in 2012. A three-lane roundabout with an eastbound right-turn slip lane and a westbound right-turn bypass lane is expected to be needed in 2032. A roundabout at this intersection is included in the Town's traffic impact fee program. Note that while provision of capacity-enhancing improvements to the existing signalized intersection would also improve the LOS to an acceptable level, this would not be consistent with the Town's policy (Truckee General Plan Policy P7.1), which strives to replace existing traffic signals with roundabouts, including traffic signals on State Highways. According to Table CIR-6 in the Truckee General Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 4 Project (such as PC-3) encounters an existing acceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road,that development is allowed if the following are true: • Project traffic does not degrade LOS to unacceptable LOS; OR • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in Table CIR-5 to maintain acceptable LOS;AND Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-45 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. The proposed project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan. It follows that the project development would meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 for an allowable development if the project applicant constructs 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 equivalent improvements). Construction of these improvements by the project would reduce this impact to less than significant. See Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1E. BROCKWAY ROAD/HOPE COURT/SITE ACCESS Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2012. Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches would provide an acceptable LOS C under all scenarios with the proposed project. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1F would reduce this impact to less than significant. 111 Brockway Road/Martis Drive(Site Access) The Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection would exceed the LOS threshold in 2012 with the proposed project. Extending the existing central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) along Brockway Road to the east of this intersection to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Martis Drive onto Brockway Road would provide an acceptable LOS E in 2012. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1G would reduce this impact to less than significant. Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the Soaring Way / Joerger Drive intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2012. Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches would provide a good LOS (LOS B or better) under all scenarios with the proposed project. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, responsibility to mitigate this intersection to acceptable LOS is the responsibility of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-1H would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267 The Placer County Tahoe Resorts Benefit District traffic impact fee program includes constructing a northbound passing lane at Brockway Summit. 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 3.11-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION pay Town of Truckee impact fees contributing to these roadway improvements. No additional mitigation measures are needed in 2012 with regards to roadway capacity and LOS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-11 would reduce this impact to less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES • Mitigation Measure 3.11-IA: 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 1 of project construction and prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. • Mitigation Measure 3.11-IB: 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. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement. • 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. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement. • 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 Mclver Crossing to West River Street eastbound. The project shall restripe the existing pavement to provide a TWLTL on West River Street east of Mclver Crossing. • Mitigation Measure 3.11-1E: 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). • 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. • 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: The project proponent shall construct a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access intersection. • Mitigation Measure 3.11-1l: 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-47 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 3.11-2: Project implementation may result in a significant impact to intersections queuing (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Without intersection capacity improvements, traffic queues are generally expected to interfere with adjacent roadways and driveways in most locations where the LOS is unacceptable. However, with implementation of the intersection LOS mitigation measures included in Mitigation Measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-1H, the resulting traffic queue lengths are not expected to exceed the storage capacity at any of the study intersections during any of the analysis periods. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-1H would reduce queuing impacts to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES implement Mitigation Measures 3.11-IA through 3.11-1H Impact 3.11-3: Project implementation may result in impacts to the SR 267 Bypass under near-term and cumulative conditions (Less than Significant) Based on the simulation performed for 2012 conditions with the proposed project, it can be concluded that the merge point along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge point would not affect traffic operations at the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps intersection. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are good, with average travel speeds of 49 to 51 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that existing conditions including the proposed project as currently proposed can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge. Similarly, based on the simulation performed for future 2032 conditions, it can be concluded that the merge points along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge points would not affect traffic operations at either the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps intersections. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are expected to be good, with average travel speeds of 48 to 50 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that future cumulative conditions including both PC-3 as currently proposed and buildout of other Town of Truckee General Plan and Martis Valley Community Plan land uses can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge.This would result in a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. 3.11-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-18:2012 INTERSECTION LOS MITIGATION SUMMARY UNMITIGATED LOS MITIGATED LOS INTERSECTION MITIGATION No PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE No PROJECT WITH PROJECT CONTROL TYPEJ2 DELAY DELAY DELAY DELAY (SEC/VEH) LOS SEC/VEH) LOS (SEC/VEH) LOS (SEC/VEH) LOS Donner Pass Road Add Center Lane for Two-Stage VER. /Glenshire Drive Stop Controlled OVF F OVF F Left-Turns 48.0 E 4.12 Hits _ 4 _ Donner Pass Road Non-Standard 3 OW F OVF FSignalize.Use Coordinated Signal 11.2 B 13.3 B /Bridge Street Timings Bridge Street/ Stop Controlled OVF F OVF F Signalize,Use Coordinated Signal 6.0 A 5.9 A West River Street Timing , West River Street Stop Controlled 71.9 F 141.5 F Modify Center Lane for Two-Stage 32.9 D 44.6 E /McIver Crossing Left-Turns SR 267/ Construct Dual-Lane Roundabout Brockway Road/ Signal 21.2 C 100.9 F with Right-Turn Bypasses for N/A N/A 31.5 D Soaring Way Eastbound and Westbound Traffic Brockway Road/ Stop Controlled 13.3 B OVF F Construct Single-Lane Roundabout N/A N/A 12.4 B Hope Court with Single-Lane Approaches Brockway Road/ Stop Controlled N/A OVF F Provide TWLTL for Two-Stage SB N/A N/A 45.2 E Martis Drive Left-Turn Soaring Way/ i Joerger Dr/Site Stop Controlled 9.4 A OVF F Construct Single-Lane Roundabout N/A N/A 9.3 A Access with Single-Lane Approaches BOLD text indicates that LOS standard has been exceeded OVF=Overflow.Overflow indicates a delay greater than 200 seconds per vehicle,which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 1:Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2:Level of service for roundabouts and other unsignalized intersections is reported for the worst movement. NOTE 3 The Donner Pass Road I Bridge Street intersection is controlled with stop signs on three approaches,with the northbound Bridge Street approach uncontrolled NOTE 4:The worst movement at this intersection is reported as LOS F with greater than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. NOTE 5:Adding traffic signals to the these two intersections on both sides of the railroad tracks has been shown in by the Truckee Railyard EIR to cause excessive traffic queuing The results of the intersection LOS analysis do not account for the close spacing between these two intersections. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-49 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.11-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC IMPACTS The potential transportation impacts of the PC-3 Project under future cumulative conditions are evaluated. First,Year 2032 traffic volumes are estimated without the project. Next, 2032 volumes with the project are estimated. Finally, intersection LOS and roadway capacity are analyzed with and without the project. Methodology 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. Future Roadway Assumptions The 2032 roadway assumptions are based on the TransCAD model. It is assumed that the "Donner Pass Road Extension" will be completed with construction of the Truckee Railyard Master Plan Project. This new roadway will extend east from the eastern portion of Downtown Truckee through the Railyard development and form a new T-intersection with Glenshire Drive to the east of its intersection with Donner Pass Road. The new Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersection would include exclusive turn lanes on each approach. Additionally, the Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions, which would provide a connection between Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner, and Pioneer Trail, are assumed to be complete. Future 2032 Traffic Volumes 2032 Traffic Volumes Without Project Future 2032 Summer Traffic Volumes The basis for the forecasts of future traffic volumes in the study area is the Town of Truckee's TransCAD traffic model. The TransCAD model was used to evaluate traffic conditions assuming no development of the project development zones (which are located in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) 60, 62,and portions of 61 in the model) in the following steps: 1. The TransCAD future model was run. A "select zone analysis" was performed to determine the amount of traffic generated by the assumed land uses in PC-3 at the study intersections. These turning movement volumes were then subtracted from the future buildout intersection volumes produced by the model. 2. Traffic volumes from the Town of Truckee TransCAD model of the existing 2009 land uses were Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-51 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION subtracted from the resulting future traffic volumes without modeled PC-3 traffic as described above. The result of this calculation indicates the traffic volume growth assumed to occur between the existing analysis year(2012) and future analysis year(2032). 3. The intersection traffic growth calculated above is added to the 2012 traffic volumes(from Figure 3.11-2). 4. The traffic volumes were balanced between adjacent intersections. Generally, the adjustments necessary to balance were minimal. 5. With completion of the Donner Pass Road Extension,the left-turning traffic volume from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road would be reduced, as when faced with long delays for making left-turn movements from Glenshire Drive, drivers can be expected to shift their travel patterns to instead use the Donner Pass Road Extension. Finally, a detailed micro-simulation of the Bridge Street corridor across the railroad tracks in Downtown Truckee was performed as a part of the Railyard EIR. The results indicated excessive delays in the future with the implementation of two new traffic signals at the Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street and West River Street/Bridge Street intersections. In the recently updated Truckee TransCAD model, a 5-second turning movement delay was added to all turning movements at these two intersections, in order to simulate the effect of the two new signals. These delays reduced the volumes in this area to the maximum volumes identified in the Railyard EIR. However, as a part of this study, it is necessary to adjust the traffic volumes along Donner Pass Road between Commercial Row and the I-80/Donner Pass Road Eastern Interchange and along West River Street to reflect the capacity constraints in the Downtown area, as the delays along these roadway segments resulting from the two closely-spaced signals are not reflected in the updated Truckee TransCAD model. The resulting 2032 summer weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without the proposed project are presented in Figure 3.11-6. Future 2032 Winter Traffic Volumes Future Year 2032 winter traffic volumes at the SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection and along SR 267 were recently developed by LSC as a part of the Northstar Mountain Master Plan Project. Specifically, the future cumulative winter traffic volumes provided in The Northside EIR ('future plus project' scenario) were used as the basis for developing the long-term future cumulative winter volumes, and they were updated to reflect recent changes made to the approved land uses in Martis Valley. Future winter traffic volumes at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection were developed based on the future roadway segment volumes along SR 267 from the Northstar Mountain Master Plan study, and the minor approaches were grown based on the growth in summer volumes on these approaches. Future 2032 winter traffic volumes at the SR 28/SR 267 intersection in Kings Beach are estimated by applying a growth rate to the existing winter volumes, based on the traffic growth predicted by the TRPA TransCAD model for each leg of the intersection. Traffic volumes on SR 267 in Kings 3.11-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Beach are forecast to grow by a total of approximately 11 percent between 2012 and 2032. The resulting 2032 winter PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without the project are shown in Table 3.11-19. TABLE 3.11-19:2032 WINTER INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTERSECTION s 7O a az S,' 70 A s 70 TOTAL 4 2 s 2 SR 267/Airport Rd/ 45 1,30 28 27 852 209 169 3 I4 8 7 150 2,812 Schaffer Mill Rd 1 SR 267/Northstar Dr. 145 447 - - 569 305 927 - 557 - - - 2,950 SR 267/SR 28 0 0 0 516 0 515 277 664 0 1 519 308 2,801 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC.,TABLE 16 2032 Traffic Volumes With Project Adding the 2032 project-generated turning movement volumes to the "2032 without project" intersection volumes yields the "summer 2032 with project" volumes shown in Figure 3.11- 7, and the"winter 2032 with project"volumes shown in Table 3.11-20. TABLE 3.11-20:2032 WINTER INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES WITH PROJECT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTERSECTION Sy T 7 z ,g 2? s 2 TOTAL a7 a! 2 M S A' 2 g. SR 267/Airport Rd/ 45 1,322 30 31 919 215 180 3 14 37 31 154 2,980 Schaffer Mill Rd SR 267/Northstar Dr. 145 464 - - 606 384 933 - 557 - - - 3,069 SR 267/SR 28 0 0 0 534 0 526 285 664 0 1 519 312 2,842 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 17 Future Intersection Level of Service Analysis Study intersections are evaluated to determine operational conditions under 2032 traffic conditions. Table 3.11-21 summarizes the results for future 2032 conditions without the project. In comparison with existing 2012 conditions,the LOS is expected to degrade from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level at the following intersections in the future without the project, due to growth in background traffic: • SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road (summer and winter) The results for future 2032 conditions with the proposed PC-3 project are shown in the far right columns of Table 3.11-21. The following additional intersections are expected to exceed the LOS thresholds due to implementation of the project in 2032: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-53 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access • Brockway Road/Martis Drive • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access I I 3.11-54 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION I TABLE 3.11-21:2032 PM PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY(NO PROJECT AND PLUS PROJECT) No PROJECT PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL" LOS THRESHOLD DELAY DELAY (SEC/VEH) LOS (SEC/VEn) LOS Summer LOS 1. SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road Roundabout D OVF F OVF F 2. SR 267/SR 89 North/1-80 Westbound Signal D 35 4 D 81.1 F Ramps3 3. SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps3 Signal D 19.6 B 59.4 E 4. Donner Pass Road/1-80 Westbound Uncontrolled D 17.4 C On-ramp 15.5 C 5. Donner Pass Road/1-80 Eastbound Off Stop Controlled D OVF F OVF F ramp 6. Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail Roundabout D 139.5 F OVF F 7. Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive Stop Controlled E 3.90 Veh-Hrs 5 3.95 veh-hrs4.5 8. Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street Unconventional E OVF F OVF F 9. Bridge Street/West River Street Stop Controlled E OVF F OVF F 10. West River Street/McIver Crossing Stop Controlled E OVF F OVF F 11. Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road Roundabout D 13.4 B 18.7 C 12. Brockway Road/Palisades Drive Signal E 9.7 A 12.9 B 13. SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Signal D OVF F Way3 141.8 F 14. SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road+ Signal E 170.1 F OVF F 15. SR 267/Northstar Drive Signal E 26.2 C 31.4 C 16. SR 267/SR 28 Signal D/E7 523 D 53.0 D 17. Brockway Road/Hope Court Stop Controlled D 24.6 C OVF F 18. Brockway Road/Martis Drive Stop Controlled D N/A OVF F 19. Soaring Way/Joerger Dr/Site Access Stop Controlled D 9.7 A OVF F 20. Joerger Dr/PC-3 Commercial Access Stop Controlled D N/A 13.4 B Winter LOS 14.SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Signal E 138.7 F Road 122.7 F 1 15.SR 267/Northstar Drive Signal E 27.1 C 26.7 Cs 16.SR 267/SR 28 Signal D/E7 55.4 E 9 60.2 E9 SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 18 BOLD text indicates that LOS standard has been exceeded. OVF=Overflow.Overflow indicates a delay greater than 200 seconds per vehicle,which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 1:Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2:Level of service for roundabouts and other unsignalized intersections is reported for the worst movement. NOTE 3:Level of service at these intersections is based on SimTraffic simulation. NOTE 4:This location with LOS F does not exceed the Town of Truckee standard for unsignalized approaches;worst movement has less than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. NOTE 5:The Donner Pass Road Extension is assumed to be complete under 2032 conditions. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-55 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION NO PROJECT PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL" LOS THRESHOLD DELAY LOS DELAY LOS (SEC/VEH) (SEC/VEH) NOTE 6:The Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street intersection is controlled with stop signs on three approaches,with the northbound Bridge Street approach uncontrolled. NOTE 7:LOS E is acceptable at this intersection for no more than 4 hours during the design day,per TRPA LOS standards. NOTE 8:The addition of PC-3 trips to the southbound right-turn overlap phase causes the overall average delay at the intersection to decrease slightly. NOTE 9:This intersection is estimated to operate at LOS E for less than four hours on the design day and therefore does not exceed TRPA LOS standards. 3.11-56 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Future Intersection Queuing Analysis The 95th-percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems in 2032. Without intersection improvements, traffic queues are generally expected to interfere with adjacent roadways and driveways in most locations where the LOS is unacceptable. Future Roadway Capacity Table 3.11-22 presents a comparison of 2032 roadway volumes with the pertinent standards. The ADT volumes for 2032 conditions were estimated using the same methodology as the 2012 volumes. As shown, the following study roadway segments are expected to exceed the allowable traffic volume threshold in 2032 without the PC-3 project: • SR 267, between Town Limit and Airport Road (summer and winter) • SR 267, between Airport Road and Brockway Summit(summer only) • SR 267, between Brockway Summit and SR 28(summer and winter) All remaining study roadway segments are expected to operate within the allowable traffic volume thresholds in 2032,without implementation of the proposed project. Table 3.11-23 summarizes the roadway LOS analysis for "2032 with project" conditions. As shown, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to cause any additional roadway segments to exceed the allowable volume thresholds in 2032. Future Traffic Operations on SR 267 Bypass Future cumulative traffic impacts on the SR 267 Bypass are evaluated, with and without the proposed project. The Synchro/SimTraffic software package was utilized to create a micro- simulation of the SR 267 corridor between Airport Road and 1-80 under future 2032 cumulative traffic conditions with the project, using the same methodology as the 2012 simulation. Roadway Network The results of this analysis are based on SimTraffic traffic simulation models of the SR 267 corridor. The model includes the following study intersections: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road Traffic signal cycle lengths and splits were optimized using Synchro for future traffic volumes and future intersection capacity improvements. The 2032 traffic volumes both with and without the PC-3 project would cause the intersections (in their existing configurations) along this corridor to 111 exceed capacity in traffic simulation. Therefore, roadway and intersection capacity improvements Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-57 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION are assumed along SR 267 both north and south of the Truckee River Bridge. As the purpose of this analysis is to determine traffic operations with the existing two-lane bypass, no improvements are assumed for the Truckee River Bridge. Consistent with roadway capacity deficiencies identified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan,SR 267 is assumed to be widened to two through lanes for each direction of travel from Northstar Drive to a point north of the intersection with Brockway Road/Soaring Way and south of the beginning of the grade separation for the Truckee River Bridge. SR 267 is also assumed to be widened to two through lanes in each direction from a point north of the grade separation for the Truckee River Bridge to the SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road roundabout (not included in the simulation). Note that these configurations were assumed, along with capacity improvements at the intersections along the corridor, in order to avoid any potential capacity constraints and thus provide a worst-case scenario with regards to volumes on the Truckee River Bridge. Although the roadway and intersection improvements assumed in the simulation may differ from the recommended improvements in the final chapter of this study, this would not affect the findings of the capacity analysis on the Bridge. Simulation Results The quantitative results of the traffic simulation analysis of the SR 267 Bypass are provided in Table 3.11-24. As shown in the table, the greatest traffic impacts at the Bypass in 2032 with the project occur at the northbound merge point where the two northbound travel lanes merge to one before traversing the Truckee River Bridge. The average delay to traffic approaching the merge is approximately 33 seconds per vehicle. A similar delay at an unsignalized intersection would correspond to Level of Service (LOS) D. The average travel speed for vehicles approaching the merge point is 27 miles per hour. The qualitative results of this analysis are based on visual observations of the simulations. Consistent with the model outputs provided in Table 3.11-21, northbound traffic approaching the merge point is observed to slow. It is important to note that traffic is not observed to stop at the merge point. Although SimTraffic does not report queuing data for "bend nodes," no significant traffic queues are observed at the merge point. In addition, no traffic queues are observed to interact with the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the merge points along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge points would not affect traffic operations at either the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/1-80 Eastbound Ramps intersections. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are good, with average travel speeds of 48 to 50 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that future cumulative conditions including both the project as currently proposed and buildout of other Town of Truckee General Plan and Martis Valley Community Plan land uses can be adequately accommodated with the existing two- lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge. 3.11-58 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-22:ROADWAY LOS ANALYSIS-2032 WITHOUT PROJECT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK-HOUR VOLUME TWO-WAY PEAR ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFIC I EXCEEDED? SUMMER Bridge Street,across Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,686 853 N/A N/A No railroad tracks Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 2,466 1,268 N/A N/A No SR 89 North Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,161 671 N/A N/A No 1-80 Eastern Interchange , Donner Pass Road,East of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 1,248 711 N/A N/A No Row) Donner Pass Road,West of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 730 402 N/A N/A No Row) SR 89,North of 1-80 Town of Highway D N/A 1 1,791 955 N/A N/A No Truckee/Caltrans , SR 267,between 1-80 and Town of Highway D N/A 1 2,376 1,330 N/A N/A No Brockway Road Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between Brockway Town of Highway D N/A 1 2,869 1,567 N/A N/A No Road and Town Limit Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between Town Placer Highway E 25,000 2,832 1,533 11.19 31,690 Yes Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans - SR 267,between Airport Placer Highway E 25,000 2,331 1,246 11.19 26,080 Yes Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans - SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 2,237 1,248 11.19 25,030 Yes Summit _ • SR 267,between Brockway TBPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,505 753 11.19 16,840 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans - Brockway Road Between Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,401 720 N/A N/A No SR 267 and project access _ - Brockway Road,between project access and Martis Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,382 700 N/A N/A No Valley Road Brockway Road,between _ Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,712 987 N/A N/A No Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-59 OM iii 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK HOUR VOLUME TWO-WAY PEAR ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME _ VOLUME TRAFFIC I EXCEEDED? Martis Valley Road and Palisades Drive , Brockway Road,between Palisades Drive and West Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 2,232 1,252 N/A N/A No River Street WINTER SR 267,between Town Placer Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 2,707 1,620 10.19 27,600 Yes SR 267,between Airport Placer Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 2,249 1,374 10.19 22,900 No SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,718 1,126 10.19 17,500 No Summit SR 267,between Brockway TRPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,617 1,031 10.19 16,500 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 19 NOTE 1:Threshold Volume is not applicable to these roadway segments,as traffic conditions on these segments were evaluated using a SimTraffic microsimulation. • • 3.11-60 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 3.11-23:ROADWAY LOS ANAL YSIS-2032 WITH PROJECT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PER LANE TO R TWO-WAY PEAK- ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFIC' EXCEEDED? SUMMER Bridge Street,across Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,677 853 N/A N/A No railroad tracks Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 2,732 1,410 N/A N/A No SR 89 North Donner Pass Road,South of Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 1,360 778 N/A N/A No 1-80 Eastern Interchange Donner Pass Road,East of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 1,245 710 N/A N/A No Row) _ Donner Pass Road,West of Bridge Street(Commercial Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,200 709 389 N/A N/A No Row) _ SR 89,North of 1.80 Town of Highway D N/A 1 2,174 1,160 N/A N/A No Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between 1-80 and Town of Highway D N/A 1 2,954 1,649 N/A N/A No Brockway Road Truckee/Caltrans _ _ SR 267,between Brockway Town of Highway D N/A 1 2,914 1,595 N/A N/A No Road and Town Limit Truckee/Caltrans SR 267,between Town Placer Highway E 25,000 2,877 1,561 11.19 32,190 Yes Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans _ SR 267,between Airport Placer Highway E 25,000 2,408 1,303 11.19 26,950 Yes Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 2,305 1,296 11.19 25,790 Yes Summit _ SR 267,between Brockway TRPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,524 768 11.19 17,050 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans ^Brockway Road Between Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 2,037 1,019 N/A N/A No SR 267 and project access Brockway Road,between project access and Martis Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 1,589 821 N/A N/A No Valley Road Brockway Road,between _ Town of Truckee Minor Arterial_ D 1,420 _ 1,771 1,006 N/A N/A No Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-61 NM iiii 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PEAK-HOUR LOS PEAK-HOUR AVERAGE LOS ROADWAY SEGMENT JURISDICTION CLASSIFICATION THRESHOLD PEAK HOUR VOLUME Two-WAY PEAK ADT DAILY THRESHOLD PER LANE TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FACTOR LOS THRESHOLD VOLUME VOLUME TRAFFIC! EXCEEDED? Martis Valley Road and Palisades Drive Brockway Road,between Palisades Drive and West Town of Truckee Minor Arterial E 1,600 2,246 1,252 N/A N/A No River Street WINTER SR 267,between Town Placer Limit and Airport Road County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 2,820 1,656 10.19 27,600 Yes SR 267,between Airport Placer Road and Northstar Drive County/Caltrans Highway E 25,000 2,368 1,397 10.19 22,900 No SR 267,between Northstar Placer Drive and Brockway County/Caltrans Highway E 21,000 1,772 1,163 10.19 17,500 No Summit _ SR 267,between Brockway TRPA/Placer Highway D 11,400 1,658 1,060 10.19 16,500 Yes Summit and SR 28 County/Caltrans SOURCE:LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC., TABLE 20 - NOTE 1:Threshold Volume is not applicable to these roadway segments,as traffic conditions on these segments were evaluated using a SimTraffic microsimulation. 