HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Draft EIR_PC3_Print Copy
P UBLIC
D RAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
R EPORT
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
Use
Planning,
Design,
and
Environmental
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
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TOC-‐1
D RAFT
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
T ABLE
OF
CONTENTS
TOC-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TOC-‐3
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
T ABLE
OF
CONTENTS
TOC-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
Uses....3.1-‐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
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TOC-‐5
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
T ABLE
OF
CONTENTS
TOC-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TOC-‐7
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
T ABLE
OF
CONTENTS
TOC-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ES-‐1
0BINTRODUCTION
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.
1P ROJECT
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.
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
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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:
f i t n e s s
c e n t e r
a n d
i n d o o r
s p o r t s
a c t i v i t i e s
a n d
t r a i n i n g
f a c i l i t i e s ;
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
s p i r i t
p r o d u c t i o n
a n d
d i s t r i b u t i o n ;
r e s e a r c h
a n d
d e v e l o p m e n t
f a c i l i t i e s ;
g r e e n
t e c h n o l o g y
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.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ES-‐3
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
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.
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
T RANSPORTATION
AND
C IRCULATION
I MPROVEMENTS
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.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ES-‐5
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
b e
p r o v ided
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,
a d d i n g
a
c o m m e r c i a l
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
D r i v e,
or
left
on
Soaring
Way
and
a
designated
right
turn
pocket
as
well.
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
U TILITY
I NFRASTRUCTURE
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.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ES-‐7
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.
2BA REAS
OF
C ONTROVERSY
AND
ISSUES
TO
BE
R ESOLVED
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.
A l l
p a r t i c i p a n t s
a t
t h e
p u b l i c
s c o p i n g
m e e t i n g
w i s h i n g
t o
s u b m i t
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
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
Section
15126.6
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
requires
an
EIR
to
describe
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
to
the
project
or
to
the
location
of
the
project
which
would
reduce
or
avoid
significant
impacts,
and
which
could
feasibly
accomplish
the
basic
objectives
of
the
proposed
project.
The
alternatives
analyzed
in
this
EIR
include
the
following
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
ALTERNATIVE
REDUCED
INTENSITY
ALTERNATIVE
INDUSTRIAL
USES
ONLY
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
Materials
Less
Less
Equal
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality
Less
Less
Equal
Land
Use,
Planning
&
Population
Equal
Equal
Greater
Noise
Less
Less
Less
Public
Services
Less
Less
Less
Transportation
and
Circulation
Less
Less
Less
Utilities
Less
Less
Equal
Visual
and
Aesthetic
Resources
Less
Less
Equal
GREATER
=
GREATER
IMPACT
THAN
THAT
OF
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
LESS
=
DECREASED
IMPACT
THAN
THAT
OF
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
+/-‐
=
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
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ES-‐9
As
shown
in
the
table
above,
the
No
Project
A l t e r n a t i v e
i s
t h e
e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y
s u p e r i o r
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.
S UMMARY
OF
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
The
environmental
impacts
of
t h e
p r o p o s e d
p r o j e c t ,
t h e
i m p a c t
l e v e l
o f
s i g n i f i c a n c e
p r i o r
t o
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.
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
TABLE
ES-‐3:
PROJECT
IMPACTS
AND
PROPOSED
MITIGATION
MEASURES
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AIR
QUALITY
Impact
3.1-‐1:
Project
operations
h a v e
t h e
potential
to
cause
a
violation
of
an
air
quality
standard
or
contribute
substantially
to
an
existing
or
projected
air
quality
violation
S
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
SU
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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:
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
PS
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
LS
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
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
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
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
watered
until
a
suitable
cover
is
established.
l)
The
applicant
will
be
responsible
for
applying
Town-approved
non-toxic
soil
stabilizers
(according
to
manufacturer's
specifications)
to
all
inactive
construction
areas
(previously
graded
areas
which
remain
inactive
for
96
hours)
in
accordance
with
the
local
grading
ordinance.
Acceptable
materials
that
may
be
used
for
chemical
stabilization
of
soils
include
petroleum
resins,
asphaltic
emulsions,
acrylics
and
adhesives
which
do
not
violate
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
or
California
Air
Resource
Board
standards.
m) During
initial
grading,
earth
moving,
or
site
preparation,
larger
projects
may
be
required
to
construct
a
paved
(or
dust
palliative
treated)
apron
at
least
100
feet
in
length
onto
the
paved
road(s).
n) Wheel
washers
will
be
installed
where
project
vehicles
and/or
equipment
enter
and/or
exit
onto
paved
streets
from
unpaved
roads
on
larger
projects.
Vehicles
and/or
equipment
will
be
washed
prior
to
each
trip,
if
necessary.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-6:
To
reduce
NOx
emissions
during
the
site
preparation
and
grading
phase
of
construction,
the
contractor
shall
be
required
to
implement
the
following
measures:
• All
offroad
construction
equipment
must
utilize
“Diesel
Oxidation
Catalyst”,
and
Tiered
Engine
that
are
certified
to
effectively
reduce
NOx
emissions
by
40%.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-7:
P r i o r
t o
a p p r o v a l
o f
G r a d i n g
o r
I m p r o v e m e n t
P l a n s ,
(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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
impacts
Impact
3.1-‐4:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
for
public
exposure
to
toxic
air
contaminants
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.1-‐5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
for
exposure
to
odors
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Impact
3.2-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
special-‐status
bird
species
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-1:
Thirty
days
prior
to
commencement
of
construction,
the
project
proponent
shall
retain
a
qualified
biologist
to
perform
a
preconstruction
survey
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
occupied
nests,
including
but
not
limited
to
raptors,
if
construction
occurs
during
the
nesting
season
(March
to
September).
If
it
is
determined
from
the
preconstruction
survey
that
there
are
occupied
nests,
then
the
project
proponent
shall
either
avoid
the
project
area
until
the
nesting
season
is
over,
or
seek
consultation
with
the
appropriate
regulatory
agency
(CDFW
or
USFWS)
for
the
appropriate
permits
and
mitigation
measures.
If
it
is
determined
that
the
project
site
does
not
contain
occupied
nests
then
no
additional
action
is
necessary.
LS
Impact
3.2-‐2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
special-‐status
mammal
species
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.2-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
special-‐status
fish
species
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.2-‐4:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
special-‐status
plant
species
PS
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
LS
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
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.
Impact
3.4-‐5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
wetlands
PS
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
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
LS
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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-‐17
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
A g r e e m e n t ) .
I f
t h e
R W Q C B
a n d / o r
C D F W
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
are
initiated
and
shall
be
maintained
throughout
the
construction
period.
The
following
paragraph
shall
be
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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-‐6:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
interfere
w i t h
t h e
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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.2-‐7:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
introduce
or
spread
noxious
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-8:
P r i o r
t o
t h e
i s s u a n c e
o f
a
g r a d i n g
p ermit,
the
project
proponent
shall
incorporate
the
following
measures
into
project
plans
and
LS
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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.
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
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-9:
P r i o r
t o
t h e
f i n a l
a p p r o v a l ,
t h e
p r o j e c t
p r o p o n e n t
s h a l l
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.
(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.
LS
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
PS
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.
LS
Impact
3.3-‐2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
directly
or
indirectly
destroy
a
unique
paleontological
resource
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-2:
I f
p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l
r e s o u r c e s
a r e
d i s c o v e r e d
d u r i n g
t h e
course
of
construction,
work
shall
be
halted
immediately
within
50
meters
(165
feet)
of
the
discovery,
the
Town
of
Truckee
shall
be
notified,
and
a
qualified
paleontologist
shall
be
retained
to
determine
the
significance
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.