3.11-62 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Donner Pass Road/1-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp intersection in 2012 with the project. Provision of a dual lane roundabout with two northbound and eastbound approach lanes and a single lane on the southbound approach would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with PC-3. As a single lane roundabout is included in the Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail intersection in 2012 with the project. Expanding the existing roundabout to provide two circulating lanes, as well as two lanes on the Donner Pass Road approaches and the Pioneer Trail approach would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with the project. As improvements at this intersection are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection in 2012 with the project. Provision of two through lanes on the SR 267 approaches, as well as separate left, through, and right-turn lanes on the minor approaches would improve the LOS to an acceptable level under all scenarios. The Placer County traffic impact fee program includes "SR 267: County line to south of Northstar Drive - Widen to four lanes/intersections improvements", which can be considered to address the improvements at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection. 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 this improvement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps intersections in 2012 with the project.Widening the SR 267 and SR 89 approaches to provide two through travel lanes in each direction (in addition to the existing turn lanes)would provide an acceptable LOS at these intersections in 2032. Dual-lane roundabouts are included in the Town's traffic impact fee program. However, widening the roadways to provide two through travel lanes on the northbound 3.11-64 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION and southbound approaches would be necessary, with or without roundabouts.As improvements to these intersections are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267 The Placer County Tahoe Resorts Benefit District traffic impact fee program includes 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. 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. Note that widening of SR 267 to four travel lanes between Brockway Road/Soaring Way and the Town Limit is included in Truckee's traffic impact fee program. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee impact fees contributing to these roadway improvements. No additional mitigation measures are needed with regards to roadway capacity and LOS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES 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: The project applicant(s)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 267/1-80 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-65 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TRANSIT, BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND ADDITIONAL IMPACTS Impact 3.11-5: The project may conflict with existing/ planned transit services, or create a demand for transit above that which is provided or planned (Less than Significant) This section presents an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed project on transit services. First,the potential transit passenger-trip generation associated with the project is evaluated. Next, the ability of existing services to accommodate the increased ridership is identified. Finally, the adequacy of the proposed transit facilities is assessed. Transit Trip Generation A methodology to evaluate potential transit ridership, based upon observed ridership in the Truckee/Martis Valley area, is presented in Martis Valley Transit Plan Technical Memorandum (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., April 2, 2013). Considering the employment generated by the project's commercial and industrial uses and the new population associated with the proposed multi-family homes in the project, the proposed project is expected to generate 16 transit passenger trips during peak hour periods(11 inbound and 5 outbound). Project Impact on Existing Transit Capacity The project vicinity is served by the Truckee Transit program (operated under contract with the Town of Truckee) year-round, and by the Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) service operated by Placer County in the winter season.There is more than adequate capacity on Truckee Transit fixed- route services in the non-winter seasons. During the busiest month of the non-winter seasons (October), the Truckee fixed-route services serve a total of about 650 passengers, and a maximum of approximately 32 passengers per day. There are generally no more than 5 passengers per hour riding the Truckee fixed-route buses at any time of day. A small bus with 32 passenger seating capacity is typically used on this route. It can be concluded that there is no potential for the project to exceed the capacity of the existing bus system during the non-peak season. In addition, the Truckee Trolley route serving the Henness Flat, project site, Downtown area, and Donner Summit once an hour has available capacity in the winter season. TART carried approximately 502 passengers over the course of the busiest day during the current 2012/2013 ski season (based on ridership data through February 28, 2013). Based on ridership samples taken during the 2010/2011 ski season, the highest ridership of the southbound (Truckee to Crystal Bay) runs was 15 passengers at a time (this occurred during the 3:00 PM runs on both January 11 and January 15, 2011). As each bus provides 35 seats, there is currently available capacity, except for infrequent peak runs on peak days (personal conversation, Will Garner, Placer County Public Works, 2013). While northbound service (operating from Crystal Bay to Truckee) had up to 30 passengers on peak runs, all of these passengers de-boarded at the Sawmill employee housing stop at Northstar. The provision of retail in the project, moreover, would shift some shopping trips generated by Northstar residents from Kings Beach to the project site, which could alleviate peak loads over Brockway Summit. While the proposed project could potentially require some standees along the SR 267 route on peak runs on peak days, additional public transit service would not be required. 3.11-66 Draft Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Proposed Transit Improvements The project proposes to provide a new transit stop at a point on Brockway Road west of Hope Court, and a new stop on Soaring Way adjacent to the potential supermarket parcel. New bus shelters are proposed to be provided at the stops on Brockway Road and Soaring Way. The locations of the proposed bus stops appear to be adequate, given that they provide bus stops within a quarter-mile walking distance of all major activity centers on the site. As transit stops are proposed to be provided within a reasonable walk distance of commercial and recreation centers, and stops along Brockway Road are located where adequate pedestrian crossing conditions can be provided,the proposed transit facilities are considered to be adequate. In summary, while the project is expected to increases transit ridership, given the expected number of project transit riders and existing transit patronage, the project would not cause a demand for transit above that which is provided or planned. Similarly, the project would not conflict or interfere with any existing or planned transit services. This is considered a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. 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(a point of future connection with the proposed Martis Valley Regional Trail). 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 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, 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-67 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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. 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. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Impact 3.11-7: Project implementation may result in traffic impacts during construction (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The construction schedule for the proposed project will be dependent upon market demands. The project would be constructed over a number of phases, and the construction-related traffic would be distributed over time. All study roadway segments are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the construction phases, considering that they currently have substantial additional available capacity. However, project construction traffic could potentially cause some of the site access intersections to temporarily exceed the LOS threshold. In order to ensure that temporary construction activities do not result in short-term traffic operational impacts, the project proponent should prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by 3.11-68 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Town staff, prior to construction. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURES 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.11-69 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION I This page left intentionally blank. 111 111 3.11-70 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ni SR 267/BROCKWAY NO.E BROCKWAY RDJ .9 (SOARING WAY HOPE CVSTTE ACCESS I 2. ,r1 s1 44 a$� En,, 14- w 4 2 •,l60.1./: 3 / \ �� r _.._ STREETS - AEI PROPOSED STREETS LL'!SR 267IAItPORT RDJ HIGHWAYS SCHAFFER MILL RD. MX/ROJISARTIB DR COUNTY BOUNDARY pin WATERILAKE 8' In ii STUDY INTERSECTION it'll,. �,— TRUCKE i4 f TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 4 k* %=F ACCESS:: i I li 11 1\ TRAFFIC VOLUME ,yy ROUNDABOUT IIII 11 4a (UMITIGATED CONDITION) ._+ /07.,11111111/t 9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UNMI TIGAT ED CONDITION 12 IIIMikj a.1 SOARING WAW -.410..e10 41114 1 1 0 19 / , SR WYWORTHSTAR 0R JoeRGER mane ACCESS 13 4.4 it- w gM•R 78 f• � � ~ 1 41t um _gb.. FUTURE Sat ACCESS 7 ��.'._�' SR 20713R 28 rJOEROER DR./ 81011111111 .v�`�14 COMMENTCIALAccESS .� 9I'`�y4F 44 ! 'VIVRE nm ncceu 2i TO TAHOE 8 I NORTHSTAR�+f `r ant Ker„ t 01 SR 267640 ES RAMPS ILI DONNER PASS RD! 10 DONNER PASS RDJ Li BRDGE STJ IOU BROCKWAY ROJ SR SS N/DONNER PASS 150 1 INTERCHANGE OLENSHItE DR. WEST RIVER ST. MARID VALLEY RD. RWHENNESS RG EB Off RAMP -� \.!_1TCQ�:�d iCFiG\:� j • 4410 . _.+1 t L $ 2-UNE ROUNDABOUT 1� 4, i 1 f' 1 7 �y E`,'' NORTMSTAR © SR 237138 SI W ti DOE ER PASS RO INTERCHANGE e DONNER PASS 1101DJ U DONNER PASS RDI m WEST RIVER ST./ ttW BROCKWAY RDJ 140 WB RAMP WB OIC RAMP PIONEER TRAIL BRIDGE ST. MCIVER CROSSING PALBADES DR. - 1 444—• .. 0SCALE1 'B • Z 1T!nKt rurr;F JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-1:Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Source-LSC Transportation Consultants.Inc "' """ 1.. .""' •' "'P 64111111111.Map Date.April 28.2013 ,.....rn.n..,....ol..,.....r r....,.-,,,.,...I o.., 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.11-72 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) NragIZEMESIMal ti SR 267/BROCKWAY RD.m BROCKWAY RD/ ISOARINO WAY HOPE CTJSITE ACCESS 9 °,(i364 422 Of 6 1 12�t�35. i92 urE ACCESS 495 �/ 10 2 119 � 4 1� 438—+ '.,��►' 41 2871 1�4 .14 \'t 1 y 7 555 • ER .....41115k 3 .- STREETS 280 PROPOSED STREETS L! SR AFFIRPMRT RD/ BROCKWAY RDJ HIGHWAYS B SCNAFFER MILL RD. MANTIS OR. COUNTY BOUNDARY .. WATERA.AKE51 565 1`44 �TVNE STUDY INTERSECTION 46 36 6 urE4.:cvss �_ 496 TRUCKEE 8� * TRAFFIC MOVEMENT �► j31 ��/� 111 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME • ROUNDABOUT 4111111111.--"-' �� 111 ` .1, (UMITIGATED CONDITION)T1�-, 439---► '' 91AUNMITI GAEDC ACONDITION L '647 T2�589 1 21• / 1 2 / ,I-L•ISOADRJO WAY/JOERGERTE AC 11 2 I SR 267INORTITSTAR DR. CESS ..../. .• 0 19 �r 13 e4 7 to =�� ,.4-111::•6, . ! 114)4.55 /—103 18 \ 179 �t 31 + 111 1illi �`� ~ • 17 .' • 7' 412 a91 uflinanSE uta.... opk.., A 1T SR 2171$R 26 'MERGER OIL I ��, / �7 � I COMMERCIAL ACCESS tiQ 16` 4 t 0 1375 91 i. furURE SC�I'Y� \. 'T2471 412 �O 57 I v+c.ccEss Si TO TAHOE & 27� EVrVe. IRANSPORTAItON NORTHSTAR 686-4 p�trt sic Uses, f.IJNS/II fAN t't NC.' _ ?;f 2� 1 39 Ell SR 2674.60 EB RAMPS © DONNER PASS RI" DONNER PASS RDJ BRIDGE STJ l� BROCKWAY RD./ SR 8011/DONNER PASS las E MREAd1AMGE WEST RIVER St MANTIS VALLEY RD. ` ‘,97,17,1.1W.4:(•131:1.17.1:0 GLEMSHIRE OR. ROMENNESS RD EB OFF RAW ' ( 4 23��40 X125 23� 4-261 78 479 25 410 9 81�940 F 375 a'''',.,:i,`} J� 4-28 4,C113 F 4-240 4'1`► 112 f96 4 271.4. f 911 ,► I6� f 9 yi 37 —► 259 4 1I 233 441 J701 �, ,� 13 1 I( 321 -_� 2101 124 259 30 24i 533 1467 37� 1751 1125 225 36819 �� 113411108 I 506NORTHSTAR © SR 267188 89 W in GONNER PASS P0A20 fl DONNER PASS RD/ Li DONNER PASS RDI m WEST RIVER ST./ ILI BROCKWAY RD./E. 4•a0 WB RAMP WE RAMP PIONEER TRAIL BRIDGE ST. MCIVER CROSSING PALISADES OR. _^` - _ _- - --46-1 111 329 9418 19 125 4-437 I c ,F 45 3113 4—3 178�j 7104 4-0 �4/iko. 1-1241 6� 1 56 1-187 ` SCALE - 1'- IrT�„),(\ �+ �44 416 B♦ 406 _ 79 0 5 I .„ 15 '- ` 12� * 4-� 10j) 604-4. IN MILES ; �,• • r. ' r,1 881555 3 14 ' 12 381-1 161114;4 C 354—� 3T� 1611 �29 /, r 3221302 189 398 288 92 nK .11}117[ - JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-2: 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Project Source:LSC Transportation Consultants.Inc. I I Map dale:April 28.2013 -- !MEM 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page left intentionally blank. 3.11-74 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) I LRJ SR 2671BROCKWAY RDJ BROCKWAY RDJ SOARING WRY HOPE CT.I5ITE ACCESS .a ,731.:. -75 2 4.247 1 8 1 103 01 t1 1 554)1, 15 8942 314,14 k:3 11280 4 - . 2 85 w* 44, -4.. 225 .2 1I�40 233 S�If 12 ..••, ER �� 3 __.. LEGEND SR -101 7 ....IL COUNTY TREETS smor- HIGHWAYS SR Sit/AIRPORT RDJ BROCKWAY ROJ COUNTY BOUNDARY SCNAFFER MILL RD- MARTRi OR. WATERJLAKE E] STUDY INTERSECTION 36 4_4 t 91 1P34 . TRAFFIC VOUME4. TRAFFIC NT -Bjfp�4 131075f 1158 TRUCKEEA �� ill r �f 132 +/ ` 9Pli t i 6'1 1'1% 126---► ` 11 pAiZ Q LEJ SR t6TM10RTHETAR DR.trJ SOARING WAY' /r 12 19 JOERGER OR.JSIT£ACCESS +' IUllip � 13 12 i1 4 57 754,4„; i 20 1i 1 s r` 3 `L 17 ~ • ( 7..# 0� 466j llik14 13 + 14 4811 Oi 5211' 14 .a% - SR 2871$8 Za JOERGER DRJ . 26 COMMERCIAL ACCESS „Iiii > 14 ail F 16 0 6 ._ ��`: 0 4.../rip. �lV io 04— i*17 NOTE:Negative numbers reflect reductions due to passby and intercepted trips. 07� 04.1t1 0� 1I f* 0- 0 647 41 7 13 aSR$5 NJDONNER PASS 1E1 DONNER PASS ROJ DOWNER PASS RDJ CI BRIDGE STI III BROCKWAY ROJ ROMENNESB RD SR 26 486 EB RAMPS 146E INTERCHANGE GLENSHIRE DR. WEST RIVER ST MARTA VALLEY RD. _frr a 1/\.[.I M�[.1:3/:I.Y/•l:t PR OFF 0 6140 F00 1450 34 4--15 0 110 4_0 •�1c10 9-157 �� 0 "11fr2 D 2091 y2 0 i 1B -21-1 A. 00� 81)1 12s� •511/50 1 y 69' 65 587 27� 16 140 461' -1 -5 0 LI DNNER PADS 1"3"." 122 ,LW. NDRTMSTAR SR 2871SR M W r OOONNER PASS RDJ V DONN9T PASS ROf WEST RIVER 8TJ BROCKWAY RD./INTER _ 146 WB RAMP E1 0l�CR PIPE PIONEER TRAM. BRIDGE ST. MCIVER CROSSING PAUSADES DR. .. 0 128 ef-0 01J1 5�1k►0 f-0 ♦y �-2 I► 4-61 X295 SCALE I - • 44 117 io _ ,D 0 5 t l• . 16 1 t* 48�� ,► IN Mn-EJ 1'' 28 -1 t �1 5- ♦ D! �I� sa0-�-+ 123 _, 1 63 0�l 00� D�11/�0 18 1� -12 a 14 4� 4 . 'DIKE- ,.1pI,-,.- 146 • - -- - - ► JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-3: Project Net Impact During 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Source. LSC Transportation Consultants.Inc i.-%O., Plan/ling I.r-•a 1• ; • ■■■ Map dale:April 28.2013. 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION I This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.11-76 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 SR 217IBROCKWAY RO. BROCKWAY KU ROARING WAY HOPE CTJS4TE ACCESS. 69 £U �2 ! 1 4_123 01 1 9,2441170 8457 23)'t98 161 6 f 4 2 114 13D, * 24.5 3�II�q �/ 170-1 74�1t226 I, 3� -1251 5� 1 •�..f� ' 3 MIME -.- LEGEND .-HIGH AY m ER AFF 207/AIRPORT RD. 18 SROCK S ROA L CNTaCHARFER MIL RD. MJ1Tt116 OR rJ COUNTY BOUNDARY diWATERILAKE STUDY INTERSECTION 27` 6 4.8 540 44 89 �_1 ° B/ a -1.:1TRAFFIC MOVEMENTl V TRUCKEE�` 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME (29 /,...0.e".,, / 4., 20! .1—� oft 1.(4% 66 —0. w fr....111. 9mis (Ii 18 lilliqING RAW .,, ,-"''r `yw r 1 2 iii-1 20 19 I�E7 SR 2871NORTHSTAR DR. MERGER RDDR SITEE ACCESS 1 3 48 754)41,: ..- :��' 112 ' =fop�V11� �!it..a. 9�l 28 111111 1 _ I fi 18 r\ e -{ ) * 46 • 17 •~ • o� �i1 },► _� 0–** 12—+ g50iIIp 5161'' 14 _ 6 SR 2117/SR 28 20 JOERGER MU P•1 COMMERCIAL ACCESS V \�� . ,a4`�a� 14 +�°� t...8o �1�: 4— 0 1 ioo 4-17 o� ;'I1it 0--+ 41 . NOTE:Negative numbers reflect reductions due to passby and intercepted trips. 01 0 w7 41 7 13 till SR 89 NlDONNER PASS WI an 20711-SE ES RAMPS �1 DOWNER PASS 60.1 © 00(018 T PASS Rel t1 BRIDGE STJ OROCKWAY RD/ _ TAHOE E NORTHSTAR 148 E.INTERCHANGE RDAKNNESS RD LB OFF RAMP GI.EN$HIRE OR. WEST RIVER ST. MARTI6 VALLEY RD. 107 .-48 _ 844 — , p��4p F00 196 844 k O Ily9 4183 ��1 f-12 4-59 +`► '� �49 7 ? f * 0 _� f P, 0—� 1574110_3 0}► I X35 0 92 43 A 0—► 1t f 57—f *11t267a 14� 51 83� 284 p OZ 8 1 2111 al 8� 1 ° 0� ° 0 35 NORTHSTAR A-. 13 SR 28718W BE W0000E0PASS I1 DORMER PASS ROJ V DONNER PASS RIX 103 WEST RIVER STA ® enoctookv 60) INTERCHANGE ISO WE RAMP 1MB Do-RAMP PIONEER TRAIL BRIDGE ST. MCIVER CROSSING PALMARIS 00. 0 179 t 0 107 SU 1070 to 0 -6 0 t0 0 3 t2 4-17 1 I ` .. . .)1I F.D 1J1 �l� FO .)1t+ •-e ki 4-19 r SCALE 1I6 c8 #1 r23 0 5 1 I 1 * 592 914 03 0__# 1 -i ,► N MILES 28_ I i 79 it 04)I 0 0419t21.8.06-i 2�1��5 11 —0.' 11. 3� 118 ,..-.10....... ' 206 0 92 -7–.4' -3 /LAkt rQrflP JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-4: Project Net Impact During 2032 Summer PM Peak Hour Source LSC Transportation Consultants.Inc Map date:ARA 213.2013 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION I This page left intentionally blank. I I 3.11-78 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) a['I on WISROCKWAY Ro,flE1 BROCNWAY ROJ (SOARING WAY HOPE CTJSITE ACCESS 9 617 289 •338 1 ._103 4106 1s1,l�zsa c92 3,1)43• j 675 4 _ 22 � 2 204 44ji ... Ea. ',� .414" ,� 286 z9B� x8,41 44 6T,54 8i \a 1 1114 3 TREETS PROPOSED BOUNDARY STREETS LC7 6R 247afRPDRT RD/ ILJ HIGHWAYS SCWIFFER VIII RD_ BROCKWAY ROIMARTRtOM1 IS COUNTY BOUNDARY .. WATER/LAKE 601 •48 ffio STUDY INTERSECTION 38 140 7S 158 •91 8 ♦ TRAFFIC MOVEMENT j`► X62 4-628 TRUCKEE�` i 1� 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME Jo ROUNDABOUT 181 39 /o.� tVNI1TIGATED CONORIONI 4, -, f TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9—� 22 1124 565-� //" , 9 I (UNMITIGATED CONDITION 64 610 � , 11 2 1 �aa 2N/NORTNSTAR DR. alSOARING WAYIJOEROER ,„.‹.4" 12 19 DRJSITE ACCESS ��' —"_ 13 12 t9 tillEllillrillaV ., .251t,,. . 127,61119 1541)41,1.3 1 ' Ing 1 a \: * Mk �� 17 1st 7,'�1 7� 4ai11 it 9sZ 426 sz 14 521 �`O 267 ,� SR mraR 20 COMMERCIALACCESS r, AL.. 14 I98 FYP 26��Y20 F 367551 �7 `0III liTO TAHOE & 27� # TRANSPORTATION NORTHSTAR 666 .� 0� 0 647 41�l 13 'al2� 2 46 SR 26744051I RAMPS ILI WAN"PASS RDJ 1r] DONNER PASS RDI ' eremE STJ aROCKwAY RDJ SR b W00NNER PASS 1.60 5.INTERCHANGE GLENSIME OR. WEST RIVER ST. MARTS VALLEY RD. 71:1.1 :,:I.1:il:F.'1F1: RDIHENNEBS RD WI ORP RAMP - 1 • 21 840 X125 429 36173 12 ~46 71 fT5 1(Z5 8 36 64)14► �i--8532 .D /' :Y `� 1 t.:117. r i *12 (163 '-','S 15 279 ff f 2 • h. ) 37 -1. 411(. 9- 182, 459 349-► ,� 139.1?•► 2a7��9 446 ,OB411�58 I' 1 267 27i 207 324 28 20, 742 14(4 1487 40Y7 ,91 11E5 7 7 5521 367 38 NORTHSTAR © SR 2SWISR 6f IY MIPA" n DONNER PASS ROI Li 00NH PASS RDI OD WEST ROVER SROCKWAY RDJ E INTERCHANGE 144 WS RAMP WS ON RAMP PIONEER BRIDGETRAIL S[ MCIVER CROSSING R PALISADES O 45 441 _11 178 382 124),N3354� 82 81 18 i9 62 1260 131 4-502 - I - _ 4-3 4J I �p �1 Lf 4--122 4) y 4-294 ` SCALE • 4)1 4T61 • 1rt8 V218 108 o s I :;. ,� 16. 17� 49 10� 650-4 4, ,� IN MILES 28 - • t' 38 aB I 3 18i 14514(.12 378 f 15l('254 407-� 32• 157 1 1 162 r �w ... 277 69 IAA!: T4Hut JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-5: 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project II• N.....� 1.1.•nn.n .:1111.10 Source. LSC TrJnspoAabon Conaupenls.Inc R '•''•"i• Map dale:Apnl28.2013. .......1u_v.........I..,......II.............«..Ir..,, 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page left intentionally blank. 3.11-80 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) SR 267:BROCKWAY RD.FE BROCKWAY RD) (SOARING WAY HOPE CTJSITE ACCESS :0 80 790 117 FUTURE �� 1 SITE 4- 6 17�♦��` X242 ACCESS j3fi84 • ,1 t214— �* �� (, 4 :� , 72--i 4561 119 6822 16 21 .EER --->". 3 \....IL -- STREETS 486-4 1.092 PROPOSED STREETS • SR 2S71AR2PORT RD./ HIGHWAYS SCHAFFER BULL RD, WAY ROJMARTIS DR. ww COUNTY BOUNDARY 5 y■ S7 pDYY INTERSECTION 203LAKE 1 Oq3 4.277 FUTURE 5341-4_5221 5 TE a' E TRAFFIC MOVEMENT !�j ACCESS {— 700 TRUCKEE�` i y A� T 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME ` ROUNDABOUT i�% J IUMITIGATEO CONDITION; 32� 145 662-1 / TRAFFIC SIGNAL 26 -i 52 �''/�, al 9 1 I UNMITIGATED CONDITION 994 1.030 SR 7671NOR711S7AR OR. SOARING WAYIJOERGER 10 ,� 11 20 1 S DRJSREACCESS '+ ' ', 1x311. E r ` 145'101 1,1)Y tl 4- 82 OW 1111 , N 18 - `7.._ ?. I• 204! we)I 9� _� r 14 881 80-+ 7 L.. itiN., o SR 2679825 JOEGER DRJ vA° / 267\ COMMERCIALACC6E6 A sC�a4F��`� S d ♦ 0 1.438 2 I 1 j71 �0 67 1594 URE SITE SiCCESS TO TAHOE 312- * FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NORTHSTAR 793 � (1I 1 SITE 1103 CONSUI TANTS.INC 2i 2 ACCESS SR 257440 ED RAMPS kJ DONNER PASS ROJ DONNER PASS RDJ U 64134E STJ rill BROCK+NAY RD.I ■■ ILISR SS WDONNER PASS I-RO E.INTERCHANGE GLENSHIRE DR. WEST RIVER ST MARTIB VAULT RD. _ U1411.4:I•I:ii:FiF t: RDINENNES6 NO ES OFF RAMP 545 254t 25 'Ld0 756 375 4--177 625 130 SB 6 67 4_86 �lY 4-201 75161232 1 17�I 30 4 _23 l0l� 4-516 `226 +4 • `467 ♦Y •112 (-98 t —5 , 8115. f 9� 850, 25 5� ? C 99 —1 41IF. 0—i 1x233 t 178-1 ,►► 13 ► X11 6674-4.;-.4 �11(� 356* •1948254 29-* 1,097 2967 490 46� 74� 1315 615 39856319 11313138 7 DONNER PASS RD/14S _ NORTF(STAR e SR 257168 a W d E.INTERCHANGE !1 fl DONNER PASS RD./ V DONNER PASS RDI ED WEST RIVER ST) \ti BROCKWAY RD/ 140 WS RAMP .IN ON-J P PIONEER TRAIL BRIDGE S7. MCIVER CROSSING PALISADES DR. _ . d5 791 4`208 785 375 26 86717 L5 6227/690 X71 174 256 169 , 4-639 N _ lI 4.3 �1 4y14 4_3 411�► 4-197 41 4-330 +16 SCALE 4'4 {97 +12 '69 II 5 1 1 �1 32� 4� 4,r•,�11 248 gq�1 IN MILES 2 - ' 1 :IF3 �,r'1 Z17'"23 8 155��38 66 -1 69�f1555 623-1 397 2241 �38 44' 747 262 930 287 229 L nr F r,lf 1,,i JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-6: 2032 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project Source.LSC Transportation Consultants.Inc I. I ., ' "' It MM. Map date.April 28.2013. .'...' ... .'. . .".. 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page left intentionally blank. i 1 3.11-82 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 111 SR 2 7/BROCIONAY RD.aka BROCKWAY ROl /SOARING WAY NOM CTJSITE ACCESS .9 -;'J 687 A429 23 1 98 t123 �� 6 1 2641 �54 089 /J 845 �l 50 4 2 253 2� ,4- �=`� 242-� a751 1�s3 88 2 \iMs 3 STREETS J �� 967 1 � MISR- PROPOSED STREETS SR 2AIF R M8.RD. OROCK DR.HIGHWAYS MR.L RD. MARTIS DR. 5 _ COUNTY BOUNDARY WATER/LAKE 1,070 1183 189 4110 MI STUDY INTERSECTION 167 59 S� ♦ TRAFFIC �,14 F61 <J 4-777 TRUCKEE�` iIII ill ,� ,I r 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME �.iHti. ROUNDABOUT 330 20 MI , U (UMITIGATED CONDITIOR ' f -} mln. 9 I TRAFFIC SIGNAL 27 -'R 52�1�4S 7�-W fUNMITIGATEDCONDiTrON 98� 1,048 / ' x,12 • _ 11 2 1 SR umwRTHSTAR DR. `�f0A"�6DR 0 W AC R �ti5 0 19 13 121Y t M� -� a., . 1 54,)49 22814`► ,7 10 lor. • III A 17 . ) 204_, 1081 I 14� 4801 1 �t Vik1411 1474 901 518-4 14 P+P°J26 0SR 2 7/SR 78 4'3COMiKR OER DRJ L.... IAL Access . S`t`►�4�a,to> 14 - - - 29354)16_.#1j3 9s�147a 438 166 �7 Co 1 TO TAHOE b 316) 4-767 n ui�NTS IN NORTHSTA� 793-0. u I� s47 444110& w` 18 757440 8s RAM►S 00MM58 FAS!RD/ ii] DORMER MSS 80.1 I 88810E 814 BROCRWAV RDJ _ rr SR MI INDONNER MSS 140 8.IMTERCNAMOE OLENAIIRE DR, W68T RIVER 8T. MAR)li VALLeY RO. _ t �i:UJ wleteri m-s tir f RDMENNE88 RO EB OFF RAMP 1 54��?25 X40 201 9sIzk24,32 482 4-225 17561 j 30 On 5� y� 599 `1 X214 t `526 f'1�► 4-2 4-147 •`i 811 91, 8501 t _ 253 50' 99 —10 41110 0--4 1A 49Di 576 533 51 3531 1,3811 296 582 69 221--IF t7� 504) c364 1343 -3 v 41 5t�.9 564-V 113131" 267 A summits'W U 1300040R MU RDI lib D 0011NER PASS ROJ62 NOR'MSTAR DOMRER Mas ROI WEST RM[fl STJ kr/-1 elrocKilia ROJ TERCHANGE Jib WR RARp E PIONEER TRAIL 041005 ST YCIVER CR08SM0 PALISADES OR - . 45 9694.208 766 ♦2 33 aj 417 t5 62 27090 X7191 17`J �53 t.�3t9 x-656 F 3 +�► 4-3 eJ��► `, 4109 SCALE 4)l 4415 (32 • 273 0 5 1 41t 37� f 48, A 2410650-1 �. .► is 514_[5 c 281 16 520 21�I15 8 155411016 60 -► 6741�IS80 631--► 3907• 2211 1158 r .,.�� ' - 952 262 1,022 2814 226 • ""' JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-7: 2032 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Source. rensportetbn Consultants Inc. I #MB■ Mnp dale Apn1 28.2013 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page left intentionally blank. 3.11-84 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) L, w 1 • ' h�• yw 1 j • • • '4411111101110 41141111111P,110....... w+ ., gal • • GLEx•rcHIRE •i EP' DRIVE NOff A0001014M 01100NM STR,MO MrnM Ti(MaREO 4410.5 MAY 6f DEUREATEU MM.OE MOM TO OVER MOT01t61161Rp/ENTfIWG MES$MEA4 GRAPHIC SCALE JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) Figure 3.11-8: Conceptual Layout, Two-Stage Left Turn Lane, Donner Pass Road Data source SCO PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC..2012 E■■ 3.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION I This page left intentionally blank I 3.11-86 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 This section describes the regulatory setting, impacts associated with wastewater services, water services, solid waste collection and disposal, and energy and telecommunication services that are likely to result from project implementation, and measures to reduce potential impacts as needed. A detailed discussion of the proposed project's storm drainage and flood control facilities is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Therefore, storm water drainage and infrastructure is not addressed in this EIR section. 3.12.1 WASTEWATER SERVICES EXISTING SETTING Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) was founded in 1972 in response to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, promulgated to protect Lake Tahoe and Truckee River water quality. In 1978 the T-TSA began operating the wastewater facility that serves five collection districts, including the Truckee Sanitary District. Collected sewage from the Town is conveyed to the T-TSA Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), which is adjacent to the Truckee River and the Truckee-Tahoe Airport. This tertiary treatment plant also receives effluent from the North Tahoe Public Utility District, the Tahoe City Public Utility District, the Alpine Springs County Water District, and the Squaw Valley Public Service District. The T-TSA WRP is sized primarily to treat the maximum sewage flows that occur during summer periods with the influx of seasonal residents and visitors. Currently,the T-TSA WRP has a capacity of 9.6 million gallons per day mgd, which is adequate to meet projected buildout demands of its service area through 2025. Sanitary wastewater treatment requirements are established in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit 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 RWQCB for the protection of the environmentally sensitive Lake Tahoe and Truckee River Corridor. Truckee Sanitary District The Town is serviced by the Truckee Sanitary District(TSD),which is one of five service members of the T-TSA as described above. The TSD currently operates under the Sanitary District Act of 1923. Untreated sewage is piped from the TSD service area to the T-TSA WRP using gravity flow and lift stations. The TSD boundaries currently encompass an area of approximately 39 square miles in Placer and Nevada Counties. TSD operates and maintains approximately 300 miles of gravity pipelines containing 3,927 manholes, 9 miles of pressure pipeline, 10 main lift stations, and 30 smaller lift stations. The entire collection system is closely monitored 24 hours a day through a computerized telemetry and flow metering system. 111 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-1 3.12 UTILITIES The collection system primarily services residential customers. Small businesses and restaurants contribute only a small percent of TSD's total wastewater flow. TSD does not service any heavy industrial customers such as major food processing plants or textile plants. At present, there are approximately 9,764 dwelling unit equivalents (DUE, defined as a single family dwelling containing 2.3 occupants, contributing 100 gallons per occupant per day to the wastewater collection system) and 840 commercial accounts discharging into TSD's wastewater collection system. The proposed project would be required to connect to the TSD sewer system and all sewer facilities must meet or exceed TSD Code requirements. TSD owns and operates a 15-inch diameter sewer pipeline that crosses a portion of the proposed Parcel 2 in the Plan Area. The proposed project would not be able to construct any improvements that would hinder TSD's ability to access and maintain this pipeline.Additionally, easements across adjoining non-project properties may be required to connect proposed Parcels 8&9 to the sewer system. REGULATORY SETTING - WASTEWATER Federal CLEAN WATER ACT(CWA)/NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES) The CWA is the cornerstone of water quality protection in the United States.The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters so that they can support "the protection and propagation of fish,shellfish,and wildlife and recreation in and on the water." The CWA regulates discharges from "non-point source" and traditional "point source" facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and industrial facilities. Section 402 of the Act creates the NPDES regulatory program which makes it illegal to discharge pollutants from a point source to the waters of the United States without a permit. Point sources must obtain a discharge permit from the proper authority (usually a state, sometimes EPA, a tribe, or a territory). NPDES permits cover industrial and municipal discharges, discharges from storm sewer systems in larger cities, storm water associated with numerous kinds of industrial activity, runoff from construction sites disturbing more than one acre, mining operations, and animal feedlots and aquaculture facilities above certain thresholds. 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. The Town of Truckee is permitted under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 permit 111 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 3.12-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 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. State PORTER COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT In response to the deterioration of water quality of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River, the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act was adopted in the State of California in 1969. The Porter Cologne Act mandated that all sewage be exported from the Tahoe Basin and all existing treatment facilities be replaced.The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency was formed on May 1, 1972 to comply with this Act and provide sewage treatment for five collection districts. The five districts are the Tahoe City Public Utility District, the North Tahoe Public Utility District, the Squaw Valley County Water District, the Alpine Springs County Water District, and the Truckee Sanitary District, which provide sewage collection services for the Town of Truckee. SANITARY DISTRICT ACT As part of the California Health and Safety Code section 6400 et seq, the Sanitary District Act of 1923 was created with the purpose for any area in a county, or in two or more counties within the same natural watershed area to acquire, construct and operate garbage dumps and garbage disposal systems, sewerage systems, drainage works, and water reclamation and distribution systems. LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN The Town is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Lahontan RWQCB develops and enforces water quality objectives and implementation plans that safeguard the quality of water resources in its region. In accordance with Section 13263 of the California Water Code, the RWQCBs are authorized to issue Waste Discharge Requirements as well as periodically review self-monitoring reports submitted by the discharger, and perform independent compliance checking, and take enforcement action if necessary. Chapter 4.4 of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, North and South Basins, outlines policies and regulations for municipal wastewater treatment, disposal, and reclamation. The standards contained within the Water Quality Control Plan WQCP) are designed to provide applicants with a uniform approach for the design and installation of adequate systems to control wastewater and wastewater treatment/sewage disposal impacts from the Town, and to prevent any potential contamination of groundwater at the discharge site. Local 2025 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN Land Use Element P4.1: Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, to ensure that development within the Town is coordinated with provision of services. Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-3 3.12 UTILITIES P4.2: Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable future sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the local population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimizing potential environmental impacts. P4.3: Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate services are available, or when a program to provide services has been approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truckee. Standards of services for new development applicable to this policy are shown in Table LU-6. Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivisions creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and industrial uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four or fewer lots in areas currently without sewer may be developed with residential uses using septic systems with the approval of the appropriate health and environmental agencies. Such lots may be required to establish connections to the sewer system if they are located in close proximity to existing or future sewer lines. TOWN OF TRUCKEE MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 11.01 of the Town of Truckee Municipal Code includes provisions related to wastewater discharge, which is described as the release,threatened release, or placement of any material into the Town's storm drain system or receiving waters, including but not limited to stormwater, wastewater, solid materials, liquids, hazardous waste, raw materials, debris, litter, or any other substance. TRUCKEE SANITARY DISTRICT CODE The Truckee Sanitary District Code (TSD) outlines policies, provisions, regulations, fees, and charges related to service, installation, inspection, and maintenance of sanitary sewer facilities. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it will: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment and/or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves or may serve the project that is does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. 3.12-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-1: Project implementation has the potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed project would convey wastewater via TSD's existing permitted sanitary sewer infrastructure, as well as new infrastructure that would be designed and constructed in accordance with TSD's requirements. The new infrastructure would be dedicated to the TSD as part of their overall sewer network that services the TSD service area. Wastewater will discharge at the T-TSA's permitted wastewater treatment plant where it would be treated in accordance with the wastewater treatment requirements imposed by the Lahonton RWQCB. The proposed residential uses would generate wastewater that can be collected and treated under the existing wastewater treatment requirements. The specific businesses (wastewater generators) within the commercial and industrial areas are not known at this early specific planning level. Most commercial uses would be able to be treated by the TSD and T-TSA infrastructure under their permit requirements; however, there are certain commercial and industrial uses that may generate toxic or other waste discharges that would not be able to be collected and treated by the TSD and T-TSA infrastructure under their permit requirements. The TSD and T-TSA requires the issuance of a "Will Serve" letter for all commercial development. The TSD and T-TSA do not specifically provide collection and treatment for industrial uses; however, many of the uses defined in the industrial land use designation (i.e. retail, services, etc.) are consistent with wastewater treatment of commercial uses that are treated by these agencies. The TSD and T-TSA will be required to review each business (wastewater generator) located within the commercial and industrial areas to ensure that the wastewater can be collected and treated under their permit requirements. If these agencies determine that they can treat the business (wastewater generator) then they would issue a "Will Serve" letter for the business. If the TSD and/or T-TSA determine that the wastewater generator cannot be served then the business would either require an on-site treatment facility, which would require additional environmental review and permitting, or it would not be allowed within the Plan Area. Implementation of the following mtigiation measure would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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. The business is subject to receiving a "Will Serve" letter for the specific use/business. I Draft Environmental Impact Report- )oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-5 3.12 UTILITIES Impact 3.12-2: Project implementation has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment and/or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves or may serve the project that is does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments (Less than Significant) The proposed project would convey wastewater via TSD's existing permitted sanitary sewer infrastructure,as well as new infrastructure that would be designed and constructed in accordance with TSD's requirements. The new infrastructure would be dedicated to the TSD as part of their overall sewer network that services the TSD service area. Wastewater will discharge at the T-TSA's permitted wastewater treatment plant where it would be treated in accordance with the wastewater treatment requirements imposed by the Lahonton RWQCB. The T-TSA's wastewater treatment plant current capacity of 9.6 mgd is adequate to meet the projected buildout demands of the proposed project.Therefore,the project would not require any off-site expansions or new construction of wastewater treatment facilities because the anticipated wastewater generation would be within the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant. As shown on page 5.5 of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan, the proposed project would include the installation of underground improvements to connect to the TSD sanitary sewer network. A 6" sewer line would be installed within Martis Drive, connecting to the existing 15" sewer line in Martis Drive at the north end of the Plan Area. All development along Martis Drive would connect to the 6" sewer line. A 6" sewer line would also be installed in Hope Court and Brockway Road (east of SR 267), connecting to the existing 6" sewer line in Brockway Road at the west end of the Plan Area. All development on the east side of SR 267 would connect to the 21" sewer line in Joerger Drive at the north end of the Plan Area. The sanitary sewer infrastructure would be entirely graveity fed.The final sewer improvement plans are subject to the review and approval by the TSD. The T-TSA and TSD charge sewer connection fees for all new development to accomodate the increased demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment. The proposed project would be required to pay the appropriate connection fees in accordance with the fees in effect at the time connection occurs. The TSD requires the issuance of a "Will Serve" letter and that all sewer improvement plans be reviewed and approved by the TSD prior to the commencement of construction. The proposed project is subject to all T-TSA and TSD standard rules and requirements. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to this topic. 3.12-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 3.12.2 WATER SERVICE EXISTING SETTING Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Water service in the Truckee area is provided by the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District (TDPUD), a non-profit utility providing electric and water service since 1927. According to the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Urban Water Management Plan (2011), the TDPUD operates two water systems in the Truckee area: the Hirschdale System and the Truckee System. The TDPUD provides water to portions of the Town, along with adjacent unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer Counties. The Plan Area is currently within the TDPUD service and is included in the population and growth projections assumed under the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Urban Water Management Plan (2011). Water Supply The TDPUD pumps its water from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB). The MVGB is a low-lying area of approximately 57 square miles that is completely contained within a larger watershed of approximately 167 square miles. The MVGB has a total subsurface storage volume of 484,000 acre-feet and is made up of a multiple aquifer system composed of basin-fill sedimentary units and interlayed basin-fill volcanic units. Infiltration from surface water and precipitation supplies the upper unconfined aquifer system, which in turn feeds adjacent wetland areas. Annual groundwater recharge depends heavily on snowmelt in the late spring and early summer from April through June. The basin-wide annual recharge is estimated at 29,165 acre-feet per year(afy) and a sustainable yield of the MVGB is 24,000 afy or 21.4 million gallons per day (mgd). The California Department of Water Resources has not determined that the MVGB is overdrafted and no instances of contamination within the aquifers are known. The MVGB is not adjudicated and none of the groundwater users have expressed a desire to have the MVGB adjudicated. Based on recent studies of the groundwater basin, available water was estimated to be adequate to serve the projected buildout of the TDPUD service area and the Town of Truckee. Given the total subsurface storage and sustainable yield of 24,000 afy,there is enough available water in the basin for the next 20 years of service even if no recharge occurred. Water Service and Facilities According to the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Urban Water Management Plan (2011), the TDPUD maintains approximately 216 miles of transmission, distribution, and service pipeline ranging from 2 inches to 24 inches in diameter. The TDPUD also maintains 1,530 main line valves, 870 fire hydrants, 130 air release valves, 100 blow-off valves, and 20 pressure reducing stations. Because elevations throughout service area vary, water is stored in tanks that are strategically placed throughout the area and transported to higher elevations areas through a series of pump stations. The TDPUD currently maintains 13 active wells to supply potable water and three active wells to supply non-potable water, 33 active storage tanks and 25 pumping stations, to serve approximately 16,200 water customers in 46 pressure zones. The total production capacity of the I II Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-7 3.12 UTILITIES active potable water wells is approximately 14 million gallons per day (mgd) (43 acre-feet per day (afd))and the total firm production capacity is 10.9 mgd (34 afd). System Capacity and Improvements According to the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Urban Water Management Plan (2011), current water demand in the service area averages 4.53 million gallons per day (mgd) (equivalent to 13.9 acre-feet per day (afd)), with a peak of 9.53 mgd (29.2 afd) that occurred on July 6, 2010. The current maximum potable water demand for the TDPUD is 9.53 mgd (29.2 afd),with maximum demand estimated to be 14.58 mgd (44.7 afd) at buildout of the 2025 General Plan and between 20.3 mgd (62.3 afd) and 21.88 mgd (67.1 afd) at buildout based on growth projections for the region,which indicate that the existing service area will reach buildout conditions in the year 2038. In order to meet this future demand, a total of five new wells, at a capacity of 850 gallons per minute (gpm) each for a total production capacity of 23.8 mgd (73 afd) and a firm production capacity of 20.7 mgd (63.5 afd), will be required to provide adequate capacity. Additional wells,for a total of eight wells, would be required to meet firm capacity production. In order to address limitations in storage and transmission, the TDPUD has identified the need for a series of improvements, including the construction of new wells as stated above, additional storage facilities,two new major transmission pipelines and an upsizing of existing pipelines in some areas. REGULATORY SETTING - WATER SERVICE State URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT The Urban Water Management Act of 1983 requires all urban water suppliers within California to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every five years.This requirement applies to all suppliers providing water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. The Act, which is embodied in the California Water Code, is intended to support conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies at the local level. The Act requires the total projected water use to be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five-year increments. The planning effort looks at single and multiple dry water years and it includes a water recycling analysis that incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency's service area along with current and potential recycled water uses. The Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Urban Water Management Plan (2011) was adopted by the TDPUD in June 2011. The UWMP uses growth projections for the region through a buildout year of 2038. The UWMP includes the current population and projected growth from the 2025 Truckee General Plan, which assumes development of the PC-3 site. According to Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2), the analysis of water demand for the proposed project may be derived from the UWMP. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT The Groundwater Management Act provides guidance for local agencies to develop a voluntary Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) in State-designated groundwater basins. The Act provides local water agencies with procedures to develop a groundwater management plan so those 3.12-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 agencies can manage their groundwater resources efficiently and safely while protecting the quality of supplies. Once a plan is adopted, the rules and regulations contained therein must also be adopted to implement the program outlined in the plan. GMPs can allow agencies to raise revenue to pay for measures influencing the management of the basin, including extraction, recharge, conveyance, facilities' maintenance, and water quality. The TDPUD adopted a GMP for the entire Martis Valley Groundwater Basin on January 3, 1995. On January 10, 2013, the TDPUD released a draft update to its GWP. TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT In cooperation with various local agencies, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) manages the State's water resources to benefit the State's people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments. The DWR represented the State in negotiations leading up to the signing of the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) on September 6, 2008. The TROA contains an interstate allocation of water between California and Nevada; however, there is federal litigation concerning this agreement. Public Law 101-618, also known as the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Settlement Act), includes an interstate allocation of surface and groundwater in the Lake Tahoe and Truckee Basins. The Settlement Act was enacted in 1990; however, it does not become effective until the TROA goes into effect following the conclusion of the federal litigation. Local 2025 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN Land Use Element P4.1: Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, to ensure that development within the Town is coordinated with provision of services. P4.2: Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable future sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the local population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimizing potential environmental impacts. P4.3: Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate services are available, or when a program to provide services has been approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truckee. Standards of services for new development applicable to this policy are shown in Table LU-6. Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivisions creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and industrial uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four or fewer lots in areas currently without sewer may be developed with residential uses using septic systems with the approval of the appropriate health and environmental agencies. Such lots may be required to establish connections to the sewer system if they are located in close proximity to existing or future sewer lines. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-9 3.12 UTILITIES Conservation and Open Space Element P11.1: Minimize excessive paving that negatively impacts surface water runoff and groundwater recharge rates. P11.7: Ensure that all proposed developments can be adequately served by available water supplies. P11.8: Support all efforts to encourage water conservation by Truckee residents and businesses, and public agencies, including working with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, to implement water conservation programs and incentives that facilitate conservation efforts. TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN The TDPUD adopted a Water System Master Plan (WSMP) spanning 1995 to 2015. The aim of the plan was to assist the TDPUD in identifying existing deficiencies in capacity and service; budgeting for correction of these deficiencies; anticipating areas where growth is likely to occur that is consistent with the Town of Truckee, Nevada County and Placer County General Plans; identifying system improvements necessary to serve such growth; and, analyzing the TDPUD's current facilities fee and setting future facilities fees. TDPUD's 2012 Water System Master Plan Update (available in draft form) includes the Plan Area. WATER FACILITIES FEES ORDINANCE Effective June 2005, the Water Facilities Fee Ordinance was passed by the TDPUD Board of Directors to finance public water system facilities needed to serve new development and to reduce the impacts of additional demands on the existing water system caused by new development. Water facilities fees for residential development are calculated and charted according to an amount per square foot of living space for the area to be constructed. The facilities fees are $1.64 times the square feet of living space as determined by the Building Permit. WATER CONNECTION FEES ORDINANCE Effective April 2008, the Water Connection Fee Ordinance was passed by the TDPUD Board of Directors to reimburse the TDPUD for the actual administrative, material, and labor costs of connecting to the water system (excluding the service lateral). THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE- WATER SERVICE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it would: 1. Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or 2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or if new or expanded entitlements are needed. 3.12-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-3: The proposed project has the potential to require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant) In the 2011 UWMP the TDPUD determined that the available production capacity is sufficient to meet current demands; however, they also determined that potable water production facilities will be unable to meet projected maximum day demands in the year 2024. With the projected buildout maximum day potable water demand of 20.3 mgd, an additional 9.4 mgd of potable water production capacity is needed to meet buildout demands and to provide adequate firm capacity to the system. Based on the 14.0 mgd of total available capacity, an additional 2.8 mgd of production capacity is needed over the next 20 years to meet projected demands. Furthermore, an additional 3.0 mgd of capacity will be necessary to ensure that the system has adequate firm capacity. The TDPUD has identified three alternatives for additional water supply to meet this need: • Construct additional wells not requiring filtration • Construct additional wells requiring filtration • Construct a surface water treatment facility The TDPUD has recommended that groundwater continue to be the main source of supply as additional groundwater wells can be constructed without exceeding the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin. Construction of new wells is expected to be the near-term solution to increasing water supply within the TDPUD to serve anticipated growth.The planned improvements needed to accommodate growth in the entire TDPUD service area would be subject to environmental review during the design and implementation phase of those projects. As shown on page 5.6 of the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan, the proposed project would include the installation of underground improvements to connect to the TDPUD water network. The proposed water mains would be comprised of 16" water line installed within Soaring Way and Joerger Drive. This water line would connect to the 24" water line in Joerger Drive at the north end of the Plan Area and to the 16"water line in Soaring Way at the southern end of the Plan Area.Additionally, a 12" water line would be installed in Martis Drive. This water line would connect to the 14" water line in Hope Court and cross under SR 267 within a 24" casing to a connection within the 16" water line in Joerger Drive. The location of these improvements is consistent with planning level design of water infrastructure improvements shown in the TDPUD's Draft 2012 Water Master Plan Update. The TDPUD submitted an NOP comment on May 31, 2012 that indicated that a detailed analyses and the full extent and nature of the water system modifications will be determined during the TDPUD's project review process. The TDPUD further noted that the project proponent will be Draft Environmental Impact Report- loerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-11 3.12 UTILITIES required to enter into a development agreement regarding construction of the potable water infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project. The TDPUD noted that the project proponent will be required to construct all on-site water system improvements. The water infrastructure will also include numerous fire hydrants that must be placed in accordance with the Truckee Fire Protection District's requirements. The hydrants must 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. Additional hydrants will be required in the areas with commercial development. All hydrants must be of the dry barrel type and be identified with an 8' snow stake and if necessary hydrants must be protected with bollards. The hydrants must provide a minimum fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 2-minute duration with 20-psi residual in residential areas and a minimum of 2000 gpm in commercial/industrial areas, although this may be larger depending on the size of the commercial/industrial structures. These hydrant requirements are included in Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 in Section 3.10 Public Services and Recreation. The new water infrastructure (pipes and hydrants) are necessary to provide the project with adequate water supply and to meet the Truckee Fire Protection District minimum flow requirements. Installation of the new water infrastructure is consistent with the TDPUD's Draft 2012 Water Master Plan Update and the Truckee Fire Protection District's requirements. Installation of this would proposed infrastructure would have a less than significant impact related to this topic. Impact 3.12-4: The proposed project has the potential to have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources (Less than Significant) The maximum potable water demand for the TDPUD is estimated to be 14.58 mgd (16,316 afy) at buildout of the 2025 General Plan and between 20.3 mgd (22,740 afy) and 21.88 mgd (24,492 afy) based on growth projections for the region, including areas outside of the Town limits. Buildout projections for the existing service area are to the year 2038.The total current production capacity of the active potable water wells is approximately 14 mgd (15,695 afy) and the current total firm production capacity is 10.9 mgd (12,410 afy). Therefore, in order to meet this future demand under the buildout conditions, a total of five new wells, at a capacity of 850 gallons per minute (gpm) each for a total production capacity of 23.8 mgd (26,645 afy) and a firm production capacity of 20.7 mgd (23,178 afy), are planned as part of the 2011 UWMP to provide this additional capacity. The MVGB has a total sustainable water supply of 21.4 mgd (24,000 afy). The MVGB recharge is approximately 26 mgd (29,165 afy), therefore, according to the data provided in the 2010 UWMP, it is reasonable to assume that given the total subsurface and sustainable yield of 24,000 afy and basin-wide annual recharge of 29,165 afy, there is sufficient water available to support buildout of the 2025 General Plan as well as development in the region through the 2011 UWMP planning horizon. I 3.12-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 The proposed project would result in 97.37 new residential units with an estimated population increase of 245 new residents.The proposed project would also result in commercial and industrial development potential of over 460,000 s.f. of building space. The new residents and businesses in the Plan Area would require demand for domestic water in the Town, and TDPUD service area would increase as a result of the project. The proposed project is a special planning district that was assumed for buildout within the 2025 Truckee General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project was assumed for development within the 2011 UWMP which concludes that there are sufficient water supplies for future growth through the 2030 planning horizon for the 2011 UWMP. The proposed project includes requirements that are intended to reduce water use including: the use of"low-flow" appliances and toilets; installation of landscaping that requires less water and/or does not require permanent irrigation systems; installation of solar water heating systems or preinstalling insulated copper pipes from the attic to a hot water closet or mechanical room for future solar installation; and installation of Energy Stare certified appliances. Furthermore, the proposed project must implement the goals and policies in the 2025 Truckee General Plan water conservation measures. 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 proposed project would result in a less than significant relative this environmental topic. Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-13 3.12 UTILITIES 3.12.3 SOLID WASTE EXISTING SETTING Collection/Disposal/Recycling Solid waste removal and recycling services for the Town of Truckee are provided by the Tahoe- Truckee Sierra Disposal (TTSD) Company. Two separate bodies make up the TTSD: Tahoe Truckee Disposal and the Eastern Regional Landfill Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Tahoe Truckee Disposal is responsible for collecting household waste and recyclables and the MRF is a recycling and transfer center for household and construction materials. Incoming solid waste is either recycled or transported to the Lockwood Regional Landfill as described below. Tahoe Truckee Disposal (TTD) is a collection division of the TTSD. TTD uses a combination of rear mounting bin pickup trucks for single-family residences and low-density areas, and front loader garbage trucks for commercial and multi-family areas. Funding for solid waste collection comes from collection fees.The TTSD handles approximately 60,000 tons of waste per year and is operating at SO percent of their total capacity of 120,000 tons per year. The TTSD plans on continuing to expand their services to accommodate the growth and increasing needs of their service area. Landfill The Lockwood Regional Landfill is located on a 1,535-acre site in Storey County, Nevada, approximately 10 miles east of Reno, Nevada and approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Lockwood, Nevada. The 550-acre landfill footprint receives an average of 2,200 tons per working day(tpd). The Landfill is anticipated to yield an overall refuse storage volume of approximately 64.8 million compacted cubic yards(43.7 million compacted tons).Additionally,the landfill has a 60-year capacity to accommodate the buildout projections for the TTSD's service area. The TTSD has an 80-year contract for disposal services at the landfill,which began in 1997. REGULATORY SETTING - SOLID WASTE State CALIFORNIA'S INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1989 California's Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) set a requirement for cities and counties to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling and composting. In order to achieve this goal, AB 939 requires that each City and County prepare and submit a Source Reduction and Recycling Element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity. AB 939 also established requirements for cities and counties to develop and implement plans for the safe management of household hazardous wastes. In order to achieve this goal, AB 939 requires that each city and county prepare and submit a Household Hazardous Waste Element. 