LS
Impact
3.3-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
disturb
human
remains,
including
those
interred
outside
of
formal
cemeteries
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-3:
I f
h u m a n
r e m a i n s
a r e
d i s c o v e r e d
d u r i n g
t h e
c o u r s e
o f
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
LS
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
dignity,
the
human
remains
a n d
a n y
a s s o c i a t e d
g r a v e
g o o d s ,
w h i c h
m a y
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
potential
adverse
effects
involving
rupture
of
a
fault
or
strong
seismic
ground
shaking
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.4-‐2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
t o
e x p o s e
p e o p l e
o r
s t r u c t u r e s
t o
potential
adverse
effects
involving
ground
failure
or
landslides
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Impact
3.4-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
result
in
substantial
soil
erosion
or
the
loss
of
topsoil
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.4-1:
P r i o r
t o
t h e
i s s u a n c e
o f
g r a d i n g
p e r m i t ,
t h e
p r o j e c t
proponent
shall
ensure
that
project
plans
adequately
address
grading,
erosion,
sediment,
and
pollution
control
requirements
of
the
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
(RWQCB).
If
one
acre
or
more
of
land
will
be
disturbed,
the
project
proponent
shall
submit
a
Notice
of
Intent
(N.O.I.)
with
appropriate
fees
and
a
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(SWPPP)
to
the
RWQCB.
The
SWPPP
shall
include
non-structural
and
structural
BMPs
such
as:
minimizing
disturbance,
preserving
natural
vegetation,
good
housekeeping
(i.e.
daily
clean-up),
mulch,
grass,
stockpile
covers,
silt
fences,
inlet
protection,
stabilized
construction
entrances,
and
sediment
traps.
Mitigation
Measure
3.4-2:
During
construction,
the
project
proponent
shall
ensure
that
control
measures
and
practices
are
implemented,
properly
installed,
and
maintained.
The
project
proponent
shall
develop
and
implement
record
keeping
and
data
management
procedures
for
evaluation
of
SWPPP
compliance
and
reporting.
The
Town
of
Truckee
shall
inspect
the
construction
site
to
verify
that
SWPPPs
are
being
implemented.
LS
Impact
3.4-‐4:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
result
in
risks
from
expansive
soil
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.4-‐5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
soils
incapable
of
supporting
alternative
waste
water
disposal
systems
NI
None
Required.
-‐-‐
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
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
PS
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-1
through
3.1-4.
LS
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
the
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases
HAZARDS
AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Impact
3.6-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
create
a
significant
h a z a r d
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
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-1:
Prior
to
bringing
hazardous
material
onsite,
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
shall
submit
a
Hazardous
Materials
Business
Plan
(HMBP)
to
Nevada
County
Environmental
Health
Division
(CUPA)
for
review
and
approval.
If
the
inventory
of
reportable
hazardous
materials
include
fuels
stored
in
Aboveground
Storage
Tanks
(AST)
that
exceed
1,320
gallons
(in
containers
>55
gallons)
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
must
file
documents
required
by
the
California
Aboveground
Storage
Tank
Act
(APSA).
If
one
of
the
AST’s
is
larger
t h a n
2 0 , 0 0 0
g a l l o n s
o r
t h e
accumulative
storage
capacity
exceeds
100,000
gallons
a
Spill
Prevention
and
Countermeasures
Plan
(SPCC)
will
be
required.
If
during
the
construction
process
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
or
his
subcontractors
generates
hazardous
waste,
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
must
register
with
the
CUPA
as
a
generator
of
hazardous
waste,
obtain
an
EPA
ID#
and
accumulate,
ship
and
dispose
of
the
hazardous
waste
per
Health
and
Safety
Code
Ch.
6.5.
(California
Hazardous
Waste
Control
Law).
LS
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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
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
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-1:
P r i o r
t o
t h e
i s s u a n c e
o f
a
g r a d i n g
p e r m i t ,
t h e
p roject
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:
P r i o r
t o
t h e
c o m m encement
of
grading,
the
project
proponent
shall
abandon
the
existing
well
after
obtaining
the
appropriate
well
LS
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
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
project
site
as
a
result
of
public
airport
or
public
use
airport
LS
None
Required.
-‐-‐
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
LS
None
Required.
-‐-‐
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
LS
None
Required.
-‐-‐
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
LS
None
Required.
-‐-‐
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Impact
3.7-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
violate
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge
requirements
during
construction
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-1:
The
project
applicant
shall
prepare
a
site-specific
and
construction
phase-specific
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plan
(SWPPP)
in
conformance
with
the
California
Stormwater
Quality
Association
Construction
Handbook
(Construction
Handbook),
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
State
General
Construction
Activity
Storm
Water
Permit
(CGP),
and
in
compliance
with
project
guidelines
for
erosion
control
published
by
the
Lahontan
RWQCB,
as
well
as
demonstrate
compliance
with
sediment
reduction
measures
associated
with
the
total
maximum
daily
loads
(TMDL)
for
Sediment
for
the
Middle
Truckee
River
watershed.
The
SWPPP
shall
be
prepared
using
current
templates
and
formats
provided
by
the
California
Stormwater
Quality
Association.
The
Construction
Handbook
provides
general
guidance
for
selecting
and
implementing
best
management
practices
(BMPs)
that
will
eliminate
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
construction
sites,
and
the
SWPPP
will
document
the
selection
and
implementation
of
BMPs
for
the
particular
construction
projects
on
the
site.
The
site-
specific
SWPPP
must
describe
the
site,
as
well
as
the
proposed
erosion
and
sediment
controls
(BMPs
for
water
quality),
the
means
of
waste
disposal,
implementation
of
approved
local
plans,
control
measures
of
post-construction
sediment
and
erosion,
monitoring
and
maintenance
responsibilities,
and
non-stormwater
management
controls.
Dewatering,
if
needed,
shall
be
done
in
a
manner
so
as
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
pollutants,
including
earthen
materials,
from
the
site.
The
project
applicant
shall
submit
the
SWPPP
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
the
Lahontan
RWQCB
for
review
and
approval.
The
project
applicant
shall
require
all
construction
contractors
to
retain
a
copy
of
the
approved
SWPPP
on
the
construction
site.
BMPs
identified
in
the
SWPPP
shall
be
utilized
in
all
project
site
development
activities.
Implementation
of
appropriate,
effective
water
quality
controls
will
ensure
that
stormwater
discharges
that
will
result
with
implementation
of
the
project
are
in
compliance
with
all
current
requirements
of
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-2:
Grading
activities
shall
be
prohibited
during
the
winter
months,
unless
approved
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.C.4
and
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
Exposed
graded
areas
shall
be
LS
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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-‐26
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
protected
during
the
winter
months
using
appropriate
methods.
Impact
3.7-‐2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
violate
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge
requirements
during
operation
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-3:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
grading
permits,
the
project
applicant
shall
submit
and
obtain
approval
of
a
storm
water
management
plan
(SWMP)
consistent
with
the
Town’s
Municipal
Code
and
Storm
Water
Quality
Ordinance.
The
SWMP
shall,
at
a
minimum,
include
the
following:
• A
written
text
addressing
existing
conditions,
the
effects
of
project
improvements,
all
appropriate
calculations,
a
watershed
map,
proposed
on-
and
off-site
improvements
and
detention/retention
facilities,
and
other
features
to
protect
downslope
areas
from
degradation
of
storm
water
quality.
• Information
demonstrating
that
the
project
design
would
result
in
drainage
flow
conditions
below
pre-project
flow
rates
and
volumes.
• The
SWMP
and
subsequent
site
development
submittals
shall
address
storm
drainage
management
during
construction
and
thereafter
and
shall
include
provisions
for
the
application
of
best
management
practice
(BMP)
measures
to
reduce
erosion,
water
quality
degradation,
etc.
Storm
water
drainage
management,
BMPs,
and
water
quality
control
features
shall
be
identified
for
construction
staging
areas,
building
sites
and
site
improvements.
Permanent
water
quality
control
features,
including
LID
facilities,
described
in
the
report
shall
demonstrate
(at
minimum)
that
the
water
quality
controls
are
adequate
to
prevent
any
increase
in
sediment
or
other
pollutants
to
downslope
areas
over
pre-development
conditions.
• Prior
to
the
design
of
new
detention/retention
basins
that
will
serve
the
project
site,
soil
borings
shall
be
taken
at
representative
locations
to
analyze
the
subsurface
soils
that
are
present
and
the
elevation
of
the
subsurface
water
table.
If
these
soil
borings
identify
perched
groundwater
within
2
feet
of
the
proposed
bottom
elevation
of
these
detention/retention
basins,
a
liner,
filter
fabric,
or
other
remedial
measures
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
design
of
the
-‐-‐
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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.
Impact
3.7-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
deplete
groundwater
supplies
or
interfere
substantially
with
groundwater
recharge
LS
None
Required.
-‐-‐
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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-‐28
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
PS
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.
LS
Impact
3.7-‐5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
otherwise
substantially
degrade
water
quality
PS
Implementat
Mitigation
Measures
3.7-‐1
through
3.7-‐4
LS
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
f l o o d
h a z a r d
d e l i n e a t i o n
map
LS
None
Required.
-‐-‐
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
LS
None
Required.
-‐-‐
LAND
USE,
POPULATION
AND
HOUSING
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Impact
3.8-‐1:
The
project
may
result
in
the
physical
division
of
an
established
community
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.8-‐3:
Implementation
of
the
proposed
project
may
conflict
with
an
applicable
habitat
conservation
plan
or
natural
community
conservation
plan
NI
None
required.
-‐-‐
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
PS
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.
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.
LS
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
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(B)
and
(C)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
No
project
within
the
Plan
Area
will
be
considered
exempt
from
the
workforce
housing
requirements
identified
in
this
measure.
All
workforce
housing
units
constructed
within
the
Plan
Area
shall
meet
the
affordability
requirements
specified
in
Chapter
18.216.040(D)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
Impact
3.8-‐5:
Implementation
of
the
proposed
project
may
displace
substantial
numbers
of
people
or
existing
housing
NI
None
required.
-‐-‐
NOISE
Impact
3.9-‐1:
The
proposed
project
may
generate
unacceptable
traffic
noise
levels
at
existing
receptors
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.9-‐2:
Construction
of
the
project
may
generate
significant
noise
PS
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
LS
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
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
result
in
vibration
impacts
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.9-‐4:
The
project
will
result
in
on-‐site
stationary
noise
PS
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.
LS
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
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
airport
noise
at
proposed
receptors
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.9-‐6:
The
project
may
result
in
cumulative
ambient
noise
impacts
LCC
None
required.
-‐-‐
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
RECREATION
Impact
3.10-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
increase
demands
for
fire
protection
services
or
require
the
construction
of
fire
department
facilities
which
may
cause
substantial
adverse
physical
environmental
impacts
PS
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.
LS
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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:
P r i o r
t o
t h e
a p p r o v a l
o f
b u i l d i n g
p l a n s ,
t h e
p r o j e c t
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.
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
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
department
facilities
which
may
cause
substantial
adverse
physical
environmental
impacts
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.10-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
increase
demands
for
school
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
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
PS
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.
LS
Impact
3.10-‐5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
adverse
effects
on
other
public
facilities
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Impact
3.11-‐1:
Project
implementation
would
result
in
a
significant
impact
to
local
PS
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1A:
The
project
applicant
shall
construct
a
center
turn
lane
on
Donner
Pass
Road
to
allow
two-stage
left-turn
movements
to
be
made
from
Glenshire
Drive.
The
turn
lane
shall
be
constructed
during
Phase
1
of
project
construction
and
LS
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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-‐36
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
intersections
and
roadways
prior
to
any
Parcel
or
Final
Map
recordation.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1B:
I n s t a l l a t i o n
o f
a
t r a f f i c
s i g n a l
a t
t h e
B r i d g e
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
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-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
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
intersection.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1I:
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
queuing
PS
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.11-‐1A
through
3.11-‐1H
LS
Impact
3.11-‐3:
Project
implementation
may
result
in
impacts
to
the
SR
267
Bypass
under
near-‐term
and
cumulative
conditions
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.11-‐4:
Under
cumulative
conditions,
project
implementation
would
worsen
already
unacceptable
levels
of
service
at
study
intersections
and
roadways.
PS
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/I-80
Interchange
Ramps
intersections,
and
• SR
267
-‐
widening
SR
267
to
four
travel
lanes
from
the
Town
Limit
to
south
of
Northstar
Drive,
extending
the
southbound
truck
climbing
lane
to
Brockway
Summit,
and
constructing
a
northbound
passing
lane
at
Brockway
LS
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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-‐38
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Summit.
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
LS
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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.11-‐7:
Project
implementation
may
result
in
traffic
impacts
during
construction
PS
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.
LS
UTILITIES
Impact
3.12-‐1:
Project
implementation
has
the
potential
to
exceed
wastewater
treatment
requirements
of
the
applicable
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
PS
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.
LS
Impact
3.12-‐2:
Project
implementation
has
the
potential
to
require
o r
r e s u l t
i n
t h e
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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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-‐39
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
facilities,
the
construction
of
which
could
cause
significant
environmental
effects
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.12-‐5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
be
served
b y
a
l a n d f i l l
w i t h
insufficient
permitted
capacity
to
accommodate
the
project’s
solid
waste
disposal
needs
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.12-‐6:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
affect
compliance
with
federal,
State,
and
local
statutes
and
regulations
related
to
solid
waste
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
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
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
VISUAL
AND
AESTHETIC
RESOURCES
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Impact
3.13-‐1:
Project
implementation
has
the
potential
to
result
in
substantial
adverse
effects
o n
s c e n i c
v i s t a s
o r
s u b s t a n t i a l l y
damage
scenic
resources
within
a
State
Scenic
Highway
NI
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.13-‐2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
or
quality
of
the
site
and
its
surroundings
LS
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
3.13-‐3:
Project
implementation
may
result
in
light
and
glare
impacts
PS
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.
LS
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
TOPICS
Impact
4.1:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
the
region's
air
quality
CC
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
3.1-‐3
SU
Impact
4.1:
The
project
may
contribute
to
the
cumulative
loss
of
biological
resources
including
habitats
and
special
status
species
LCC
Implement
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐2
LCC
Impact
4.3:
The
project
may
contribute
to
LCC
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.3-‐1
through
3.3-‐3.