3.12-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12 UTILITIES Conservation and Open Space Element P15.1: Support recycling programs town-wide, including the curbside recycling and business waste reduction programs. P15.2: Support and expand innovative programs such as the "Keep Truckee Green" Community Awards that recognize local businesses, agencies, and organizations efforts to reduce waste. P15.3: Encourage energy conservation, waste reduction and environmental sustainability in all Town activities. P15.7: Support efforts to develop a regional food waste recycling program in Truckee, in cooperation with Nevada County, Placer County, Special Districts, and local resorts and ski areas. TOWN OF TRUCKEE MUNICIPAL CODE Ordinance No. 2003-02, Title 6, Health and Sanitation, provides for the rules and regulations governing the collection, handling, and disposal of solid waste and other operating regulations, such as charges and fees. TOWN OF TRUCKEE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM The Town offers a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Program along with other waste prevention and recycling programs in order to reduce waste and save money. Through the program, the Town regulates the applicable diversion percentage of each item and charges for disposal per cubic yard. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE- SOLID WASTE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it will: 1. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. 2. Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-5: The proposed project has the potential to be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs (Less than Significant) The Lockwood Regional Landfill has a 60-year capacity to accommodate the future growth planned for in the Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal Company's service area. As such, there is adequate long- term capacity at the landfill to serve the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to solid waste. 3.12-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 Impact 3.12-6: The proposed project has the potential affect compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Less than Significant) The 2025 Truckee General Plan establishes policies to encourage recycling and waste diversion to minimize the amount of solid waste generated by residents and businesses. To achieve this goal the Town has implemented a range of strategies and programs. In 2011, the Town achieved a disposal rate of 5.5 pounds per person, which is significantly below the State's disposal rate target of 10.7 pounds per day. The proposed project will be subject to the same local strategies and programs that have helped the Town achieve this low disposal rate that effectively ensures compliance with State regulations. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less- than-significant impact with regard to solid waste. 3.12.4 ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXISTING SETTING Electrical Service Electrical services are provided by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD). Existing electrical transmission lines and service distribution lines lie adjacent to and within the Plan Area. Electrical service facilities will be extended from existing TDPUD infrastructure and will be upgraded as necessary to adequately serve the proposed project as it develops. The electrical infrastructure will be designed to accommodate maximum build out of the Plan Area. These facilities will be designed and extended as directed by TDPUD and in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules. Common trench utilities (joint trench) including electric, natural gas, telephone, and cable TV services will be located underground within public utility easements. Placement of transformer boxes will be coordinated with TDPUD through the preparation of joint trench utility plans. Natural Gas Natural gas services are provided to the Truckee area by Southwest Gas Corporation. There are existing natural gas transmission lines and service distribution lines adjacent to and within the Plan Area. Natural gas facilities will be extended from existing Southwest Gas infrastructure in Martis Drive and will be upgraded as necessary to adequately serve the proposed project as it develops. The natural gas infrastructure will be designed to accommodate maximum build out of the Plan Area. These facilities will be designed and extended as directed by Southwest Gas and in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules. Natural gas lines will be included within the common trench utilities (joint trench) which shall be located underground within public utility easements. Placement of gas service meter locations will be coordinated with Southwest Gas through the preparation of joint trench utility plans. Draft Environmental Impact Report- )oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-17 3.12 UTILITIES Telecommunications Telecommunications service is provided by AT&T. Cable TV is provided by Suddenlink Communications. Satellite TV is also available. Telecommunications service facilities will be extended from existing infrastructure and will be upgraded as necessary to adequately serve the proposed project as it develops. These facilities will be designed and extended as directed by telecommunications providers and in accordance with their rules. All utilities including electric, natural gas, telephone, and cable TV services will be located underground in a common utility easement(joint trench). REGULATORY SETTING - ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS State CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE—TITLE 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, is also known as the California Building Standards Code. The 2010 triennial edition of the California Building Standards Code applies to all occupancies that applied for a building permit on or after January 1, 2011, and remains in effect until the effective date of the 2013 triennial edition. 2010 California Building Code The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) is included in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Building Standards Code. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. Through the CBC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and construction. Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy consumption, including electricity, by new buildings in California is regulated by the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. The efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and non- residential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings, provided that these standards meet or exceed those provided in Title 24 guidelines. Appling the most current standards for low-rise single-family detached homes, electricity use is reduced by 22.7 percent compared to the 2005 Standards, peak demand is reduced by 8.2 percent, and gas is reduced by 10 percent. 2010 California Green Building Standards(CALGreen) Code The California Green Building Standards are embodied in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 and include mandatory provisions effective on January 1, 2011. The purpose of this code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: 3.12-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) UTILITIES 3.12 1. Planning and design 2. Energy efficiency 3. Water efficiency and conservation 4. Material conservation and resource efficiency 5. Environmental quality The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. Compliance with the CalGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting the certification requirements of any green building program. Local 2025 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN Conservation and Open Space Element P5.3: Encourage energy conservation, waste reduction, and environmental sustainability in all Town activities. P5.4: Work with energy providers to encourage community-wide reductions in energy consumption through conservation practices. P5.5: Encourage new private and public development to maximize opportunities for use of passive or natural heating and cooling and encourage sites with solar opportunities to be designed with natural heating and cooling principles. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE- ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS The proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Energy and Telecommunications if it will: 1. Be served by a service provider without appropriate capacity to accommodate the project's needs. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-7: The proposed project has the potential to be served by a service provider without appropriate capacity to accommodate the project's needs (Less than Significant) The proposed project includes a variety of Green Design Standards including bicycle networks, walkable design concepts, energy efficiency in buildings, reduced water use,solar orientation, light pollution reduction, and reuse/recycling. The proposed project also includes a variety of Energy Consumption Standards including natural cooling, passive solar heating, solar water systems of pre-plumbing for solar water heating, photovoltaic (PV) systems, and radiant heating systems. These Green Design and Energy Consumption standards are designed to provide energy conservation utilizing the most current advances to design and construction of urban projects. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.12-19 3.12 UTILITIES The proposed project would receive energy and telecommunications services from a variety of service providers. The proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local requirements related to the design, construction, and operation of the facilities. The infrastructure for these services must be engineered and constructed following a joint trench utility plan that is approved by the service providers prior to installation. The plan review process ensures that the infrastructure is designed and sized in accordance with the service provider standards. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to energy and telecommunications. I 3.12-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 3.13 This section provides an overview of the visual character, scenic resources,views, scenic highways, and sources of light and glare that are encountered in the Plan Area and the surrounding area.This section concludes with an evaluation of the impacts and recommendations for mitigating impacts. This section is based in part on field visits conducted by De Novo Planning Group in August 2012, and Visual Simulations prepared by Maxey Architecture. The Visual Simulations depict site conditions before and after development from a range of viewpoints in the vicinity of the Plan Area. The Visual Simulations are shown on Figures 3.13-1 through 3.13-4 at the end of this section. 3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING LANDSCAPE SETTING The Plan area is located in the Martis Valley, a large, level to rolling meadow at the confluence of the Truckee River and Martis Creek floodplains, east of Interstate 1-80 and the Town of Truckee. The Plan area consists of a largely level, low-lying portion of the floodplain of tributaries to Martis Creek. The valley-bottom portions of the area are visually open, with views over large areas of open meadow interrupted by substantial stands of Ponderosa pine. Views from the valley to nearby peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson Ranges are visible in all directions, particularly to the east. The typical forest type of the region is mixed conifer forest. Within the Martis Valley woodland is primarily ponderosa pine, in stands amid large areas of open grassland meadow. Viewsheds in the region are conditioned to a large extent by the characteristic tall forest cover. While potential viewsheds of the project (areas from which the Plan Area could be visible) based on terrain would be quite extensive, in fact views to the Plan Area are largely limited to within the Plan Area itself. For example, although the Plan Area would theoretically be visible from 1-80 approximately one mile to the north based on topography, in fact views of the Plan Area are largely blocked by intervening forest canopy. This high 'visual absorption capacity' of the Sierra forest— that is, the ability to visually conceal development with the presence of tall, dense forest cover—is a characteristic of the Sierran landscape. Existing visual quality of the Martis Valley, despite existing development, is high. Scenic intactness remains relatively high, with mountains and wooded slopes dominating the landscape. Viewer sensitivity is also very high.The Plan Area is bisected by SR 267, which serves as the primary route from 1-80 to the Lake Tahoe North Shore as well as the Martis Creek Lake National Recreation Area. Consequently,very high numbers of motorists with unusually high sensitivity to scenic values could experience a high level of foreground visual exposure to development on the Plan Area. The Plan Area has also been identified as the key gateway to the Town of Truckee from the south in the Town's 2025 General Plan. Because of the high degree of site exposure/visibility from the elevated portions of SR 267 and Brockway Road, site development could result in strong changes to the existing visual character of the site viewshed in particular, and the town's visual image in general. Commercial and industrial development in the Plan Area, without adequate design controls, could contrast strongly with other existing development in the region, potentially Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.13-1 3.13 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES introducing a prominent image of suburban character and large scale into a relatively intact landscape still dominated by natural scenic elements. All these factors— high visual quality and viewer sensitivity; high site exposure and extensive site scale — indicate a high potential for significant visual impacts without careful project design and mitigation. I-80 in the project vicinity is an eligible State Scenic Highway; SR 267 is not identified as either a State or local scenic road. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Existing stands of mature ponderosa pine in the Plan Area reach 50 — 60 feet in height or more and, along with views to background mountain slopes and ridges in all directions, are the principal scenic resources in the Plan Area. Site character is otherwise dominated by the open meadow of the level valley bottom. The center of the Plan area is marked by the intersection of SR 267 and Brockway Road, the principal local arterial route in the vicinity. The two roads criss-cross the Plan Area on elevated earth berms, reaching a high point at their intersection, approximately 25 feet above the valley floor. As a result, visual access into the Plan Area is strongly accentuated by the elevated, viewer- superior position of motorists on these most sensitive exposed roadway segments, which afford panoramic overviews of the Plan Area below on each side. The Plan Area is also physically divided into four quadrants by the two elevated roadways, each visually isolated from the others by the intervening earth berms and a small knoll adjoining SR 267 in the eastern quadrant. The Plan Area is bounded to the northeast by the Truckee Tahoe Airport and associated industrial and commercial businesses. Though less than 1/2 mile to the east of SR 267, these low-rise features are partially screened by intervening pine forest, and remain visually subordinate to both the open meadow and pine woodland that dominate the valley floor foreground, and the dominant mountain slopes and ridges in the background. Directly to the west, the Plan Area is bounded by the Ponderosa Golf Course, and businesses on Brockway Road. Brockway Road has experienced extensive recent commercial and residential development. Nevertheless, the bulk of development is generally visually filtered from the roadway by pine trees, which help to subordinate the urbanized image of development through screening and by their taller, visually dominant scale and presence. 3.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING STATE California Scenic Highway Program The intent of the California Scenic Highway Program is "to protect and enhance California's natural scenic beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the State's scenic resources." Caltrans administers the program, which was established in 1963 and is governed by the California Streets and Highways Code (§260 et seq.). The goal of the program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of the 3.13-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 3.13 adjacent land. Caltrans has compiled a list of state highways that are designated as scenic and county highways that are eligible for designation as scenic. Scenic highway designation can provide several types of benefits to the region. Scenic areas are protected from encroachment of inappropriate land uses, free of billboards, and are generally required to maintain existing contours and preserve important vegetative features. Only low density development is allowed on steep slopes and along ridgelines on scenic highways, and noise setbacks are required for residential development. There are no State-designated Scenic Highways in Truckee. Both 1-80 and SR-89 are eligible to be State Scenic Highways, but are not officially designated. LOCAL 2025 Truckee General Plan COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT Policy 2.4: Ensure that new development in Truckee's lowland areas, including its forested areas and meadowlands, and the Truckee River Valley, contributes to and enhances the scenic quality and visual harmony of the built environment that comprises the Truckee townscape. Policy 2.7: Require electric, telecommunication and cable television facilities serving new development to be installed underground wherever possible. Where undergrounding is impractical, above ground antennae and telephone and high voltage transmission lines shall be located out of significant scenic vistas. Policy 2.9: Encourage the planting and maintenance of roadside landscaping and the use of landscaping elements where appropriate along major public thoroughfares. Policy 2.10: Encourage the preservation of trees and native vegetation, including specimen trees, in development projects. Policy 3.5: Strongly discourage the installation of sound walls within the freeway and highway corridors. Instead, noise impacts should be minimized to the extent possible through project design and siting. When sound barriers are needed, earthen berms or landscaping in place of sound walls should be used whenever feasible to minimize potential visual impact. Policy 4.1: Recognize and preserve views of the night sky as an important natural and scenic resource in Truckee. Policy 4.2: Require light fixtures to be designed and sited so as to minimize light pollution, glare, and light trespass into adjoining properties. Draft Environmental Impact Report—joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.13-3 3.13 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES Policy 5.5: Enhance physical connections between adjacent uses and between different parts of Truckee. Policy 5.1: Ensure that planning and development decisions are oriented towards the maintenance of Truckee's unique character, reflecting the following considerations: • Identification of specific types of centers, residential neighborhoods, employment districts,corridors and gateways. • Respect for the quality, character and context of existing development within these different areas of the town. • Ensuring that new development enhances the desired character of each of these areas. • Discouraging new architecture that directly mimics or is derivative of the buildings of the historic Downtown. • Encouraging the retrofit or rehabilitation of existing buildings to more closely comply with Town policies, standards and guidelines for high quality architecture and design. • Consideration of the relationship of the built environment to the qualities and context of the landscape and natural environment in which it is situated. Policy 5.2: Require all new development to incorporate high quality site design, architecture, and planning so as to enhance the overall quality of the built environment in Truckee and create a visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing town environment. Policy 14.3: Ensure that the design quality and character of the PC-3 development is compatible with the gateway qualities of the south end of Brockway Road. 1 3.13-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 3.13 Chapter 3 of the Draft Joerger Ranch (PC-3) Specific Plan includes detailed and comprehensive Design Guidelines applicable to future development within the Plan Area. The chapter provides guidance for the developers, builders, and designers who will ultimately create the built environment of the Plan Area. The Design Guidelines address building heights, building orientation, pedestrian access and orientation, plazas and paving, architectural design, building forms and massing, entries, building materials, windows, roofs, gutters and downspouts, colors, exterior equipment, photovoltaic panels, and shingles. Detailed design guidelines are included in the Specific Plan for each of the proposed zoning districts within the Plan Area. 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). Although the visual character of the Plan Area would be significantly altered as a result of project implementation,the guidelines and standards within the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan would ensure consistent development that is in line with the Town's vision for the community's identity. New development within the Plan Area would be consistent with, and complimentary to, the design features of the commercial areas on the eastern side of Brockway Road, west of the Plan Area, as well as the existing commercial and industrial development east of SR 267, east of the Plan Area. Views of the Plan Area would be visually filtered from the roadway by pine trees, which are proposed to be retained, to help to subordinate the urbanized image of development through screening and by their taller, visually dominant scale and presence. Given the topography of the Plan Area, the elevated roadways surrounding and bisecting the Plan Area, and the large stands of mature pine trees that would be retained on the east side of SR 267, south of Soaring Way, views of the Plan Area are limited from lands surrounding the Plan Area. Views of the Plan Area are most prominent from the adjacent roadways. Figures 3.13-1 through 3.13-4 show that while development within the Plan Area would be highly visible to motorists travelling on adjacent roadways,the visual character of the Plan Area would be consistent with the goals established by the 2025 Truckee General Plan and the Town of Truckee Development Code, and would be compatible and complimentary to existing development in the vicinity of the Plan Area. Implementation of the design guidelines and standards in the Specific Plan would ensure that impacts to visual resources would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. Impact 3.13-3: Project implementation may result in light and glare impacts (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare into the Plan Area. New sources of glare would occur primarily from the windshields of vehicles travelling to and from the Plan Area and from vehicles parked in the Plan Area.The parking areas are located within the interior of the Plan Area, and are not immediately adjacent to any of the light sensitive land uses in the project vicinity(the residential areas in the vicinity of the Plan Area). Additionally, the project includes plans for extensive landscaping and setback areas around the perimeter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3.13-7 3.13 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES Plan Area, which would provide visual screening and block potential windshield glare to areas surrounding the Plan Area. Due to the distance between the sources of glare and the nearest sensitive receptors, impacts from vehicle windshield glare would be less than significant. Glare may also be generated from buildings developed in the Plan Area. The use of reflective building materials, including polished steel and reflective glass could increase daytime glare for sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Plan Area. The Specific Plan Design Guidelines include standards for exterior building materials used in the Plan Area that would reduce potential impacts associated with glare from building materials. The Design Guidelines require the use of low reflectance glass and exterior materials that blend with the subtle earth tones of the exterior facades of buildings within the Plan Area. Polished metal and highly reflective surfaces are prohibited. Adherence to the Specific Plan Design Guidelines would ensure a less than significant impact associated with glare from building materials. The project would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting, which may result in increased nighttime lighting in the project vicinity. A detailed lighting plan has not been prepared for the project, but for the purposes of this analysis, it has been conservatively assumed that exterior lighting would be located throughout most of the outdoor areas of the Plan Area. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to: street lighting in the residential areas; parking lot lighting in the commercial and industrial areas; and security lighting around commercial and office buildings within the Plan Area. Light sources from the proposed development may have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding areas, by introducing nuisance light into the area and decreasing the visibility of nighttime skies. Additionally, on-site light sources may create light spillover impacts on surrounding land uses in the absence of mitigation. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 would reduce nighttime lighting impacts to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 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 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. I 3.13-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 gc, JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) kli6 f1 < 4 ,) Srr t,, � �a'�'S- •. .rY �� M nW T '� >t '3 ,1 g+x r w2 4 • (.i ri. n-•lin '. 1 � •. � ly t:, • .. I4,. � lg re3 13-1 VisuaI Si uI fion ' WU P @ ll l, y •—'. View 1 . . p . f , View46 degrees.:. r.. .'...:,'.: Shadows 21 May.Noon •U. &Marts shown M the rnual sal.°are oMrrMt y mangle<of ewW roam be bah EM Pim mom., are noc imposed Map dace Decor-Maar 201; and JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) • 2 , 4 fri f _..._ , . . . .. ... ::, .....,:‘ ...... ..,,,,,... , , � : E � � � v r `+ :'. * _.,•4 Camera Loaatlon 's•t.IG 13_�a:M�._ _ _A is .‘r..: ..- ti It' . , ..N 4. ., ♦r .. 19 Figure 3.13-2: Visual Simulation View 2 • Field of View:46 degrees • Shadows:21 May•Noon . ,f 6,4,11-00,,..6,•,,,,,,l,:m&alvn are alt/a ample,Ob wtw tottd Or oadt w:Nai:he 57eehr P.omlu.ms ar'4Arr nu,popowJ lot tmouctron Map dale December 6 2012 e.••■ A JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-3) • • ,,,,, ,.. ,•::::,,..- . ... --ir.„„,H1 • i y Y, 7 .. 1, (amts blies, • f�' /e • 1 7. • y • - fir.., . y, Figure 3.13-3: Visual Simulation i I. �� A .. View 3 •_ _•_- Myr 1 Field of View:46 degrees ri.q; - I�Ii>; Shadows'21 May,Noon 4 .•..•..•.••1the...:,i..-.-.tan a re only...metes Wwhacoid be bob mewl the Sher&P.ette.. ..0..mP41.1.f ...e. . Map date December B.2012 r•ai■ ' '' ' , JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN(PC-.3) . n4 r '_3 V:..." .`sem ....�^ • • r rl.Y,a .. .<I+w�,,tl fA°.�r � � d .� t v► + t‘; , 01 .n.. . ' Ca amid Lot tlpn' • ' I I. 1 I '- / • N. IA .A, , . . / ter'. ., 14 1 iI -- . • Ft. Pa 1— _ . _ r • ,t_IF_•r r �,_ , Figure 3.13 4: Visual Simulation ra • • 1 , . View 4 . . y . 4 . yr' _ ,-- .- Field of View:46 degrees - Shadows:21 May,Noon • .0 IlaktaisAram nhr wall vmdam we only eunpicoww.wu w:.n Who n. w s:nmc Ran .nal. rd. a acmxrv.• rimmed OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a project's effects in relationship to broader changes occurring, or that are foreseeable to occur, in the surrounding environment. Accordingly, this chapter presents discussion of CEQA-mandated analysis for cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and irreversible impacts associated with the PC-3 Specific Plan project. 4.1 CUMULATIVE SETTING AND IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with the proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), "an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable." "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (as defined by Section 15130). As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.A cumulative impact occurs from: ...the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. In addition, Section 15130(b) identifies that the following three elements are necessary for an adequate cumulative analysis: 1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency;or, (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. 2) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-1 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects. Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. CUMULATIVE SETTING Unless otherwise specified, the cumulative setting includes all land within the Truckee town limits, as well as lands within the Town of Truckee Sphere of Influence (S01). Under CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts should focus on the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. 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). Cumulative project impacts are addressed and summarized below. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Method of Analysis Although the environmental effects of an individual project may not be significant when that project is considered separately, the combined effects of several projects may be significant when considered collectively. State CEQA Guidelines 15130 requires a reasonable analysis of a project's cumulative impacts, which are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." The cumulative impact that results from several closely related projects is: the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines 15355[b)). Consistent with state CEQA Guidelines §15130(a), the discussion of cumulative impacts in this Draft EIR focuses on significant and potentially significant cumulative impacts. According to §15130(b) of the State CECtA Guidelines, in part, "The 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 impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact." The goal of analysis of cumulative impacts is twofold: first, to determine whether the overall long- term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant; and second, to determine whether the proposed project itself would cause a "cumulatively considerable" (and thus significant) incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts. (See state CEQA 4.