LCC
EXECUTIVE
S UMMARY
ES
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-‐41
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
cumulative
impacts
on
known
and
undiscovered
cultural
resources
Impact
4.4:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
geologic
and
soils
characteristics
LCC
None
required
-‐-‐
Impact
4.5:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
greenhouse
gases
and
climate
change
LCC
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
3.1-‐3
LCC
Impact
4.6:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
related
to
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
LCC
None
required
LCC
Impact
4.7:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
related
to
flooding
or
the
degradation
of
water
quality
LCC
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.7-‐1
through
3.7-‐4
LCC
Impact
4.8:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
communities
or
contribute
to
substantial
population
growth
LCC
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
4.9:
The
project
may
contribute
to
the
cumulative
exposure
of
existing
and
future
noise-‐
s e n s i t i v e
l a n d
u s e s
o r
t o
i n c r e a s e d
noise
resulting
from
cumulative
development
LCC
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
4.10:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
public
services
and
recreation
LCC
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.10-‐1
through
3.10-‐4
LCC
Impact
4.11:
The
project
may
contribute
to
LCC
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.11-‐4A
and
3.11-‐4B
LCC
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
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)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHOUT
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MEASURE
RESULTING
LEVEL
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
cumulative
impacts
on
the
transportation
network
Impact
4.12:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
utilities
LCC
None
required.
-‐-‐
Impact
4.13:
The
project
may
contribute
to
the
cumulative
degradation
of
the
existing
visual
character
of
the
region
LCC
None
required.
-‐-‐
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1.0-‐1
1.1
PURPOSE
AND
I NTENDED
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
f o c u s
p r i m a r i l y
o n
t h e
c h a n g e s
i n
t h e
e n v i r o n m e n t
t h a t
w o u l d
r e s u l t
f r o m
t h e
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.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1.3
K NOWN
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
o f
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
( C a l t r a n s )
–
E n c r o a c h m e n t
p e r m i t s
f o r
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
–
P e r m i t t i n g
o f
f e d e r a l
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l
a r e a s
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
E NVIRONMENTAL
R EVIEW
PROCESS
The
review
and
certification
process
for
the
EIR
has
involved,
or
will
involve,
the
following
general
procedural
steps:
N OTICE
OF
P REPARATION
AND
I NITIAL
S TUDY
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.
D RAFT
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,
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1.0-‐3
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.
P UBLIC
N OTICE/PUBLIC
R EVIEW
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
R ESPONSE
TO
C OMMENTS/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.
C ERTIFICATION
OF
THE
EIR/PROJECT
C ONSIDERATION
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.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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:
E XECUTIVE
S UMMARY
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.
C HAPTER
1.0
–
I NTRODUCTION
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.
C HAPTER
2.0
–
P ROJECT
D ESCRIPTION
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.
C HAPTER
3.0
-‐
E NVIRONMENTAL
S ETTING,
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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.
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
o f
t h e
t h r e s h o l d s
o f
s i g n i f i c a n c e
b y
w h i c h
impacts
are
determined,
a
description
of
project-‐related
impacts
associated
with
the
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1.0-‐5
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
C HAPTER
4.0
–
O THER
CEQA-‐R EQUIRED
T OPICS
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.
C HAPTER
5.0
-‐
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
P ROJECT
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.
C HAPTER
6
-‐
R EPORT
P REPARERS
This
section
lists
all
authors
and
agencies
that
assisted
in
the
preparation
of
the
EIR,
by
name,
title,
and
company
or
agency
affiliation.
A PPENDICES
This
section
includes
all
notices
and
other
procedural
documents
pertinent
to
the
EIR,
as
well
as
technical
material
prepared
to
support
the
analysis.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1.6
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
ON
THE
NOTICE
OF
PREPARATION
The
Town
of
Truckee
received
sixteen
c o mme n t
l e t t e r s
o n
t h e
N OP .
A
c o p y
o f
e a c h
l e t t e r
i s
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)
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐1
2.1
PROJECT
L OCATION
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
E XISTING
S ITE
C ONDITIONS
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.
S URROUNDING
L AND
U SES
The
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport,
a
general
aviation
facility,
is
the
major
land
use
east
of
the
Plan
Area.
Areas
north,
west
and
south
of
the
Plan
Area
are
characterized
by
a
mix
of
low
and
medium
density
residential,
commercial
and
recreational
uses.
The
Ponderosa
Golf
Course
borders
a
portion
of
the
Plan
Area
directly
to
the
west.
Surrounding
land
uses
are
shown
in
greater
detail
in
Figure
2-‐4.
Other
land
uses
in
close
proximity,
but
not
adjacent
to
the
Plan
Area,
include
a
diverse,
and
distinctly
different
set
of
land
uses.
The
area
west
of
the
Plan
Area
is
dominated
by
single
and
multiple
family
residential
land
uses
on
both
sides
of
Brockway
Road,
known
within
the
Town
General
Plan
as
the
Brockway
Road
Corridor.
This
corridor
is
also
characterized
by
open
space
and
recreation
lands
as
well
as
a
variety
of
local-‐serving
commercial
uses
fronting
Brockway
Road.
The
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport
occupies
a
vast
majority
of
the
land
area
to
the
east
of
the
Plan
Area,
with
a
range
of
office,
commercial
(e.g.,
r e t a i l
a n d
s e r v i c e ) ,
i n d u s t r i a l
( e . g . ,
w a r e h o u s i n g
a n d
storage)
and
public
(including
Truckee’s
Town
Hall)
uses
along
the
east-‐end
of
Soaring
Way
and
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
E XISTING
L AND
U SES
AND
Z ONING
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-‐
a n d
m o d e r a t e-‐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.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐3
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
G OALS
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
w i t h ,
t h e
d o w n t o w n
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
L AND
U SES
AND
Z ONING
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
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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:
f i t n e s s
c e n t e r
a n d
i n d o o r
s p o r t s
a c t i v i t i e s
a n d
t r a i n i n g
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.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐5
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.
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
2-‐1
provides
a
summary
of
the
acreage
and
development
potential
for
each
of
the
zoning
districts
identified
above.
TABLE
2-‐1:
SUMMARY
OF
ZONING,
ACREAGE,
AND
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
11.69
101,843
sf
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
6.07
52,881
sf
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
7.59
66,124
sf
Manufacturing/Industrial
(M1)
13.57
118,222
sf
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
13.97
121,707
sf
Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)
3.48
41
housing
units
Open
Space
(OS)
10.24
N/A
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
T RANSPORTATION
AND
C IRCULATION
I MPROVEMENTS
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
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐7
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.
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
b e
p r o v i d e d
i n
e a c h
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,
a d d i n g
a
c o m m e r c i a l
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
c o m m e r c i a l
d r i v e w a y
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
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
through
/
left
pocket
for
motorists
heading
up
Joerger
D r i v e,
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.
U TILITY
I NFRASTRUCTURE
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
Ut i l i t y
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
t o
adequately
serve
the
Specific
Plan,
and
would
be
designed
to
accommodate
full
buildout
of
the
Plan
Area.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐9
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.
I NFRASTRUCTURE
P HASING
Development
within
Plan
Area
will
be
incremental
and
will
be
driven
by
market
demands.
With
market
uncertainties,
it
is
impossible
to
exactly
identify
the
phasing
order
of
project
development
within
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Area.
In
order
to
ensure
that
the
Plan
Area
is
adequately
served
by
common
infrastructure,
the
Specific
Plan
includes
an
Implementation
and
Phasing
Chapter
(Chapter
6
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan).
The
overall
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
has
common
infrastructure
improvements
that
benefit
all
properties
within
the
Plan
Area.
These
improvements
need
to
be
installed
if
major
portions
of
the
Plan
Area
develop
first.
However,
there
are
parcels
within
the
Plan
Area
that
may
not
trigger
major
improvements
or
may
only
require
portions
of
the
overall
improvements.
The
proposed
phasing
plan
in
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
recognizes
these
factors
and
allows
for
flexibility
in
the
program,
while
still
requiring
each
property
owner
who
will
benefit
from
the
overall
program
to
pay
their
fair
share
so
that
the
common
infrastructure
can
be
built
out
in
an
orderly
fashion.
The
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
has
established
a
format
that
allows
for
the
cost
and
timing
of
infrastructure
improvements
to
be
based
upon
the
intensity
and
percentage
of
usage.
In
order
to
determine
fair
share
costs
of
common
area
and
specific
area
improvements
prior
to
any
subdivision
map
recordation
or
specific
development
permit
approvals
for
individual
uses
with
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
sponsor
shall
prepare
a
Cost
Analysis
Assessment
(CAA)
consisting
of
civil
design
drawings
for
all
common
area
and
specific
area
improvements
identified
in
the
Specific
Plan
and
summarized
in
Table
2-‐3
below,
to
30%
level
design
and
provide
an
estimate
of
probable
construction
costs.
The
project
sponsor
shall
also
prepare
a
land
use
intensity
chart
based
on
allowed
uses
listed
in
the
Specific
Plan
and
anticipated
traffic
use
analyzed
in
this
Draft
EIR.
The
CAA
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Town
Engineering
Department
to
confirm
that
the
Design
Drawings
and
estimate
of
probable
construction
costs
follow
the
Town’s
Development
Standards.
Once
the
CAA
is
approved,
it
can
be
used
to
allocate
the
associated
common
and
specific
area
costs
to
the
various
zones
and
parcels
to
be
created.
Each
future
parcel
development
will
be
responsible
for
completing
the
improvements
for
the
length
of
that
parcels
frontage
as
set
forth
in
Chapter
4.2.2
of
the
Specific
Plan
(Roadway
&
Intersection
Design)
and
pay
a
fair
share
portion
of
the
Intersection,
Pedestrian,
Bicycle,
and
Public
Transportation
improvements
as
set
forth
in
Chapter
4
of
the
Specific
Plan
and
required
by
the
mitigation
measures
contained
in
this
Draft
EIR.
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Minor
projects
proposed
within
the
Plan
Area
that
can
demonstrate
that
traffic
they
generate
does
not
exceed
the
existing,
acceptable
operational
level
of
service
(LOS)
at
the
intersections
analyzed
in
Section
3.11
of
this
Draft
EIR
may
be
permitted
subject
to
construction
of
their
parcel’s
frontage
improvements
and
paying
their
fair
share
portion
of
the
Common
Infrastructure
Improvements
outlined
in
Table
2-‐3.
Projects
that
generate
traffic
that
exceed
the
existing,
acceptable
operational
LOS
at
the
Intersections
listed
in
Chapter
4
of
the
Specific
Plan
will
be
required
to
construct
those
Overall
Common
Area
Improvements
necessary
to
bring
the
operational
LOS
at
the
impacted
intersection
to
an
acceptable
level.
Additionally,
each
project
is
responsible
for
their
site-‐specific
frontage
improvements,
along
with
payment
of
whatever
remaining
fair
share
of
the
common
infrastructure
improvements
as
allocated
by
the
CAA.
In
conjunction
with
allocating
costs
based
on
the
CAA
for
individual
parcel
owners’
construction,
the
project
sponsor
shall
establish
a
legal
entity
(i.e.
Owners
Association
or
similar)
that
has
the
authority
to
and
obligates
all
parcels
and
parcel
owners
to
fund
their
fair
share
portion
of
the
design,
construction,
and
permitting
fee
costs
of
the
Common
Area
Improvements
if
they
proceed
prior
to
construction
of
the
Common
Area
Improvements;
OR
pay
their
fair
share
of
reimbursement
funds
to
the
project
sponsor
who
installed
the
improvement(s)
if
they
develop
after
the
Common
Area
Improvements
are
installed.
A
Project
that
requires
the
construction
of
Overall
Common
Area
Improvements
will
be
responsible
for
completion
of
the
final
Civil
Design,
construction
permitting
and
completion
of
the
improvements.
The
remaining
properties
that
have
not
paid
their
fair
share
portion
of
the
Overall
Common
Area
Improvements
will
be
subject
to
reimbursement.
Tables
2-‐2
and
2-‐3
describe
the
initial
actions
and
common
area
and
specific
area
infrastructure
improvements
needed
to
develop
the
Plan
Area
and
how
each
parcel
/parcel
owner
is
responsible
for
their
fair
share.
TABLE
2-‐2:
SPECIFIC
PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
MEASURES
AND
ACTION
ITEMS
No.
Implementation
Measures
and
Action
Items
Timing
Responsible
Party
1
Specific
Plan
/
Tentative
Map
Approval
2
Overall
Specific
Plan
Traffic
Study:
Traffic
Study
to
analyze
overall
Specific
Plan
based
upon
delineated
uses
and
zoning
contained
therein
Prior
to
Specific
Plan
Approval.
Contained
within
this
Draft
EIR
Developer
/
Town
3
30%
Design:
Prepare
improvement
plans
for
all
common
infrastructure
to
30%
design
level,
including
and
engineers
estimate
and
matrix
for
pro-‐rata
responsible
share
for
the
14
parcels
represented
on
the
Phase
I
Final
Map.
Plans
shall
be
reviewed/approved
by
the
Town
of
Prior
to
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation
Developer
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐11
No.
Implementation
Measures
and
Action
Items
Timing
Responsible
Party
Truckee
Engineering
Department.
4
Create
a
managing
legal
entity
responsible
for
implementation
of
public
infrastructure,
including
final
design
drawings,
construction,
collection,
retention,
and
distribution
of
cost
assessments,
and
reimbursement
of
construction
costs.
Prior
to
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation
Developer
5
Create
an
Owners
Association
to
establish
specific
expectations
and
responsibilities
for
maintenance
(non-‐
public
entities),
affordable
housing,
shared
parking,
access,
snow
storage,
drainage,
landscaping,
etc.
Prior
to
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation
Developer
6
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation:
Recordation
of
Large
Lot
subdivision
for
14
parcels.
Prior
to
any
land
use
approval
or
building
permit
issuance
Developer
TABLE
2-‐3:
INTERSECTION/ROADWAY
FRONTAGE/CLASS
I
BIKE
TRAIL
IMPROVEMENTS
No.
Improvements
Timing
Responsible
Party
1
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
Intersection
and
associated
Brockway
Road
improvements
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcel
9
2
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
Intersection
and
associated
Brockway
Road
improvements
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcels
1-‐5
3
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
Intersection
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcels
8-‐14
4
Highway
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
Intersection
(see
Note
#1)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy,
as
required
to
mitigate
impact
(see
Note
#1)
Parcels
1-‐6
&
8-‐
14
5
Class
I
Bike
Path
along
Brockway
Road
and
Hope
Court
(including
crosswalk)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building,
or
addition
Parcels
1-‐6
6
Martis
Drive
and
Class
I
Bike
Path
along
Martis
Drive
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building,
or
addition
(see
Note
#2)
Parcels
1-‐5
7
Joerger
Road
frontage
improvements
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcels
8-‐9
8
Soaring
Way
frontage
improvements
plus
sidewalk
and
landscaping
(south
side)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcel
14
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
No.