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 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 PMIo• 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 cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 4.1: The project may contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources including habitats and special status species (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting for biological resources includes the Town of Truckee, the Town's SOI, and the greater Sierra Nevada region. Development associated with implementation of the 2025 Truckee General Plan would contribute to the ongoing loss of natural lands in the Truckee area, which currently provide habitat for a variety of species. The 2025 Truckee General Plan, in addition to regional, State and federal regulations, includes policies and measures that mitigate impacts to biological resources associated with General Plan buildout. Development outside of Truckee in the greater Sierra Nevada region, would also be subject to the same regional, State and federal regulations addressing sensitive species. Implementation of regional, State and federal regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act would also minimize risks to sensitive populations and reduce cumulative impacts throughout the region. As described in Section 3.2- Biological Resources, construction on the Plan Area has the potential to result in impacts to special-status species on the project site. There are documented occurrences of Plumas ivesia within five miles of the project site. Field surveys revealed the presence of approximately 60 individual plants on the project site. Development of the proposed project would require disturbance to these special status plants. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 requires the excavation and replanting of all Plumas ivesia from the Plan Area prior to any site disturbance, which would reduce impacts to this species to a less than cumulatively considerable level. Additionally, there are documented occurrences of Sierra Nevada red fox within five miles of the project site. Field surveys performed by Foothill Associates on August 21 and 22, 2006,Quad Knopf on September 7, 2006, and by De Novo Planning Group on July 13, 2011, did not reveal the presence of this species, or any essential habitat for this species on the project site. There is no evidence of existing or past denning on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project is 4.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 not anticipated to have a direct impact on this species. Therefore, this is a less than cumulatively considerable impact. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 4.3: The project maycontribute to cumulative impacts on known and p p l P undiscovered cultural resources(Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes the Town of Truckee, the Truckee 501, and the surrounding areas of Nevada and Placer Counties. Cumulative development anticipated in Truckee and the greater areas of Nevada and Placer Counties, including growth projected by adopted general plans, may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archaeological, paleontological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. As discussed in Section 3.3- Cultural Resources, there are no known cultural or historic resources present on the project site. Mitigation measures provided in Section 3.3 would require the proposed project to evaluate any resources discovered during construction activities. Any significant finds would be required to be preserved, either through relocation or documentation and the project is not anticipated to considerably contribute to a significant reduction in cultural resources. Therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts to cultural resources and no further mitigation is required. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 4.4: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on geologic and soils characteristics(Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting area for geology and soils includes the Town of Truckee and the Town's S01. As discussed in Section 3.4-Geology and Soils, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to this environmental topic. Geologic and soils impacts tend to be site-specific and project-specific. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased risks or hazards related to geologic conditions in the cumulative setting area, nor would it result in any off-site or indirect impacts. This is considered to be a less than cumulatively considerable impact,and no further mitigation is required. GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE Impact 4.5: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on greenhouse gases and climate change (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-5 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS , iThe analysis of GHGs and climate change included in Section 3.5 was conducted at the cumulative level, as described in greater detail in that EIR section. As described in Section 3.5, the proposed project is consistent with statewide, regional, and local planning efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The significance thresholds for GHG emissions should be related to compliance with AB 32, and the Town of Truckee, as lead agency, has chosen to utilize a threshold of significance for GHG emissions based on the CARB's 2008 Scoping Plan that a development project must show a minimum GHG emission reduction of 15 percent from projected Business as Usual (BAU) levels (i.e., 2010 levels) by the year 2020. Thus, the project's 2010 levels were evaluated in order to determine the net decrease in the proposed project's GHG emissions over time. Table 3.5-3 presents the projected 2010 BAU GHG emissions,which are estimated to be 29,871.67MTCO2e. Consequently, the proposed project 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). 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. As such, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact following the implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 3.5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 4.6: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting area for hazards and hazardous materials is the Town of Truckee and the Town's S01. As discussed in Section 3.6- Hazards and Hazardous Materials, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to this environmental topic. Hazard-related impacts tend to be site-specific and project-specific. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased risks of hazards in the cumulative setting area, nor would it result in any off-site or indirect impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the risk of on-site hazards associated with past uses in the Plan Area and potential future uses in the Plan Area. This is considered to be a less than cumulatively considerable impact, and no further mitigation is required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 4.7: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts related to flooding or the degradation of water quality (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting area for hydrology and water quality is the watershed of the Truckee River on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site, which could increase peak 4.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 stormwater runoff rates and volumes on and downstream of the site. However, the proposed project includes a system of on-site stormwater collection, treatment and retention facilities to accommodate the increased stormwater flows that would originate on and off-site. As a condition of site development, surface water and drainage will be managed through a combination of natural and constructed features to retain water quality, natural hydrology, and habitat and preserve biodiversity through conservation of water bodies and wetlands. 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 water quality treatment facilities designed to reduce the rate and volume of runoff to pre-project conditions, remove potential pollutants and facilitate infiltration. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-4 would ensure that the project results in a less than cumulatively considerable impact to surface water quality, drainage and flooding. LAND USE,PLANNING,AND POPULATION Impact 4.8: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on communities or contribute to substantial population growth (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting for land use, planning, and population impacts includes the Town of Truckee and the Town's SOI. Cumulative land use and planning impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and consistency with adopted plans and regulations, are typically site- and project-specific. Subsequent projects allowed by the 2025 Truckee General Plan may result in site specific land use conflicts; however, these effects are not anticipated to be cumulatively considerable. The development proposed within the PC-3 Specific Plan is consistent with the 2025 Truckee General Plan's designation for the site, and the proposed uses were contemplated in the 2025 General Plan and General Plan EIR. The 2025 Truckee General Plan includes eight policies that specifically address the future development of the PC-3 site. The proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan has been developed to be consistent with these policies, as described in greater detail in Table 3.8-2. Implementation of the proposed project would provide for 97.37 new multi-family workforce housing units within the Plan Area. Based on an average household size of 2.52, this would result in housing for approximately 245 new residents. The project would also provide employment opportunities for approximately 681.6 full time equivalent employees(FTEE). The 2025 General Plan projects a buildout population in Truckee of approximately 25,280. The proposed PC-3 Specific Plan is consistent with the projected development of the PC-3 site, which was analyzed in the 2025 General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase population growth in Truckee beyond the buidout levels assumed in the 2025 General Plan. The potential for the proposed project to induce substantial population growth in Truckee is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-7 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with applicable aspects of the Town's General Plan, and as described in this EIR, the project would not be incompatible with any of the surrounding land uses. The project's contribution to cumulative land use impacts is less than cumulatively considerable,and no further mitigation is required. NOISE Impact 4.9: The project may contribute to the cumulative exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses or to increased noise resulting from cumulative development(Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative context for noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project consists of the existing and future noise sources that could affect the project or surrounding uses. Noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. The total noise impact of the Proposed Project would be fairly small and would not be a substantial increase to the existing future noise environment. The project's contribution to existing and cumulative traffic noise increases is predicted to be 2 dB, or less. The proposed project is not predicted to cause increased noise levels exceeding the Town of Truckee 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at existing noise-sensitive residential/mobile home receptors. Additionally, these increases do not exceed the FICON standards shown in Table 3.9-7. Traffic associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to result in exposure of persons to traffic noise levels in excess of the Town's standards, nor would project traffic result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, would not result in a substantial contribution to exterior cumulative noise levels. The project's contribution to future cumulative exterior noise levels would be primarily associated with potential increases in vehicle traffic noise along area roadways and stationary noise sources associated with the commercial and industrial components of the project. Area roadways primarily affected by the proposed project include portions of S.R. 267, Donner Pass Road and Brockway Road. Predicted future cumulative exterior traffic noise levels with and without implementation of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.9-11. As depicted, implementation of the proposed project would result in projected increases ranging from 0 to 2 dB along these primarily affected roadway segments. Noise levels associated with the commercial, industrial and manufacturing portions of the Plan Area will add to the background noise environment. The potential for this impact is specific to the nearest residences to the south and west of the site. However, based upon background noise measurements conducted on the site, and mitigation measures required to reduce overall noise levels associated with the on-site activities, the resulting increase in noise levels will be less than 3 4.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 dB. Therefore, the project's contribution to noise increases in the cumulative setting area is considered less than cumulatively considerable. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Impact 4.10: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services and recreation (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) Implementation of the proposed project would contribute toward an increased demand for public services and facilities within the Town of Truckee. Public service and facility needs for the Town of Truckee have been evaluated in the 2025 Truckee General Plan, and the goals and policies included in the General Plan ensure that adequate services will be available for build-out of the General Plan according to the current Land Use Diagram.The current Land Use Diagram shows the project site as Planned Community 3, and the proposed Specific Plan uses for the Plan Area are consistent with those contemplated in the 2025 Truckee General Plan. Therefore, development of the project site with residential,commercial, and industrial uses would not exceed the demand for public services and facilities anticipated in the 2025 Truckee General Plan. Additionally, as demonstrated in this Draft EIR, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, impacts to public services and facilities as a result of the proposed project would be less-than-significant.Therefore, the project's cumulative contribution to the Town's public service and recreational facility needs would be less than cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, other future development projects would be required by the Town to pay their fair share fees toward the expansion and creation of public services and facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with public services and recreational facilities would be considered less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 4.11: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts on the transportation network (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) 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. The 2032 roadway assumptions are based on the TransCAD model. It is assumed that the "Donner Pass Road Extension" will be completed with construction of the Truckee Railyard Master Plan Project. This new roadway will extend east from the eastern portion of Downtown Truckee through the Railyard development and form a new T-intersection with Glenshire Drive to the east of its intersection with Donner Pass Road. The new Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-9 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS intersection would include exclusive turn lanes on each approach. Additionally, the Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions, which would provide a connection between Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner, and Pioneer Trail, are assumed to be complete. Cumulative plus project impacts to key study intersections are summarized below. Brockway Road/Martis Drive(Site Access) The Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection would exceed the LOS threshold in 2012 with the proposed project. Extending the existing central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) along Brockway Road to the east of this intersection to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Martis Drive onto Brockway Road would provide an acceptable LOS E in 2012. In addition, the provision of separate left- and right-turn lanes on the southbound Martis Drive approach would be needed in 2032.As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-S, improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4A would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road intersection in 2012 with the project. Expanding the existing roundabout to include three circulating lanes (to accommodate three entering lanes on the northbound approach), an eastbound right-turn slip lane, and a southbound right-turn slip lane would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with the proposed project. As improvements to this intersection are included in Table CIR-S to maintain acceptable LOS, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp intersection in 2012 with the project. Provision of a dual lane roundabout with two northbound and eastbound approach lanes and a single lane on the southbound approach would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with PC-3. As a single lane roundabout is included in the Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail intersection in 2012 with the project. Expanding the existing roundabout to provide two circulating lanes, as 4.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 well as two lanes on the Donner Pass Road approaches and the Pioneer Trail approach would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with the project. As improvements at this intersection are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection in 2012 with the project. Provision of two through lanes on the SR 267 approaches, as well as separate left, through, and right-turn lanes on the minor approaches would improve the LOS to an acceptable level under all scenarios. The Placer County traffic impact fee program includes "SR 267: County line to south of Northstar Drive — Widen to four lanes/intersections improvements", which can be considered to address the improvements at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection. 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 this improvement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 267/1-80 Interchange Ramps intersections in 2012 with the project. Widening the SR 267 and SR 89 approaches to provide two through travel lanes in each direction (in addition to the existing turn lanes) would provide an acceptable LOS at these intersections in 2032. Dual-lane roundabouts are included in the Town's traffic impact fee program. However,widening the roadways to provide two through travel lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches would be necessary, with or without roundabouts. As improvements to these intersections are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. SR 267 The Placer County Tahoe Resorts Benefit District traffic impact fee program includes 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. 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-11 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS Resorts Benefit District impact fee program. Note that widening of SR 267 to four travel lanes between Brockway Road/Soaring Way and the Town Limit is included in Truckee's traffic impact fee program. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee impact fees contributing to these roadway improvements. No additional mitigation measures are needed with regards to roadway capacity and LOS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.11-4B would reduce this impact to less than significant. As described in greater detail under Impact 3.11-4, the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-4A and 3.11-4B would reduce cumulative plus project impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, project-related traffic impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable, and no additional mitigation is required. UTILITIES Impact 4.12: The project maycontribute to cumulative impacts on utilities (Less than P P Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting for utilities includes the Town of Truckee and the Town's SOI. Under General Plan buildout conditions, the Town of Truckee would see an increased demand for water service, sewer service, solid waste disposal services, and stormwater infrastructure needs. As described under Impact 3.12-1 and Impact 3.12-2, the T-TSA's wastewater treatment plant current capacity of 9.6 mgd is adequate to meet the projected buildout demands of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not require any off-site expansions or new construction of wastewater treatment facilities because the anticipated wastewater generation would be within the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Project implementation would not result in the need for new or expanded WWTP facilities, and would not exceed the existing or projected capacity of the WWTP. Therefore, the project's cumulative impact to wastewater services is less than cumulatively considerable, and no additional mitigation is required. As described under Impact 3.15-2, the potable water demands for the Proposed Project, together with the TDPUD's existing water demands and projected future water demands, are within the water demand projections included in the TDPUD's 2010 UWMP. The proposed project would result in 42 new residential units with an estimated population increase of 106 new residents. The proposed project would also result in commercial and industrial development potential of over 460,000 s.f. of building space. The new residents and businesses in the Plan Area would require demand for domestic water in the Town, and TDPUD service area would increase as a result of the project. The proposed project is a special planning district that was assumed for buildout within the 2025 Truckee General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project was assumed for development within the 2010 UWMP which concludes that there are sufficient water supplies for future growth through the 2030 planning horizon for the 2010 UWMP. 4.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 As demonstrated by the analysis in Section 3.12 and under Impact 3.12-4, there are adequate water supplies to serve cumulative demand within the Town and the TDPUD service area, and the proposed project would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts to water supplies. As described in greater detail in Section 3.7, the proposed project would include a stormwater detention system that would ensure that the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable incremental increase in stormwater flows that would result in flooding downstream of the project site.This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact. As described under Impact 3.12-5, The Lockwood Regional Landfill has a 60-year capacity to accommodate the future growth planned for in the Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal Company's service area. As such, there is adequate long-term capacity at the landfill to serve the proposed project. The 2025 Truckee General Plan establishes policies to encourage recycling and waste diversion to minimize the amount of solid waste generated by residents and businesses. To achieve this goal the Town has implemented a range of strategies and programs. In 2011, the Town achieved a disposal rate of 5.5 pounds per person, which is significantly below the State's disposal rate target of 10.7 pounds per day. The proposed project will be subject to the same local strategies and programs that have helped the Town achieve this low disposal rate that effectively ensures compliance with State regulations. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less- than-significant impact with regard to solid waste. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact. AESTHETICS Impact 4.13: The project may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The cumulative setting for aesthetics is the Town of Truckee and the Town's SOI, as defined in the 2025 Truckee General Plan. Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the Truckee General Plan would result in changes to the visual character of the Town and result in impacts to localized views as new development occurs within the Town and the SOI. As described in Section 3.13- Visual and Aesthetic Resources, implementation of the proposed project would change the visual character of the project site by introducing urban land uses to a site that is currently vacant. Although the visual character of the Plan Area would be significantly altered as a result of project implementation, the guidelines and standards within the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan would ensure consistent development that is in line with the Town's vision for the community's identity. New development within the Plan Area would be consistent with, and complimentary to, the design features of the commercial areas on the eastern side of Brockway Road, west of the Plan Area, as well as the existing commercial and industrial development east of SR 267, east of the Plan Area. Views of the Plan Area would be visually filtered from the roadway by pine trees, which are proposed to be retained, to help to subordinate the urbanized image of development through screening and by their taller,visually dominant scale and presence. Draft Environmental Impact Report- joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-13 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS Given the topography of the Plan Area, the elevated roadways surrounding and bisecting the Plan Area, and the large stands of mature pine trees that would be retained on the east side of SR 267, south of Soaring Way, views of the Plan Area are limited from lands surrounding the Plan Area. Views of the Plan Area are most prominent from the adjacent roadways. Figures 3.13-1 through 3.13-4 show that while development within the Plan Area would be highly visible to motorists travelling on adjacent roadways, the visual character of the Plan Area would be consistent with the goals established by the 2025 Truckee General Plan and the Town of Truckee Development Code, and would be compatible and complimentary to existing development in the vicinity of the Plan Area. Implementation of the design guidelines and standards in the Specific Plan would ensure that impacts to visual resources would be less than significant. The project would not result in visual impacts beyond the boundary of the project site, and the aesthetic appearance of the project would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses within the Town. This is less than cumulatively considerable impact. 4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS INTRODUCTION Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action.A growth-inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as: The way in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth...lt is not assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Based on the CEQA Guidelines, growth inducement is any growth that exceeds planned growth of an area and results in new development that would not have taken place without implementation of the project. A project can have direct and/or indirect growth inducement potential. Direct growth inducement would result if a project, for example, involved construction of new housing. A project would have indirect growth inducement potential if it established substantial new permanent employment opportunities e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that would indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors). Similarly, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. A project providing an increased water supply in an area where water service historically limited growth could be considered growth-inducing. The State CEQA Guidelines further explain that the environmental effects of induced growth are considered indirect impacts of the proposed action. These indirect impacts or secondary effects of 4.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 growth may result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Potential secondary effects of growth include increased demand on other community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of air and water quality, degradation or loss of plant and animal habitat, and conversion of agricultural and open space land to developed uses. Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services,such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service. Components of Growth The timing, magnitude, and location of land development and population growth in a region are based on various interrelated land use and economic variables. Key variables include regional economic trends, market demand for residential and non-residential uses, land availability and cost, the availability and quality of transportation facilities and public services, proximity to employment centers, the supply and cost of housing, and regulatory policies or conditions. Since the general plan of a community defines the location, type, and intensity of growth, it is the primary means of regulating development and growth in California. GROWTH EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Direct Population Growth Implementation of the proposed project would provide for 97.37 new multi-family workforce housing units within the Plan Area. Based on an average household size of 2.52, this would result in housing for approximately 245 new residents. This direct population growth generated by the proposed project is within the buildout projections contained in the 2025 Truckee General Plan, and the provision of multi-family housing units on the PC-3 site was contemplated in the 2025 Truckee General Plan EIR. Indirect Population Growth The project would also provide employment opportunities for approximately 681.6 full time equivalent employees (FTEE). As described in section 18.216.040(C) of the Truckee Development Code, employees generated by a development project shall be calculated using 1 FTEE for 500 s.f. of gross floor space for commercial uses (including retail, service, office, and restaurant), and 1 FTEE per 1,000 s.f.of gross floor space for industrial uses. The Specific Plan proposes to establish the following three Commercial Zones, which would yield 1 FTEE for every 500 s.f. of gross floor space: Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Support Commercial (CRS), and Lifestyle Commercial (CL). Additionally, the Specific Plan proposes to establish the following two Industrial Zones, which would yield 1 FTEE for every 1,000 s.f. of gross floor space. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-15 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS Table 3.8-3 identifies the acreage, development potential, and FTEE for each of the proposed commercial and industrial zones within the Plan Area. As shown in Table 3.8-3, the proposed project would generate up to 681.6 full time equivalent employees. As required by section 18.216.040(B)(2)(iv) of the Truckee Development Code, projects that generate 40 or more FTEE shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each seven FTSE. As such, the proposed project would be required to construct and complete 97.37 workforce housing units (681.6/7 = 97.37). As proposed, the project would provide 97.37 onsite workforce housing units. Forty-one of the workforce housing units would be constructed within the 3.48-acre Multi-Family Residential (RM) Zone. The remaining 56 workforce housing units would be constructed throughout the other non- residential zones within the Plan Area, commensurate with the pace of non-residential development. Residential uses are allowed in all Zoning Districts within the Plan Area, with the exception of the Open Space Zoning District, with a Conditional Use Permit. With an average household size of 2.52, the proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 245 new residents in Truckee. The 2025 General Plan projects a buildout population in Truckee of approximately 25,280. The proposed PC-3 Specific Plan is consistent with the projected development of the PC-3 site, which was analyzed in the 2025 General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase population growth in Truckee beyond the buidout levels assumed in the 2025 General Plan. The project would require the extension of infrastructure (water, sewer, and roads)to connect the site to the surrounding infrastructure network. The extension of these infrastructure services would not extend beyond the boundaries of the project site, and would not result in the delivery of these services to areas that were previous un-served or under-served by these services. The project would not result in an increase in infrastructure capacity beyond the level necessary to serve the project. 4.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS Legal Considerations CEQA Section 15126.2(c) and Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a), requires that the EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Irreversible environmental effects are described as: • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to previously remote area); 4.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0 • The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project;or • The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g.,the project involves the wasteful use of energy). Determining whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Analysis Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of a mixed-zone commercial, industrial, and residential project on approximately 66 acres acres of vacant land that is currently designated Planned Community 3 by the 2025 Truckee General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable plans and policies adopted by the Town of Truckee to guide development of the PC-3 site and to reduce environmental impacts of new development. Development of the proposed project would constitute a long-term commitment to residential, commercial, and industrial mixed uses. It is unlikely that circumstances would arise that would justify the return of the land to its original condition as undeveloped open space. A variety of resources, including land, energy, water, construction materials, and human resources would be irretrievably committed for the project's initial construction, infrastructure installation and connection to existing utilities, phased buildout, and its continued maintenance. Construction of the project would require the commitment of a variety of other non-renewable or slowly renewable natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals. Additionally, a variety of resources would be committed to the ongoing operation and life of the proposed project. The introduction of new residential, commercial, and industrial mixed uses to the site will result in an increase in area traffic over existing conditions. Fossil fuels are the principal source of energy and the project will increase consumption of available supplies, including gasoline. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, project operation and site maintenance and the transport of people and goods to and from the project site. 4.4 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 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). Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4.0-17 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS • 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. I 4.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS 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. 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) 111 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 EIRJ 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0-1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The following 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. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The alternatives to the proposed project selected for analysis in the EIR were developed to minimize significant environmental impacts while fulfillingthe basic of the project. As g p objectives described in Chapter 2, Project Description,the following objectives have been identified for the PC-3 Specific Plan. 1. Prepare the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan as a comprehensive land use planning tool to guide development of the approximately 66.7-acre project site; 2. Create Commercial, Retail, Business Park, Light Industrial and Manufacturing land use opportunities to serve local residents and tourists alike; 3. Target land uses that strengthen Truckee's local economy by capturing uses that do not physically fit elsewhere within the Town; 4. Capture specific land uses that support, but do not compete with, the downtown commercial retail areas; 5. Accommodate the possible relocation of certain existing types of commercial and industrial businesses located along the Truckee River corridor; 6. Establishes zoning, design standards and guidelines for buildout of the plan area. 5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. The following comment was received related to potential alternatives to the project to be addressed in the EIR: • Alexis 011ar, Executive Director, Mountain Area Preservation Foundation (MAPF): Suggested that the EIR include an alternative that includes only industrial and business park uses. Three alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on Town of Truckee staff input, input from the public during the NOP review period, and the technical analysis performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following three alternatives in addition to the proposed PC-3 Specific Plan project. • No Project(No Build)Alternative • Reduced Intensity Alternative • Industrial Uses Only Alternative 5.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) li ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 No PROJECT (No BUILD) ALTERNATIVE The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[eJ) require consideration of a no project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project (No Build) Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in its current largely undeveloped condition and that the existing winery on the site would remain. No site development would occur under this alternative. It is noted that the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified in the Specific Plan. REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with the same range of land uses and zoning districts as proposed in the Draft Joerger Ranch Specific Plan, however, the acreages of the Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Support Commercial (CRS), Lifestyle Commercial (CL), Manufacturing/Industrial (M1), and Business Innovation Zone (BIZ) would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. This reduction in acreage for each of the aforementioned zones would also result in an approximately 50 percent reduction of the development potential within each zone. As shown in Table 5-1 below, this alternative would provide employment opportunities for approximately 340.8 full time equivalent employees (FTEE). As described in section 18.216.040(C) of the Truckee Development Code, employees generated by a development project shall be calculated using 1 FTEE for 500 s.f. of gross floor space for commercial uses (including retail, service, office, and restaurant), and 1 FTEE per 1,000 s.f. of gross floor space for industrial uses. As required by section 18.216.040(B)(2)(iv) of the Truckee Development Code, projects that generate 40 or more FTEE shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each seven FTEE. As such,this alternative would be required to construct and complete 48.7 workforce housing units(340.8/7=48.7). This alternative would include the development of onsite workforce housing at a level great enough to satisfy the requirements of Section 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would establish the following three Commercial Zones, which would yield 1 FTEE for every 500 s.f. of gross floor space: Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Support Commercial (CRS), and Lifestyle Commercial (CL). Additionally, this alternative would establish the following two Industrial Zones, which would yield 1 FTEE for every 1,000 s.f. of gross floor space. Under this alternative the Multi-Family Residential (RM) zone would remain unchanged, as would the 41 proposed multi-family housing units. The remaining 8 required workforce housing units needed under this alternative to meet the requirements of Section 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code would be built within the non-residential zoning districts. Residential units are allowed in all zoning districts within the Plan Area, except for the Open Space Zoning District, with a Conditional Use Permit. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0-3 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Open Space (OS) zone would be expanded under this alternative. Table 5-1 shows the approximate acreage of the onsite zoning districts, the development potential under this alternative, and the number of full time equivalent employees generated under this alternative. TABLE 5-1:SUMMARY OF ZONING,ACREAGE,DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL,AND FTEE UNDER THE REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Full Time Zoning Designation Acreage Development Equivalent Potential Employees Regional Commercial (CR) 5.85 50,921 sf 101.8 Regional Support Commercial (CRS) 3.04 26,440 sf 52.9 Lifestyle Commercial(CL) 3.80 33,062 sf 66.1 Manufacturing/Industrial (M1) 6.78 59,111 sf 59.1 Business Innovation Zone(BIZ) 6.98 60,853 sf 60.9 Multi-Family Residential (RM) 3.48 41 housing units 0 Open Space(OS) 36.77 N/A 0 Total 66.7 230,387 sf 340.8 INDUSTRIAL USES ONLY ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the project would be developed with only one zone: the Manufacturing/Industrial (Business Park) (M1) zone, in addition to the currently proposed 10.24 acres of Open Space (OS). The Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Support Commercial (CRS), the Lifestyle Commercial (CL), Business Innovation Zone (BIZ), and the Multi-Family Residential (RM) zoning districts would not be developed under this alternative. As shown in Table 5-2 below, this alternative would provide employment opportunities for approximately 491 full time equivalent employees(FTEE). As described in section 18.216.040(C) of the Truckee Development Code, employees generated by a development project shall be calculated using 1 FTEE per 1,000 s.f. of gross floor space for industrial uses. As required by section 18.216.040(B)(2)(iv) of the Truckee Development Code, projects that generate 40 or more FTEE shall construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each seven FTEE. As such, this alternative would be required to construct and complete 70.14 workforce housing units(491/7 =70.14). This alternative would include the development of onsite workforce housing at a level great enough to satisfy the requirements of Section 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code. The 70.14 required workforce housing units needed under this alternative to meet the requirements of Section 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code would be built within the 5.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report—)oerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 Manufacturing/Industrial (Business Park) (M1) zone. Residential units are allowed in this district with a Conditional Use Permit. Table 5-2 shows the acreage, development potential, and FTEE generation of the M1 zone under this alternative. The overall project footprint and acreages proposed for development under this alternative would remain unchanged compared to the proposed project. TABLE 5-2:SUMMARY OF ZONING,ACREAGE,DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL,AND FTEE UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL USES ONLY ALTERNATIVE Zoning Designation Acreage Development Full Time Equivalent Potential Employees Manufacturing/Industrial (M1) 56.36 491,007 sf 491 Open Space (OS) 10.24 N/A 0 Total 66.7 491,007 sf 491 ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS In addition to the alternatives analyzed herein, other alternatives were considered, but rejected for detailed analysis. An alternative location for the proposed project was considered, but rejected since it would not achieve the project objective of developing a comprehensive Specific Plan to guide development of the approximately 66.7-acre site identified as Planned Community 3 in the 2025 Truckee General Plan. The 2025 Truckee General Plan designates the Plan Area as Planned Community 3 (PC-3). The 2025 Truckee General Plan contains the following policies to guide development of PC-3: PC-3 Policy 1: Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Services for employees, such as day care facilities and food sales, shall be encouraged. PC-3 Policy 2: The Specific Plan shall include design standards to provide for architectural consistency of development on the site, in accordance with the Town of Truckee design guidelines. PC-3 Policy 3: Site Design shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267, via Brockway Road and Soaring Way, and shall minimize visual impacts from the Highway 267 corridor. PC-3 Policy 4: The Specific Plan shall include standards for the design of retail shopping areas which avoid "strip commercial" site layout, and that are oriented and scaled to the pedestrian realm. PC-3 Policy 5: Specific Plan design standards shall include requirements for parking areas which promote attractive streetscapes, recognize the need for snow storage Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0-5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 disturbance to some of these special status plants. Additionally, there is the potential for the proposed project to disturb the existing ephemeral drainages on the project site, or result in impacts to wetlands on the project site. Under this alternative, the project would not be constructed, no special-status plants would be removed and the potential for impacts to wetlands and ephemeral drainages would be eliminated. Therefore, this impact would be reduced under the No Build Alternative. Cultural Resources The No Build Alternative would result in no ground disturbing activities and would reduce the potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural or historical resources,the No Build Alternative would further reduce the risk of the unintentionally discovery of such resources. Geology and Soils The No Build Alternative would result in the project site remaining in its existing condition. There is currently only one structure on the project site that is subject to seismic or geologic risks, including earthquakes, liquefaction, subsidence, etc. As described in Section 3.4, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to geology and soils, but would result in the construction of new residential, commercial, and industrial structures on the project site, which could be exposed to geologic hazards. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would have no impact on geology and soils. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Under the No Build Alternative, the site would not be developed, and there would be no potential for the project to conflict with any adopted plans or policies related to GHG reductions. As such,this impact would be avoided when compared to the proposed project. Hazards Under the No Build Alternative the project site would remain undeveloped. As described in Section 3.6, construction activities may result in the use and transport of common hazardous materials, including oils, fuels, paints and solvents. This potential impact would be eliminated under the No Build Alternative. Under the no build alternative, no new land uses would be introduced to the site, and the potential for future residents to be exposed to contamination on the site would be eliminated. This impact,though less than significant, would be avoided under the No Build Alternative. Hydrology and Water Quality Under the No Build Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped. Existing drainage patterns on the site would remain unchanged, and there would be no potential increases in stormwater pollutants or water quality impacts under this alternative. Draft Environmental Impact Report-joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0-7 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use, Population and Housing The No Build Alternative would not result in any development on the project site. The 2025 General Plan identifies the PC-3 site as a location for implementation of a Specific Plan that includes a range of retail,commercial, and industrial uses. The No Build Alternative would fail to facilitate development of the Plan Area, as envisioned in the 2025 Truckee General Plan. Under the No Build Alternative, there would not be an increased demand for workforce housing generated at the Plan Area, and new multi-family workforce housing units would not be developed. The No Project Alternative would have a similar impact to the proposed project in terms of land use, population, and housing. Noise As described in Section 3.9, implementation of the proposed project would result in increased transportation and stationary source noise levels, however, these noise increases would be less than significant. Under the No Build Alternative, the project site would not be developed and there would be no new noise sources nor would there be any new exposure to existing noise sources associated with the Truckee-Tahoe Airport. Therefore, this impact is reduced under this alternative. Public Services and Recreation Under the No Build Alternative the project site would remain undeveloped. As described in Section 3.10, implementation of the proposed project would result in a modest increase in demand for police and fire protection services, as well as increased demand for schools, parks and other public facilities. Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no increased demand for public services. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would have less of an impact than the proposed project on public services. Traffic/Circulation The No Build Alternative would not introduce additional vehicle trips onto the study area roadways identified in Section 3.11. As described in Section 3.11, implementation of the proposed project would require intersection and roadway improvements to ensure less than 1 significant impacts to roadways and intersections within the Town of Truckee, and the intersection of Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road would result in significant impacts under the proposed project. Under the No Build Alternative, these potential impacts would be avoided, and the No Build Alternative would have less of an overall traffic impact than the proposed project. Utilities Under the No Build Alternative the project site would continue to have no demand for wastewater services, potable water supplies, or the need to construct additional stormwater drainage infrastructure. Additionally, the demand for solid waste disposal would be lower under the No Build Alternative than the proposed project. Overall, the demand for utilities would be reduced under the No Build Alternative when compared to the proposed project. 5.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 Aesthetics The No Build Alternative would leave the project site in its existing state and would not result in increases in daytime glare or nighttime lighting. The visual character of the project site would not change under this alternative compared to existing conditions. As described in Section 3.13, the proposed project would result in potentially significant new sources of light and glare,which would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The No Project Alternative would avoid these impacts altogether and would have less of an impact than the proposed project on aesthetics. REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Air Quality As described in Section 3.1, and shown in Tables 3.1-6 and 3.1-7, operation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air emissions, primarily from emissions generated by mobile sources. Under this alternative, approximately half of the proposed development would be eliminated, and as such, vehicle trips and vehicle emissions would be reduced by approximately 50 percent under this alternative. This alternative would have reduced air quality impacts compared to the proposed project. Biological Resources As described in Section 3.2, field surveys revealed the presence of approximately 60 individual special-status plants on the project site. Development of the proposed project would require disturbance to these special status plants. Under this alternative, a greater percentage of the Plan Area would remain as open space. It is assumed that the open space area under this alternative would be designed and located to fully avoid all of the special-status plant species located on the project site.This alternative would also be designed to fully avoid all areas where wetlands or ephemeral drainages are located on the site. Therefore, impacts to biological resourcs would be reduced under this alternative. Cultural Resources Potential impacts to cultural resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less to the type of urban uses that would occur on the project site. Under this alternative, a smaller percentage of the project site would be disturbed when compared to the proposed project, and the potential for impacts to cultural resources would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. Geology and Soils Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with approximately half of the square footage of commercial and industrial uses compared to the proposed project. These buildings and structures would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed project, however, there would be fewer buildings covering less acreage under this alternative. Therefore, under this alternative, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report-Ioerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0-9 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Under this alternative, approximately half of the proposed development would be eliminated, and as such, vehicle trips and GHG emissions would be reduced by approximately 50 percent under this alternative. This alternative would have reduced GHG impacts compared to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under this alternative, fewer buildings and land uses would be developed. As described in Section 3.6, construction activities may result in the use and transport of common hazardous materials, including oils, fuels, paints and solvents. This potential impact would be reduced under this alternative. Additionally, under this alternative, there is a reduced potential for new land uses to use, store, and transport hazardous materials, given that a reduce amount of commercial and industrial uses would occur under this alternative. Hydrology and Water Quality Under this alternative, approximately half as much surface area would be developed with urban land uses and impervious surfaces when compared to the proposed project. The potential for pollutants from stormwater runoff to enter local surface waters would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. Land Use, Planning and Population This alternative would result in a similar range of land uses developed on the project site, however, only 50 percent of the land use area and building square footage proposed by the project would be developed. The 2025 General Plan identifies the PC-3 site as a location for implementation of a Specific Plan that includes a range of retail, commercial, and industrial uses. This alternative would facilitate development of the Plan Area, as envisioned in the 2025 Truckee General Plan, however, this alternative may not successfully utilize the Plan Area to its full potential. Under this alternative there would be a decreased demand for workforce housing generated at the Plan Area. This alternative would have comparable impacts to this topic, when compared to the proposed project. Noise As described in Section 3.9, implementation of the proposed project would result in increased transportation and stationary source noise levels, however, these noise increases would be less than significant. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, fewer acres of commercial and industrial uses would be developed, and there would be fewer new vehicle trips under this alternative, resulting in reduced noise increases. The same number of multi-family housing units would be developed under this alternative within the RM Zoning District, but fewer workforce housing units would be constructed throughout the non-residential portions of the Plan Area, which would reduce potential exposure to new residences to noise from the Truckee- Tahoe Airport and the adjacent roadways. Overall, this impact is reduced under this alternative. 5.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 Public Services and Recreation As described in Section 3.10, implementation of the proposed project would result in a modest increase in demand for police and fire protection services, as well as increased demand for facilities. Under the Reduced Intensity parks and other public ac Alternative, there would be a smaller increase demand for public services. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less of an impact than the proposed project on public services. Transportation/Traffic The Reduced Intensity Alternative would introduce fewer vehicle trips onto the study area roadways identified in Section 3.11. As described in Section 3.11, implementation of the proposed project would require intersection and roadway improvements to ensure less than significant impacts to roadways and intersections within the Town of Truckee. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, these potential impacts would be reduced, and this alternative would have less of an overall traffic impact than the proposed project. Utilities Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative the project site would have a reduced demand for wastewater services, potable water supplies, or the need to construct additional stormwater drainage infrastructure when compared to the proposed project. Additionally, the demand for solid waste disposal would be lower under the Reduced Intensity Alternative than the proposed project. Overall, the demand for utilities would be reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Aesthetics This alternative would result in the construction of approximately half of the square feet of commercial and industrial uses on the project site. Correspondingly, a greater percentage of the project site would remain as undeveloped open space under this alternative. There would be fewer building under this alternative, which would decrease the potential for nighttime lighting and daytime glare impacts when compared to the proposed project. Overall, aesthetic and visual impacts would be reduced under this alternative. INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK ONLY ALTERNATIVE Air Quality Under this alternative, only industrial land uses would be developed on the project site, in addition to the required workforce housing generated by the industrial uses. The range of commercial and retails uses included in the proposed project would not be developed under this alternative. As shown in Table 3.11-5, industrial uses generally have lower trip generation rates than commercial and retail uses. While this alternative would potentially result in a greater amount of building square footage than the proposed project, the total amount of vehicle trips generated under this alternative would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. As described in Section 3.1, the primary source of air emissions associated with the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0-11 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT project is emissions from mobile sources. Vehicle trips would be reduced under this alternative, which would result in fewer mobile source emissions. This impact would be reduced under this alternative. Biological Resources This alternative would result in the same area of disturbance as the proposed project. As described in Section 3.2, project implementation would require the relocation of special-status plants, and may result in impacts to onsite wetlands and ephemeral drainages. This impact would remain unchanged under this alternative. Cultural Resources This alternative would result in the same area of disturbance as the proposed project. While implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in any impacts to known cultural resources, there is always the potential that a previously unknown cultural resource could be encountered during ground disturbing activities. This alternative would have a comparable impact with respect to cultural resources when compared to the proposed project. Geology and Soils Under this alternative, the same acreage of land within the Plan Area would be developed when compared to the proposed project. This area of land would be exposed to the same level and intensity of geologic hazards when compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts related to geology and soils would be comparable to the proposed project under this alternative. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change As shown in Tables 3.5-2 and 3.5-3, the primary sources of GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would come from mobile (traffic) sources. Under this alternative, only industrial land uses would be developed on the project site, in addition to the required workforce housing generated by the industrial uses. The range of commercial and retails uses included in the proposed project would not be developed under this alternative. As shown in Table 3.11-5, industrial uses generally have lower trip generation rates than commercial and retail uses. While this alternative would potentially result in a greater amount of building square footage than the proposed project, the total amount of vehicle trips generated under this alternative would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, which would result in fewer mobile source GHG emissions. This impact would be reduced under this alternative. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under this alternative, a comparable number of buildings and land uses would be developed when compared to the proposed project.As described in Section 3.6, construction activities may result in the use and transport of common hazardous materials, including oils, fuels, paints and solvents. This potential impact would be the same as the proposed project under this alternative. Additionally, under this alternative, there is a similar potential for new land uses to I 5.0-12 Draft Environmental impact Report—joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 use, store, and transport hazardous materials, given the comparable amount of industrial uses would occur under this alternative. Hydrology and Water Quality Under this alternative, a comparable number of buildings and land uses would be developed P B when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in the same amount of ground disturbance and changes to the existing onsite drainage patterns when compared to the proposed project. The potential for impacts to surface water quality and increased stormwater runoff would be the same under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Land Use, Planning and Population Under this alternative, only industrial uses would be developed, in addition to the requisite amount of workforce housing units in order to meet the requirements of Chapter 18.216 of the Truckee Development Code. This alternative would not meet the provisions of Policy PC-3, Policy 1 in the 2025 Truckee General Plan, which states that, "Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and residential uses.Services for employees,such as day care facilities and food sales, shall be encouraged." Under this alternative, commercial uses would not be developed, and services for employees, as identified above, would not be provided within the industrial uses allowed under this alternative. As such, this alternative would be less effective at meeting the goals for the PC-3 Plan Area identified in the 2025 Truckee General Plan. This impact would be increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Noise Under this alternative vehicle trips generated by the onsite land uses would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project, which would result in a modest decrease in the generation of new transportation related noise. However, under this alternative, only 70.14 workforce housing units would be constructed, as opposed to 97.37 workforce housing units required under the proposed project. This decrease in approximately 27 workforce housing units on the project site would reduce the potential for future residences to be exposed to increased noise levels from the nearby airport, area roadways, and onsite industrial activities when compared to the proposed project. Overall, this impact is slightly reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Public Services This alternative would result in a comparable volume of non-residential development when compared to the proposed project. Residential development under this alternative would be reduced by approximately 27 workforce housing units. The demand for police and fire protection services under this alternative would be comparable to the proposed project, given the similar amount of non-residential building square footage that would be developed. However, the population generated under this alternative would be lower than the population generated under the proposed project, which would slightly reduce the demand for parks and Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0-13 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT school services. Overall, impacts related to public services would be slightly reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Transportation/Traffic Under this alternative, only industrial land uses would be developed on the project site, in addition to the required workforce housing generated by the industrial uses. The range of commercial and retails uses included in the proposed project would not be developed under this alternative. As shown in Table 3.11-5, industrial uses generally have lower trip generation rates than commercial and retail uses. While this alternative would potentially result in a greater amount of building square footage than the proposed project, the total amount of vehicle trips generated under this alternative would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts to the area roadway network would be slightly reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Utilities This alternative would result in a comparable amount of non-residential uses on the project site when compared to the proposed project. As such,the demand for utilities generated under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Aesthetics Under this alternative the same area of the project site would be developed with urban uses. The change to the existing visual character of the project site under this alternative would be comparable to the changes that would occur under the proposed project. This alternative would also have a similar potential for increases in nighttime lighting when compared to the proposed project. I 5.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report- Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As shown in the table above, the No Project 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 Reduced Intensity Alternative is the next environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. II 5.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) REPORT PREPARERS 6.0 TOWN OF TRUCKEE John McLaughlin Community Development Director Denyelle Nishimori Senior Planner DE Novo PLANNING GROUP Ben Ritchie Principal Planner/Project Manager Steve McMurtry Principal Planner Beth Thompson Principal Planner LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gordon R. Shaw, PE,AICP Principal Sara T. Hawley, PE Associate j.c. brennan associates, Inc. Jim Brennan Principal Noise Consultant Luke Saxelby Senior Noise Consultant STORM WATER CONSULTING, INC. Jim Nelson, P.E Principal Engineer Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 6.0-1 6.0 REPORT PREPARERS This page left intentionally blank. 6.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) RESOLUTION 2015-10 EXHIBIT "E" JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Exhibit B, Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS t.r.- .. m. FOR THE Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) SCH#2012052073 II 1` 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 ID e Novo Planning Group A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm - _ II I FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) SCH#2012052073 JANUARY 2015 I 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Section Page Number I. Introduction 1 II. General Findings and Overview 2 III. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 5 IV. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Impacts Which Are Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level 6 V. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Those Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or Less Than Cumulatively Considerable 25 VI. Review and Rejection of Project Alternatives 27 111 VII.Statements of Overriding Consideration 31 VIII.Conclusion 34 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) TOC44 TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS This page left intentionally blank. TOC-2 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION FOR THE JOERGER RANCH (PC-3) SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code,Section 21000 et seq) I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Town of Truckee (Town), as the CEQA 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. These findings explain how the Town, as the lead agency, approached the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the Joerger Ranch (PC-3) Specific Plan (Specific Plan or Project). The statement of overriding considerations identifies economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project that override any significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project. As required under CEQA,the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the project, and mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the Town's independent judgment regarding the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR,comments on the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR) for the Project, examined several alternatives to the Project that were not chosen as part of the approved project (the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Intensity Alternative,and the Industrial Uses Only Alternative). The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below ("Findings") are presented for adoption by the Town Council (Council) as the Town's findings under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this Council regarding the Project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the overriding considerations, which in this Council's view, justify approval of the Project, despite its environmental effects. CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW r Project Background you d For the past several years, the Town of Truckee and the Project Applicant have worked collaboratively to develop a specific plan for the area of land identified as Planned Community 3 (PC-3) by the 2025 Truckee General Plan. The 2025 Truckee General Plan contains the following policies to guide development of PC-3: PC-3 Policy 1: Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Services for employees, such as day care facilities and food sales, shall be encouraged. PC-3 Policy 2: The Specific Plan shall include design standards to provide for architectural consistency of development on the site, in accordance with the Town of Truckee design guidelines. PC-3 Policy 3: Site Design shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267, via Brockway Road and Soaring Way, and shall minimize visual impacts from the Highway 267 corridor. PC-3 Policy 4: The Specific Plan shall include standards for the design of retail shopping areas which avoid "strip commercial" site layout, and that are oriented and scaled to the pedestrian realm. PC-3 Policy 5: Specific Plan design standards shall include requirements for parking areas which promote attractive streetscapes, recognize the need for snow storage and removal, and reduce the visual impacts of large, unscreened parking lots through distributed landscaping, landscaped berms, and other measures. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Town of Truckee Design Guidelines. PC-4 Policy 6: The Specific Plan shall include provisions for supplying, on-site, the required housing for 50 percent of the very-low, low- and moderate-income workforce associated with development of the site. If land use or noise compatibility requirements of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan preclude or reduce the total amount of housing that can be developed on PC-3, required workforce housing may be permitted to be located off-site. PC-3 Policy 7: All development on PC-3 shall support community character goals and policies for the Brockway Road Corridor. PC-3 Policy 8: Ensure that the mix of land uses in the PC-3 Specific Plan will generate an amount of traffic that, in addition to buildout of the General Plan (considering all planned circulation improvements), would not result in the need for four lanes on Highway 267 between Interstate 80 and the Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. 2 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION The intent of the Joerger Ranch 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. Procedural Background 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. 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. The Town received 26 comment letters regarding the Draft EIR from public agencies, organizations and members of the public during the public comment period. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, a Final EIR was prepared that responded to the written comments received,as required by CEQA. The Final EIR document and the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR, constitute the Final EIR. CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the Town's findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony,at a minimum: o The NOP, comments received on the NOP, Notice of Availability, and all other public notices issued by the Town in relation to the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR. o The Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, including comment letters and technical materials cited in the document. o All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the Town of Truckee and consultants in relation to the EIR. o Minutes of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings held by the Town. o Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and Town Council meetings on the Project. o Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6. The Town Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the Town of Truckee Office of the Town Clerk at: 10183 Truckee Airport Road,Truckee, CA 96161. Consideration of the Environmental Impact Report In adopting these Findings, this Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to this Council, the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan. By these findings, this Town Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the Final EIR. The Town Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the Town. SEVERABILITY If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan,shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the Town. 4 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS A. AIR QUALITY 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 (EIR IMPACT 3.1-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, is discussed at pages 3.1-11 through 3.1-16 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Mitigation Measures 3.1-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-3,and 3.1-4. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that: (1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-3, and 3.1-4 would reduce the air quality impacts of the project by employing standards to reduced pollutants including particulate matter and VOC emissions, employing energy efficient design standards, and through environmental design standards that reduce VMTs. However, this project would be a direct and indirect source of air pollution, in that it would generate and attract vehicle trips in the region (mobile source emissions) and it would increase area source emissions and energy consumption.The Project cannot be designed to avoid or reduce impacts from air quality emissions to a level that is less than significant. This would represent a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. (2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to air quality, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below. CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 5 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL A. AIR QUALITY 1. 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(EIR IMPACT 3.1-2) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project construction to have the potential to cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation is discussed at pages 3.1-16 through 3.1-20 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.1-5, 3.1-6,and 3.1-7. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that implementation of mitigation measures 3.1-5, 3.1-6, and 3.1-7 would require the Project to incorporate NSAQMD measures and standards to limit the release of particulate matter, and ensure construction equipment is certified to tier 2 standards or equipped with an oxidation catalyst or particulate filter. Mitigation Measures 3.1-5 through 3.1-7 would reduce air quality impacts from Project construction to a less than significant level. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1),the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS BIRD SPECIES(EIR IMPACT 3.2-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect impact on special-status bird species is discussed at pages 3.2-13 through 3.2-15 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.2-1. I 6 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that the impacts to special-status bird species will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.2-1 would first require the Project to retain a qualified biologist to perform a preconstruction survey to ensure that there are no occupied nests if construction occurs during the nesting season. If it is determined from the preconstruction survey that there are occupied nests, then the project either avoid the 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. Any remaining impacts related to special-status bird species after implementation of mitigation measure 3.2-1 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES (EIR IMPACT 3.2-4) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect impact on special-status plant species is discussed at pages 3.2-17 through 3.2-20 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.2-3. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that the impacts to special-status plant species will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.2-3 would require the Project to implement project-specific measures including the transplanting, monitoring, and reporting of special-status plant species, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Any remaining impacts related to special-status plant species after implementation of mitigation measure 3.2-3 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 7 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN ADVERSE EFFECTS ON WETLANDS (EIR IMPACT 3.2-5 IN DRAFT) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in adverse effects on protected wetlands is discussed at pages 3.2-20 through 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.2-4,3.2-5,3.2-6, and 3.2-7. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that the impacts to protected wetlands will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.2-4 through 3.2-7 would require the Project applicant to consult with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW in order to obtain the required permits for any impacts to wetlands, and install barrier fencing 20' from the edge of sensitive areas to delineate and separate wetlands from project construction activities. Any remaining impacts related to protected wetlands after implementation of mitigation measures 3.2-4 through 3.2-7 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN THE POTENTIAL TO INTRODUCE OR SPREAD NOXIOUS WEEDS(EIR IMPACT 3.2-7) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to introduce or spread noxious weeds is discussed at page 3.2-23 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.2-8. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that the impacts from noxious weeds will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.2-8 would require Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated with construction activities. Any remaining 8 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION impacts related to the spread noxious weeds after implementation of mitigation measure 3.2-8 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval,which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require,and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. S. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN,NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN,RECOVERY PLAN, OR LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (EIR IMPACT 3.2- 8) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, recovery plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources is discussed at page 3.2-23 through 3.2-27 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.2-10. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that the impacts relating to conflicts with an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, recovery plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.2-10 would require a re-design of the Project to ensure trail linkages, and consistency with Policy 9.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the 2025 Truckee General Plan. Any remaining impacts related to conflicts with an adopted plan after implementation of mitigation measure 3.2-10 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 9 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE (EIR IMPACT 3.3-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact significance historical or archaeological resources is discussed at page 3.3-14 through 3.3-16 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.3-1. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts to significant historical, or archaeological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.3-1 would require that if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of archaeological resources are found during grading and construction activities, construction of the area will stop, and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, shall be consulted to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Any remaining impacts related to cultural or archeological resources after implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-1 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project,or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE(EIR IMPACT 3.3-2) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on a punique paleontological resource is discussed at page 3.3-16 through 3.3-17 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.3-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts to unique paleontological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.3-2 would require that if any 10 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION unique paleontological resource is found during construction activities, construction of the area will stop, and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, shall be consulted to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Any remaining impacts related to unique paleontological resources after implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-2 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES(EIR IMPACT 3.3-3) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on human remains is discussed at page 3.3-17 through 3.3-18 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.3-3. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts to human remains will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.3-3 would require that if any human remains are found during construction activities, construction of the area will stop, and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e)shall be followed.Any remaining impacts related to human remains after implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-3 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. THE PROPOSED PROJECT POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL(EIR IMPACT 3.4-3) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is discussed at page 3.4-11 through 3.4-12 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.4-1,and 3.4-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council,this Town Council finds that impacts resulting in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.4-1, and 3.4-2 will ensure that project plans adequately address grading, erosion, sediment, and pollution control requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and through employing 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. Any remaining impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil after implementation of mitigation measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. E. GREENHOUSE GASSES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES (EIR IMPACT 3.5-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in increased greenhouse gas emissions is discussed at page 3.5-14 through 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.1-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-3 and 3.1-4. 12 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that implementation of mitigation measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 by employing standards to reduced pollutants including particulate matter, VOC, and GHG emissions, as well as employing energy efficiency standards, and environmental design standards that reduce VMTs. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 would reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 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(EIR IMPACT 3.6-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be exposed to hazards or hazardous materials is discussed at pages 3.6-14 through 3.6-15 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.6-1. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that risks associated with significant hazards through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment,will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.6-1 requires that all applicants and/or business owners shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Nevada County Environmental Health Division (CUPA)for review and approval, and documents required by the California Aboveground Storage Tank Act (APSA) shall be submitted. 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 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 13 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law). Any remaining impacts related to hazardous materials routine transport, use, disposal, or through accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment after implementation of mitigation measure 3.6-1 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN IMPACTS FROM BEING INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65962.5 (EIR IMPACT 3.6-3) (a) Potential Impact. The potential impact from being included on a list of hazardous materials sites is discussed at pages 3.6-16 through 3.6-17 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.6-2, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts to risks associated with being included on a list of hazardous materials sites will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.6-2 through 3.6-4 requires that the project proponent appropriately dispose of all materials on the project site that are cited within the Phase I ESA, and conduct soil testing if there is any evidence of soil discoloring or odors that indicate a potential contamination anywhere on the project site. Any remaining impacts related to hazardous materials on or near the site after implementation of mitigation measures 3.6-2 through 3.6-4 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 14 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION (EIR IMPACT 3.7-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction is discussed at pages 3.7-16 through 3.7-18 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.7-1, and 3.7-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2 require the preparation of a detailed storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), implementation of BPMs, and limitations on grading activities during winter months. Any remaining impacts related to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction after implementation of mitigation measures 3.7-1, and 3.7-2 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1),the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS DURING OPERATION (EIR IMPACT 3.7-2) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation is discussed at pages 3.7-18 through 3.7-21 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.7-3. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with violations of water quality standards CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 15 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION or waste discharge requirements during operation will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.7-3 requires the preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which will include best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts to surface water quality, and ensures consistency with the Town's Municipal Code and Storm Water Quality Ordinance. Any remaining impacts related to water quality, and waste discharge after implementation of mitigation measure 3.7-3 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval,which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION, SILTATION, FLOODING,OR POLLUTED RUNOFF(EIR IMPACT 3.7-4) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to alter the existing drainage pattern is discussed at pages 3.7-22 through 3.7-24 of the Draft EIR. 111 (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.7-4. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with the alteration of existing drainage patterns will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.7-4 requires the design of the project to be in compliance with the Town of Truckee standards, and incorporate Low Impact Design (LID) measures. Any remaining impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns after implementation of mitigation measure 3.7-4 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 16 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY(EIR IMPACT 3.7-5) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially degrade water quality is discussed at pages 3.7-24 through 3.7-25 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.7-1,3.7-2, 3.7-3, and 3.7-4. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with the degradation of water quality will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-4 requires the design of the project to be in compliance with the Town of Truckee standards, and incorporate Low Impact Design (LID) measures; requires the preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which will include best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts to surface water quality, and ensures consistency with the Town's Municipal Code and Storm Water Quality Ordinance, and limits construction activities during winter months. Any remaining impacts related to water quality after implementation of mitigation measure 3.7-1 through 3.7-4 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval,which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. H. LAND USE POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION GROWTH AND MAY CONFLICT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN'S WORKFORCE HOUSING STANDARDS(EIR IMPACT 3.8-4) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to induce substantial population growth and conflict with the requirements of the Town's Workforce Housing standards is discussed at pages 3.8-15 through 3.8-17 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.8-1. CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with population growth and conflicts with the requirements of the Town's Workforce Housing standards will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.8-1 requires minimum standards for workforce housing. Any remaining impacts related to population growth and workforce housing standards after implementation of mitigation measure 3.8-1 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. NOISE 1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT MAY GENERATE SIGNIFICANT NOISE (EIR IMPACT 3.9-2) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate construction-related noise impacts is discussed at pages 3.9-15 through 3.9-16 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.9-1,and 3.9-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with construction noise will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.9-1, and 3.9-2 require construction activities to be limited to the daytime hours, ensures equipment be properly maintained, and places stationary equipment far away from sensitive receptors. Any remaining impacts related to construction noise after implementation of mitigation measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 18 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN ON-SITE STATIONARY NOISE (EIR IMPACT 3.9-4) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate on-site noise impacts to sensitive uses is discussed at pages 3.9-17 through 3.9-19 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.9-3, and 3.9-4 (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with noise-sensitive on-site uses will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 require design features to shield noise to surrounding areas, and also has the options to require distance and time of day requirements for noise generation uses. Any remaining impacts related to on-site noise after implementation of mitigation measure 3.10-5 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. J. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 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(EIR IMPACT 3.10-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate fire protection impacts is discussed at pages 3.10-15 through 3.10-18 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.10-1, 3.10-2, and 3.10-3. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with fire protection services will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.10-1 through 3.10-3 require the project to incorporate design standards including automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, roadway access requirements, as well as various construction CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 19 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION standards to comply with all Town and State Public Resource fire Code. Furthermore the project is required to provide a defensible space to allow for wildfire protection. Any remaining impacts related to fire protection after implementation of mitigation measures 3.10-1 through 3.10-3 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 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 (EIR IMPACT 3.10-4) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to increase demands for park and recreational facilities is discussed at pages 3.10-20 through 3.10-22 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.10-4. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with increased demands for park and recreational facilities will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.10-4 requires the project to construct, or provide adequate funding for the construction of offsite trail connections. Any remaining impacts related to demands for parks and recreation after implementation of mitigation measure 3.10-4 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 20 CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO LOCAL INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAYS(EIR IMPACT 3.11-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in impact to local intersections and roadways is discussed at pages 3.11-41 through 3.11-48 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.11-1A, 3.11-1B, 3.11-1C,3.11-1D, 3.11-1E, 3.11-1F, 3.11-1H, 3.11-11. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts to local intersections and roadways will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-11 require the Project to implement multiple street, roadway and infrastructure improvements to ensure adequate levels of service. Any remaining impacts to study area intersections after implementation of mitigation measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-11 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO INTERSECTION QUEUING(EIR IMPACT 3.11-2) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in impact to local intersections and roadways is discussed at page 3.11-48 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures 3.11-1A,3.11-1B,3.11-1C,3.11-1D,3.11-1E, 3.11-1F, 3.11-1H. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts related to intersection queuing will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-1H require the Project to implement multiple street, roadway and infrastructure improvements to ensure adequate LOS and intersection queuing. Any remaining impacts relating to intersection queuing and LOS after implementation of mitigation measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-1H would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 21 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 3. UNDER CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAYS. (EIR IMPACT 3.11-4) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in unacceptable levels of service at intersections and roadways under cumulative conditions is discussed at pages 3.11-62 through 3.11-64 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.11-4B. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with unacceptable levels of service under cumulative conditions at study area intersections and roadways will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.11-4B requires the Project proponent to pay the Town of Truckee traffic impact fee's to cover its share of cost to perform needed improvements to a range of intersections and roadway segments prior to the issuance of building permits for individual development projects within the Plan Area Any remaining impacts to this intersection after implementation of mitigation measure 3.11-4B would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 22 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION 4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN TRAFFIC IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION (EIR IMPACT 3.11-7) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in traffic impacts during construction is discussed at pages 3.11-67 through 3.11-68 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.11-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts associated with traffic during construction will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.11-2 requires the project proponent to prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by Town staff, prior to construction. Any remaining impacts after implementation of mitigation measure 3.11-2 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1),the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. L. UTILITIES 1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL (EIR IMPACT 3.12-1) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to exceed wastewater treatment requirements is discussed at page 3.12-5 of the Final EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.12-1. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts to wastewater treatment requirements will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.12-5 requires future project applicants to provide the TSD and T-TSA with appropriate details of the uses and wastewater generated within the commercial and/or industrial areas, and must receive verification from T-TSA and the TSD that adequate capacity allocations are CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 23 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION available to serve the proposed project. Any remaining impacts to wastewater treatment after implementation of mitigation measure 3.12-5 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. M. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS (EIR IMPACT 3.13- 3) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in impacts from light and glare is discussed at page 3.13-7 through 3.13-8 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure 3.13-1. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Town Council, this Town Council finds that impacts from light and glare will be mitigated to a less than significant level as mitigation measure 3.13-1 requires submittal of an exterior lighting plan that complies with Chapter 18.30.060 of the Town of Truckee Development Code. Any remaining impacts from light and glare after implementation of mitigation measure 3.13-1 would not be significant. As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Town finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval,which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The Town further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the Town to require,and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. 24 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than significant as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1-3, 3.1-4, and 3.1-5. Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.2-2, 3.2-3, and 3.2-6. Geology and Soils: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, and 3.4-4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.6-2, 3.6-4, 3.6-5, 3.6-6, and 3.6-7. Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.7-3, 3.7-6, and 3.7-7. Land Use and Population: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.8-1 and 3.8-2. Noise: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.9-1, 3.9-3, and 3.9-5. Public Services: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.10-2,3.10-3,and 3.10-5. Traffic and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.11-3, 3.11-5,and 3.11-6. Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.12-2, 3.12-3, 3.12-4,3.13-5,3.12-6,and 3.12-7. Visual and Aesthetic Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.13-2. CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 25 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION The project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR. Air Quality: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.1. Biological Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.2. Cultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.3. Geology and Soils: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.6. Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.7 Land Use and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.8. Noise: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 3.9-6, and 4.9. Public Services: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.10. Utilities: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.12. Visual and Aesthetic Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:4.13. The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the following reasons: 0o The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project. 0o The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact. 09 The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced)for the Project. 0o The EIR determined that the cumulative impact was fully addressed in the General Plan EIR and that the project would not result in new or expanded cumulative impacts. 26 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION VI. REVIEW AND REJECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 mandates that every EIR evaluate a no-project alternative, plus a feasible and reasonable range of alternatives to the Project or its location. The Alternatives were formulated considering the Objectives of the Project applicant and the Truckee General Plan policy guidance for PC-3, as outlined in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR. Alternatives provide a basis of comparison to the Project in terms of beneficial, significant, and unavoidable impacts. This comparative analysis is used to consider reasonable feasible options for minimizing environmental consequences of a project. Typically, where a project causes significant impacts and an EIR is prepared, the findings must discuss not only how mitigation can address the potentially significant impacts but whether Project alternatives can address potentially significant impacts. But where all significant impacts can be substantially lessened, in this case to a less-than-significant level, solely by adoption of mitigation measures,the lead agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility that Project alternatives might reduce an impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project, as mitigated (Public Resources Code Section 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 730-733; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988)47 Ca1.3d 376,400-403). Because not all significant effects can be substantially reduced to a less-than-significant level either by adoption of mitigation measures or by standard conditions of approval, the following section considers the feasibility of the Project alternatives as compared to the proposed Project. As explained below, these findings describe and reject, for reasons documented in the FEIR and summarized below, each one of the Project alternatives, and the Town finds that approval and implementation of the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan project is appropriate. The evidence supporting these findings is presented in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR. A. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES As described above, an EIR is required to identify a "range of potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects." Chapter 2.0 and Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR identify the Project's goals and objectives. The Project objectives include: 1. Prepare the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan as a comprehensive land use planning tool to guide development of the approximately 66.7-acre project site; 2. Create Commercial, Retail, Business Park, Light Industrial and Manufacturing land use opportunities to serve local residents and tourists alike; 3. Target land uses that strengthen Truckee's local economy by capturing uses that do not physically fit elsewhere within the Town; CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 27 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION 4. Capture specific land uses that support, but do not compete with, the downtown commercial retail areas; 5. Accommodate the possible relocation of certain existing types of commercial and industrial businesses located along the Truckee River corridor; 6. Establishes zoning, design standards and guidelines for buildout of the plan area. B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN EIR 1. No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: The No Project Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3, and 5.0-6 through 5.0-9 of the Draft EIR. The No Project (No Build) Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in its current largely undeveloped condition and that the existing winery on the site would remain. No site development would occur under this alternative. Findings: The No Project Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it would not achieve any of the Project's six identified objectives. The No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Explanation: This alternative would not realize the benefits of the Project nor achieve the Project objectives. The Town of Truckee has identified the need for Commercial, Retail, Business Park, Light Industrial and Manufacturing land use opportunities to serve local residents and tourists to strengthen Truckee's local economy by capturing uses that do not physically fit elsewhere within the Town. Under the No Project Alternative, no new Commercial, Retail, Business Park, Light Industrial and Manufacturing land use opportunities would be allowed and no site development would occur. These project objectives are supported by PC-3 Policies 1 through 8 in the 2025 Truckee General Plan, which call for the preparation of a specific plan for the project site that accomplishes the project objectives identified above. The No Project Alternative would result in fewer significant environmental impacts than the proposed project, but would fail to meet any of the project objectives identified by the Town. 2. REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE: The Reduced Intensity Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3 and 5.0-9 through 5.0-11 of the Draft EIR. Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with the same range of land uses and zoning districts as proposed in the Draft Joerger Ranch Specific Plan. However, the acreages of the Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Support Commercial (CRS), Lifestyle Commercial (CL), Manufacturing/Industrial (M1), and Business Innovation Zone (BIZ) would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. Findings: The Reduced Intensity Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it is fails to make full beneficial use of the Project site as a future commercial and industrial 28 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION development center in the Town of Truckee. The Reduced Intensity Alternative is the next environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. Explanation: This alternative would meet the basic objectives of the Project in so much that it would provide for the same type and range of land uses as the Proposed Project. However, this alternative would provide significantly fewer opportunities for Commercial, Retail, Business Park, Light Industrial and Manufacturing land use opportunities to serve local residents and tourists to strengthen Truckee's local economy when compared to the Proposed Project. Additionally, this alternative would provide fewer opportunities to accommodate the possible relocation of certain existing types of commercial and industrial businesses located along the Truckee River corridor when compared to the Proposed Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in fewer significant environmental impacts than the proposed project, but would not be as effective as the Proposed Project at meeting the project objectives identified in the EIR. CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR and summarized in Table 5-3 of the Draft EIR, the No Project 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 Reduced Intensity Alternative is the next environmentally superior alternative to the Proposed Project. As noted above,the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less effective than the Proposed Project with respect to providing economic development opportunities within Truckee. However, as described in Section 2.0 of the Final EIR, following review of the public comments received on the Draft EIR, 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. While the revised Project is not identical to the Reduced Intensity Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Revised Project incorporates aspects of the Reduced Intensity Alternative, namely a reduction in the CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 29 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION amount of land within the Plan Area that will be converted from a natural state to a developed land use. The revisions to the Proposed Project would reduce several potentially significant impacts by reducing the Project's development footprint, but would meet the full range of project objectives by allowing for development of commercial and industrial uses at a density that would make full beneficial use of the site for these purposes. For these economic,social and other reasons,the Project is deemed superior to the Reduced Intensity Alternative. 3. INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK ONLY ALTERNATIVE: The Industrial and Business Park Only Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-4 and 5.0-11 through 5.0-14 of the Draft EIR. Under this alternative,the project would be developed with only one zone: the Manufacturing/Industrial (Business Park) (M1) zone, in addition to the currently proposed 10.24 acres of Open Space (OS). The Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Support Commercial (CRS), the Lifestyle Commercial (CL), Business Innovation Zone (BIZ), and the Multi-Family Residential (RM)zoning districts would not be developed under this alternative. Findings: The Industrial and Business Park Only Alternative is rejected because it would fail to meet Objectives 2 and 3 of the Project in that it would not create Commercial, Retail, Business Park, Light Industrial and Manufacturing land use opportunities to serve local residents and tourists alike; and it would not effectively target land uses that strengthen Truckee's local economy by capturing uses that do not physically fit elsewhere within the Town. Explanation: This alternative would fail to meet two of the project objectives identified in the Draft EIR, as described above. It would also be inconsistent with the policy guidance provided for PC-3 by the 2025 Truckee General Plan. PC-3 Policy 1 in the General Plan states that, "Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Services for employees, such as day care facilities and food sales, shall be encouraged." Under the Industrial and Business Park Only Alternative, the site would not be developed with commercial and visitor- supporting uses, and services for employees such as day care facilities and food sales would not be accommodated. This alternative would not provide for a range of commercial business opportunities on the site, as called for by the project objectives and the 2025 Truckee General Plan. For these economic, social, and other considerations, the Project is deemed superior to the Industrial and Business Park Only Alternative. 30 CEQA Findings -Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION VII. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3) PROJECT FINDINGS As described in Section III of these Findings,the following significant and unavoidable impact could occur with implementation of the Project: co 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 (EIR Impact 3.1-1) The adverse effects identified above are substantive issues of concern to the Town of Truckee. The approval of a specific plan that guides future development within the Plan Area is called for and contemplated in the 2025 Truckee General Plan. The Proposed Project is consistent with the policy guidance provided for PC-3 in the Truckee General Plan, and would assist the Town with implementation of the General Plan. Approval and implementation of the PC-3 Specific Plan will provide local residents and businesses with expanded opportunities to promote quality economic development, and to capitalize on unmet demand for commercial, light industrial, retail, and other job-generating land uses in Truckee. The Town Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The reasons set forth below are based on the EIR and other information in the record. As set forth in the preceding sections, approving the Project will result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level, even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. As determined above, however, there are no additional feasible mitigation measures, nor are there feasible alternatives, that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts to a less-than- significant level. Therefore, despite these significant environmental effects, the Town Council, in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, chooses to approve the Project because, in its judgment, the following economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable. Substantial evidence supporting the benefits cited in this Statement of Overriding Considerations can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the record of proceedings, as defined in section II, above. Any one of the following reasons is sufficient to demonstrate that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, thereby justifying approval of the Project. 1. Economic Development Opportunities. The Project would create commercial, retail, business park, light industrial and manufacturing land use opportunities at a key regional location to serve local residents and tourists alike. 2. Compatibility with Existing Development and Town Character. An economic analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics in 2010 provided guidance on business types that CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 31 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION would help diversify Truckee's economy without creating a new Downtown or passé strip shopping center. Key concepts covered in the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan include economic diversification, regional business clustering and open space protection. Buildout of the plan area is envisioned to bridge the gap between the small specialty restaurant and retail uses Downtown—Truckee's heart and lifeblood— and the large big-box-anchored supercenter that would provide new sources of property tax and sales tax but fundamentally conflicts with Truckee's small mountain town character. 3. Full Beneficial Use of a Key Regional Development Opportunity. The Joerger Ranch Specific Plan area is situated along one of only a few major travel corridors providing access to Downtown Truckee and North Lake Tahoe. The Truckee Tahoe Airport is located directly east of the site and Interstate 80 is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north. This location provides a unique opportunity to foster high quality economic development that is both local- and regional-serving. The property size of 66.7 acres can accommodate uses that do not physically fit elsewhere in Truckee and would be best served in a regional location. The plan area also creates opportunity to relocate uses from Downtown including the Truckee River Corridor that are no longer compatible. 4. Development of Additional Workforce Housing. The Project is required to provide a minimum of 4.0 acres zoned RMW-20(Workforce Multi-Family, 20 units per acre)with a minimum/maximum density of 18-20 dwelling units per acre in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Chapter 18.216.050 of the Truckee Development Code. Approximately 80 total workforce housing units would be constructed upon full buildout of the Plan Area. The construction of new workforce housing units in the Plan Area will assist the Town in providing for a range of affordable housing options for employees of the service industry and other local industries that rely on labor forces that may not currently be able to afford quality housing within Truckee. 5. Quality Design and the Integration of Open Space. The Joerger Ranch Specific Plan includes design guidelines and standards to provide for architectural consistency and quality for development throughout the Plan Area that is consistent with Truckee's small mountain town character. The site design includes appropriate access to Highway 267, and minimizes visual impacts to the Highway 267 corridor through the implementation of expanded areas of open space along roadway frontages. 6. Consistency with the 2025 Truckee General Plan. The 2025 Truckee General Plan designates the Plan Area as Planned Community 3 (PC-3). The 2025 Truckee General Plan contains the following policies to guide development of PC-3. The Proposed Project is consistent with all eight of these General Plan policies: I 32 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION PC-3 Policy 1: Development allowed on the site will be a range of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Services for employees, such as day care facilities and food sales, shall be encouraged. PC-3 Policy 2: The Specific Plan shall include design standards to provide for architectural consistency of development on the site, in accordance with the Town of Truckee design guidelines. PC-3 Policy 3: Site Design shall consider appropriate access to Highway 267, via Brockway Road and Soaring Way, and shall minimize visual impacts from the Highway 267 corridor. PC-3 Policy 4: The Specific Plan shall include standards for the design of retail shopping areas which avoid "strip commercial" site layout, and that are oriented and scaled to the pedestrian realm. PC-3 Policy 5: Specific Plan design standards shall include requirements for parking areas which promote attractive streetscapes, recognize the need for snow storage and removal, and reduce the visual impacts of large, unscreened parking lots through distributed landscaping, landscaped berms, and other measures. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Town of Truckee Design Guidelines. PC-4 Policy 6: The Specific Plan shall include provisions for supplying, on-site, the required housing for 50 percent of the very-low, low-and moderate-income workforce associated with development of the site. If land use or noise compatibility requirements of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan preclude or reduce the total amount of housing that can be developed on PC-3, required workforce housing may be permitted to be located off-site. PC-3 Policy 7: All development on PC-3 shall support community character goals and policies for the Brockway Road Corridor. PC-3 Policy 8: Ensure that the mix of land uses in the PC-3 Specific Plan will generate an amount of traffic that, in addition to buildout of the General Plan (considering all planned circulation improvements), would not result in the need for four lanes on Highway 267 between Interstate 80 and the Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. CEQA Findings—Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 33 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION VIII. CONCLUSION After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project,the Council finds that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified may be considered "acceptable" due to the specific considerations listed above which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Truckee Town Council has considered information contained in the EIR prepared for the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan as well as the public testimony and record of proceedings in which the project was considered. Recognizing that significant unavoidable air quality impacts may result from implementation of the proposed Project, the Council finds that the benefits of the Project and overriding considerations outweigh the adverse effects of the Project. Having included all feasible mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and recognized all unavoidable significant impacts, the Council hereby finds that each of the separate benefits of the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan, as stated herein, is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants adoption of the proposed Specific Plan and outweighs and overrides its unavoidable significant effects, and thereby justifies the adoption of the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan. Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, the Council hereby determines that: 1. All significant effects on the environment due to implementation of the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible; 2. There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed Joerger Ranch Specific Plan which would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts; and 3. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above. 34 CEQA Findings-Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) 4