Improvements
Timing
Responsible
Party
9
Soaring
Way
frontage
improvements
plus
sidewalk
and
landscaping
(north
side)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcels
10-‐12
10
Utilities
within
right-‐of-‐way
and
offsite
utilities
As
required
by
respective
utility
agency(s)
to
adequately
serve
each
proposed
project
Parcels
1-‐6
&
8-‐
14
11
Transit
Stop-‐
Brockway
Road
Upon
Construction
of
Martis
Drive
Parcels
1-‐6
12
Transit
Stop-‐
Soaring
Way
Upon
Development
of
Parcel
14
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.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐13
2.5
USES
OF
THE
EIR
AND
R EQUIRED
A GENCY
A PPROVALS
This
EIR
may
be
used
for
the
following
direct
and
indirect
approvals
and
permits
associated
with
adoption
and
implementation
of
the
proposed
project.
T OWN
OF
T RUCKEE
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.
O THER
G OVERNMENTAL
A GENCY
A PPROVALS
The
following
agencies
may
be
r e q u i r e d
t o
i s s u e
p e r m i t s
o r
a p p r o v e
c e r t a i n
a s p e c t s
o f
t h e
proposed
project:
• Regional
Water
Q u a l i t y
C o n t r o l
B o a r d
( R W Q C B ) ,
L a h o n t a n
R e g i o n
-‐
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
–
P e r m i t t i n g
o f
f e d e r a l
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l
a r e a s
pursuant
to
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act;
• California
Department
of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
–
E n c r o a c h m e n t
p e r m i t s
f o r
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;
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
N
N
E
E
V
V
A
A
D
D
A
A
C
C
A
A
L
L
I
I
F
F
O
O
R
R
N
N
I
I
A
A
ProjectLocation
French MeadowsRes.
Donner Lake
E l D o r a d o C o u n t yE l D o r a d o C o u n t y
P l a c e r C o u n t yP l a c e r C o u n t y
S i e r r a C o u n t yS i e r r a C o u n t y
W a s h o eW a s h o eC o u n t yC o u n t yN e v a d a C o u n t yN e v a d a C o u n t y
D o u g l a sD o u g l a sC o u n t yC o u n t y
A l p i n e C o u n t yA l p i n e C o u n t y
C a r s o n C i t y C o u n t yC a r s o n C i t y C o u n t y
L y o nL y o nC o u n t yC o u n t y
S t o r e yS t o r e yC o u n t yC o u n t y
Carson City
Reno
Dayton
Truckee
Sparks
Spanish Springs
Kingsbury
Verdi-Mogul
Mesa Vista
Johnson Lane
Markleeville
Sun Valley
Foresthill
South Lake Tahoe
Indian Hills
Gardnerville Ranchos
Minden
Placerville Pollock Pines
Diamond Springs
Georgetown
Kirkwood
Kings Beach
Dollar Point
80
80
395
50
395
395
395
50
49
88
89
20
341
193
431
207
209
267
208
4 89
89
89
49
89
Lake Tahoe Nevada SP
Malakoff Diggings SP
Washoe Lake SP
DL Bliss SP
Sugar Pine Point SP
Emerald Bay SP
Donner Memorial SP
Grover Hot Springs State Park
Gold Bug Park
Mormon Station SP
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2-1. Regional Location
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
Data source: California Spatial Information LibraryMap date: May 4, 2011.
LakeTahoeHell Hole Res.
Ice HouseRes.
Union ValleyRes.
Stampede Res.
Fallen Leaf Lake
Loon Lake
Washoe Lake
0 5 102.5
Miles
1:650,000
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
T r u c k e e - Ta h o e A i r p o r tT r u c k e e - Ta h o e A i r p o r t
T r u ck ee R i v e r267
267
Trout Creek
S c h a f f e r Mill R d
T i
m
i
l
i
c
k
D
r
Alp i n e M e a d o w C a m p
Brockway Rd
Torr e y Pine Rd
P o n
d
e
r
o
s a D r
Pine Cone DrThelin Dr
NN EE VV AA DD AA CC OO UU NN TT YY
PP LL AA CC EE RR CC OO UU NN TT YY
80
80
D o n n e r P a s s R d
Joerger Dr
Glenshire Dr
River St
M
a
r
t
i
s
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Highland Ave
E states D r
Jeffery P i ne R d
Soari
n
g
W
a
y
Ma
r
t
i
s
D
r
Sh a n e v a R d
H i g h S t
M a r t i s V a l l e y R d
R e y n o l d W a y
R i v e r v i e w Dr
E
uer Valley Rd
G o l d e n Pine R d
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
R
d
IndianJac k Rd
S i l ver Spur Dr
C o l u m b i n e R d
Business Park Dr
Pin
e
l
a
n
d
R
d
R i d g e R d
R i v e r S t
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: ArcGIS Online BING Aerials, ESRI Streetmap North America,Nevada County GIS. Placer County GIS. Map date: May 4, 2012
PC-3
1:28,000
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Truckee RiverRegional Park
PonderosaGolf Course
TruckeeCemetery
Martis Creek LakeRecreation Area
M a r t i s C r e e k
MartisCreekLake
NN EE VV AA DD AA CC OO UU NN TT YY
PP LL AA CC EE RR CC OO UU NN TT YY
Project Boundary
Town of Truckee
County Boundary
Town of Truckee
To wn of Truckee
To Kings Beach
S o u t h e r n P a c i f i c R R
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
JOERGER DRIV
E
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
OMNI
W
A
Y
REYNOLD WA
Y
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
JEFFERY PINE ROAD
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2-3. Aerial View of Project Site
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: ArcGIS Online BING Aerials, ESRI Streetmap North America,Nevada County GIS. Map date: May 14, 2012
PC-3
1:8,000
0 500250
Feet
267
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
267
J
O
E
R
GERR
A
N
C
HDR
Truckee-TahoeAirport
Hotel
FutureHangars
Airport Non-Aviation Use
Apartments
JOERG
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
OMNI
W
A
Y
REYNOLD WA
Y
ESTATES DRIVE
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
JEFFERY PINE ROAD
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
RIVER ST
R
E
E
T
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
Park andSports Fields
Single FamilyResidentialSeniorHousing
Townhomes
Mobile Home Park
Single FamilyResidential
Golf Course
NeighborhoodCommercial
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2-4. Surrounding Land Uses
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: ArcGIS Online BING Aerials, ESRI Streetmap North America,Nevada County GIS. Map date: May 3, 2012
Church
Church
Townhomes
Hotel SelfStorage
Gas StationMini-Mart
TownHallCommercialOffice
1:12,000
0 1,000500
Feet
PC-3
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐22
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
267
J
O
E
RGER R
A
N
C
HDR
Placer C ounty
JOERGE
R
D
R
I
V
E
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
OMNI
W
A
Y
REYNOLD WA
Y
ESTATES DRIVE
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
JEFFERY PINE ROAD
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2-5. General Plan Designations
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soures: Town of Truckee GIS, Nevada County GIS, Placer CountyGIS, ESRI Streetmap North America, Map date: May 14, 2012.1:12,000
0 1,000500
Feet
PC3
Town of Truckee
County Boundary
Town of Truckee Land Use Designations
Residential 1- 2 du/acre
High Density Residential 6 - 12 du/acre
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Planned Community
Plan Area
Open Space Recreation
Resource Conservation/Open Space
Placer County Land Use Designations
General Commercial
Low Density Residential 1 - 5 DU./Ac.
Medium Density Residential 5 - 10 DU./Ac.
Open Space
Professional Office
Public/Quasi-Public
Nevada County Land Use Designations
Business Park
Community Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
Public
267
Nevada County
Town of Truckee
Town of Truckee
Town of Truckee
Placer County
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
2.0-‐24
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2-6. Proposed Zoning Districts
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: SCO Planning Engineering & Surveying PC-3/Joerger RanchProposed Zoning Exhibit B, 5/13/2011. Map date: May 2, 2012.
0 '
2 0 0 '
N
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2-7. Tentative Map
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: SCO Planning Engineering & Surveying PC-3/Joerger RanchTentative Map Exhibit C, 5/13/2011. Map date: May 2, 2012.
0 '
2 0 0 '
N)
A IR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐1
This
section
describes
the
regional
air
quality,
current
attainment
status
of
the
air
basin,
local
sensitive
receptors,
emission
sources,
and
impacts
that
are
likely
t o
r e s u l t
f r o m
p r o j e c t
implementation.
Following
this
discussion
is
an
assessment
of
consistency
of
the
proposed
project
with
applicable
policies
and
local
plans.
The
Greenhouse
Gases
and
Climate
Change
analysis
is
located
in
Section
3.5.
3.1.1
EXISTING
S ETTING
M OUNTAIN
C OUNTIES
A IR
B ASIN
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
located
within
the
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin
(MCAB),
which
contains
Nevada,
Sierra,
Plumas,
Amador,
Calaveras,
Tuolumne,
Mariposa
counties
and
a
portion
of
El
Dorado
and
Placer
County.
California
air
basin
boundary
designations
generally
cover
areas
that
share
similar
meteorological
and
geographic
conditions.
The
area
covered
in
the
MCAB
is
approximately
11,000
square
miles.
Topography
The
MCAB
includes
both
the
western
and
eastern
slopes
of
the
Sierra
Nevada
Mountains
including
much
of
the
Sierra
foothills.
As
such,
the
MCAB
exhibits
large
variations
in
terrain
and
consequently
exhibits
large
variations
in
climate.
The
western
portions
of
the
MCAB
s l o p e s
gradually,
with
deep
river
canyons
running
from
northeast
to
southwest
from
the
crest
of
the
Sierra
Nevada
range
to
the
Sacramento
Valley
floor.
East
of
the
divide,
the
slope
of
the
Sierra
Nevada
is
steeper,
but
river
canyons
are
relatively
shallow.
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
in
the
eastern
portion
of
the
MCAB,
which
is
in
the
higher
elevations.
Temperatures
Winter
temperatures
in
the
mountains
can
be
below
freezing
for
weeks
at
a
time,
and
substantial
depths
of
snow
can
accumulate.
In
the
summer,
temperatures
in
the
mountains
are
generally
mild,
with
daytime
peaks
in
the
70s
to
low
80s
F.
Precipitation
The
topography
of
Nevada
County
s t r o n g l y
a f f e c t s
t e m p e r a t u r e
a n d
r a i n f a l l
d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
T h e
coldest
temperatures
are
found
at
the
highest
elevations.
Average
annual
precipitation
generally
increases
with
altitude,
ranging
over
60
inches
near
the
crest
of
the
Sierra
Nevada
to
about
30
inches
at
the
eastern
end
of
Nevada
County.
Air
Movement
The
prevailing
wind
direction
over
the
Town
of
Truckee
is
westerly.
However,
the
terrain
of
the
region
h a s
a
g r e a t
i n f l u e n c e
o n
l o c a l
w i n d s ,
s o
t h a t
w i d e
v a r i a b i l i t y
i n
w i n d
d i r e c t i o n
c a n
b e
expected.
Afternoon
winds
are
generally
channeled
up
slopes
and
canyons,
while
nighttime
winds
generally
flow
down
slopes
and
canyon.
In
general,
winds
are
stronger
in
the
spring
and
summer
months
and
weaker
in
fall
and
winter
months.
Inversions
form
in
the
mountain
valleys
during
periods
of
calm
winds
and
clear
skies
in
fall
and
winter.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
C RITERIA
P OLLUTANTS
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
(O3)
is
a
photochemical
oxidant
and
the
major
component
of
smog.
While
O3
in
the
upper
atmosphere
is
beneficial
to
life
by
shielding
the
earth
from
harmful
ultraviolet
radiation
from
the
sun,
high
concentrations
of
O3
at
ground
level
are
a
major
health
and
environmental
concern.
O3
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
O3
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
O3
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
O3
not
only
affect
people
with
impaired
respiratory
systems,
such
as
asthmatics,
but
healthy
adults
and
children
as
well.
Exposure
to
O3
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
(O3)
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
O3.
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
(SO2)
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
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐3
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.
PM10
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
PM2.5.
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.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
O DORS
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.
S ENSITIVE
R ECEPTORS
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.
A MBIENT
A IR
Q UALITY
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
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐5
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
(PM10).
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
8-‐Hour
0.09
ppm
(180
μg/m3)
0.070
ppm
(137
μg/m3)
-‐-‐
0.075
ppm
(147
μg/m3)
PM10
24-‐Hour
Annual
50
μg/m3
20
μg/m3
150
μg/m3
-‐-‐
PM2.5
24-‐Hour
Annual
-‐-‐
12
ug/m3
35
μg/m3
15.0
μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
8-‐Hour
1-‐Hour
9.0
ppm
(10mg/m3)
20
ppm
(23
mg/m3)
9
ppm
(10
mg/m3)
35
ppm
(40
mg/m3)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Annual
1-‐Hour
0.030
ppm
(57
μg/m3)
0.18
ppm
(339
μg/m3)
53
ppb
(100
μg/m3)
100
ppb
(188
μg/m3)
Sulfur
Dioxide
24-‐Hour
3-‐Hour
1-‐Hour
0.04
ppm
(105
μg/m3)
-‐-‐
0.25
ppm
(655
μg/m3)
-‐-‐
-‐-‐
75
ppb
(196
μg/m3)
Lead
30-‐Day
Avg
Calendar
Quarter
3-‐Month
Avg.
1.5
μg/m3
-‐-‐
-‐-‐
-‐-‐
1.5
μg/m3
0.15
μg/m3
SOURCE:
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD,
2012
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
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
(O3),
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
(SO2),
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)
PM10
Nonattainment
Unclassified
PM2.5
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)
CAL.
FED.
POLLUTANT
PRIMARY
STANDARD
YEAR
MAX
CONCENTRATION
DAYS
EXCEEDED
STATE/FED
STANDARD
Ozone
(O3)
(1-‐hour)
0.09
ppm
(180
μg/m3)
-‐-‐
2011
2010
2009
0.058
0.065
*
0
/
(N/A)
0
/
(N/A)
*
/
(N/A)
Ozone
(O3)
(8-‐hour)
0.070
ppm
(137
μg/m3)
0.075
ppm
(147
μg/m3)
2011
2010
2009
0.053
0.053
*
0
/
0
0
/
0
*
/
*
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
(24-‐hour)
50
μg/m3
150
μg/m3
Not
collected
at
this
site.
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
(24-‐hour)
-‐-‐
35
μg/m3
2011
2010
2009
68.9
31.7
34.4
(N/A)
/
0
(N/A)
/
0
(N/A)
/
0
SOURCES:
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
(ADAM)
AIR
POLLUTION
SUMMARIES,
2013.
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐7
3.1.2
REGULATORY
S ETTING
F EDERAL
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
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)
a r e
d e t e r m i n e d
b y
t h e
E P A .
T h e
s t a n d a r d s
include
both
primary
a n d
s e c o n d a r y
a m b i e n t
a i r
q u a l i t y
s t a n d a r d s .
P r i m a r y
s t a n d a r d s
a r e
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.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
S TATE
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
CARB
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
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐9
(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.
L OCAL
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
( s a n d ,
g r a v e l ,
r o c k ,
d i r t ,
e t c . ) ,
and
operation
o f
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.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TABLE
3.1-‐4:
CONSISTENCY
ANALYSIS
GENERAL
PLAN
GOALS
AND
POLICIES
CONSISTENT?
ANALYSIS
Conservation
and
Open
Space
Policy
13.1:
Require
multi-‐family
residential,
commercial,
industrial,
subdivisions
and
other
discretionary
development
to
maintain
consistency
with
the
goals,
policies
and
control
strategies
of
the
Town’s
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan.
Yes
The
development
will
be
consistent
with
the
Town’s
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan.
See
the
bottom
of
this
table
for
a
consistency
analysis
of
relevant
policies
from
the
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
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.
Yes
Onsite
roadways
are
proposed
to
be
paved.
Conservation
and
Open
Space
Policy
13.3:
Require
all
construction
projects
to
implement
dust
control
measures
to
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions
due
to
disturbance
of
exposed
top-‐soils.
Such
measures
would
include
watering
of
active
areas
where
disturbance
occurs,
covering
haul
loads,
maintaining
clean
access
roads,
and
cleaning
the
wheels
of
construction
vehicles
accessing
disturbed
areas
of
the
site.
Yes
Mitigation
measures
are
included
that
require
compliance
with
NSAQMD
Rule
226
(Dust
Control
Plan)
and
that
require
the
implementation
of
various
standard
NSAQMD
recommended
measures
specifically
intended
to
reduce
PM10
during
construction.
Conservation
and
Open
Space
Policy
15.5:
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.
Yes
Mitigation
has
been
incorporated
that
requires
incorporation
of
energy-‐saving
features
in
the
design
and
construction
of
onsite
uses.
Town
of
Truckee
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan
Objective
1:
New
development
will
mitigate
to
the
maximum
extent
feasible
its
particulate
matter
emissions
from
solid
fuel
burning
devices
and
re-‐
entrained
road
dust.
Yes
Mitigation
has
been
incorporated
prohibiting
the
inclusion
of
wood-‐burning
appliances
and
requiring
that
onsite
roadways
be
paved.
Objective
5:
Innovative
technologies
for
heating
and
building
energy
conservation
practices
will
be
encouraged
to
reduce
reliance
on
solid
fuel
burning
devices
and
other
heating
devices
which
generate
particulate
matter
emissions.
Yes
Mitigation
has
been
incorporated
that
requires
incorporation
of
energy-‐saving
features
in
the
design
and
construction
of
onsite
uses
and
to
prohibit
the
inclusion
of
wood-‐burning
appliances
SOURCE:
DE
NOVO
PLANNING
GROUP
(2011).
Town
of
Truckee
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan
On
J u l y
1 5 ,
1 9 9 9 ,
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
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐11
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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);
• Expose
sensitive
receptors
to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations;
• Create
objectionable
odors
affecting
a
substantial
number
of
people.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
PM10.
There
is
no
threshold
established
for
PM2.5.
TABLE
3.1-‐5:
OPERATIONAL
EMISSION
THRESHOLDS
ROG
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
Level
A
Threshold
≤24
lbs/day
≤24
lbs/day
79
lbs/day
N/A
Level
B
Threshold
25-‐136
lbs/day
25-‐136
lbs/day
80-‐136
lbs/day
N/A
Level
C
Threshold
≥137
lbs/day
≥137
lbs/day
≥137
lbs/day
N/A
SOURCES:
NORTHERN
SIERRA
AQMD(2011)
The
California
Emission
Estimator
Model
(CalEEMod)TM
(v.2011.1.14)
was
used
to
estimate
project-‐
level
operational
emissions
for
the
proposed
project.
Table
3.1-‐6
s h o w s
t h e
e m i s s i o n s ,
w h i c h
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
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
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
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐13
ROG
NOx
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
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:
CALEEMOD
(V.2011.1.1)
As
shown
in
the
table
above,
operational
ROG,
NOx
and
PM10
e m i s s i o n s
e x c e e d
t h e
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)
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
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
w i t h
t h e
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f
m i t i g a t i o n
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.
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐15
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
S o u r c e
E m i s s i o n s ,
t h e
p r o j e c t
a p p l i c a n t
s h a l l
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.
• 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
S o u r c e
E m i s s i o n s ,
t h e
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.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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
PM10.
Construction
activities
would
result
in
temporary
short-‐term
emissions
associated
with
vehicle
trips
from
construction
w o r k e r s ,
o p e r a t i o n
o f
c o n s t r u c t i o n
e q u i p m e n t ,
a n d
t h e
d u s t
g e n e r a t e d
d u r i n g
construction
activities.
These
temporary
and
short-‐term
emissions
would
generate
additional
ozone
precursors
(ROG
and
NOx)
as
well
as
PM10
and
PM2.5.
Table
3.1-‐8
provides
the
threshold
of
significance
for
ROG,
NOX,
and
PM10.
There
is
no
threshold
established
for
PM2.5.
TABLE
3.1-‐8:
CONSTRUCTION
EMISSION
THRESHOLDS
ROG
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
Level
A
Threshold
≤24
lbs/day
≤24
lbs/day
79
lbs/day
N/A
Level
B
Threshold
25-‐136
lbs/day
25-‐136
lbs/day
80-‐136
lbs/day
N/A
Level
C
Threshold
≥137
lbs/day
≥137
lbs/day
≥137
lbs/day
N/A
SOURCES:
NORTHERN
SIERRA
AQMD(2011)
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐17
The
California
Emission
Estimator
Model
(CalEEMod)TM
( v . 2 0 1 1 . 1 . 1 4 )
w a s
u s e d
t o
e s t i m a t e
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
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
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
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
0.46
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
e m i s s i o n s
e x c e e d
t h e
L e v e l
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.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
g r a d i n g .
A d d i t i o n a l l y ,
t h e
p r i m a r y
c a u s e s
f o r
e x c e e d i n g
t h e
P M10
t h r e s h o l d s
d u r i n g
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
Daily
Emissions)
NOx
Site
Preparation
(Offroad
Vehicles,
On-‐site)
(Unmitigated
Maximum
Daily
Emissions)
74.88
Grading
(Offroad
Vehicles,
On-‐site)
(Unmitigated
Maximum
Daily
Emissions)
90.65
Mitigation
Measure
All
offroad
construction
equipment
must
utilize
“Diesel
Oxidation
Catalyst”,
and
Tiered
Engines
that
are
certified
to
effectively
reduce
NOx
emissions
by
40%.
Mitigation
Effectiveness
40%
Effectiveness.
Approximately
29.95
pounds
per
day
eliminated
during
site
preparation
and
36.26
pounds
per
day
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)
(Unmitigated
Maximum
Daily
Emissions)
44.93
Grading
(Offroad
Vehicles,
On-‐site)
(Unmitigated
Maximum
Daily
Emissions)
54.39
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
t h r e s h o l ds
of
significance.
With
the
implementation
of
the
following
mitigation
measures
the
proposed
project
would
have
a
less
than
significant
impact.
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐19
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
o r
amphibole
forms
must
be
determined.
Additional
mitigations
may
be
needed
on
a
site-‐
specific
basis.
i) Temporary
traffic
control
will
be
provided
during
all
phases
of
the
construction
to
improve
traffic
flow
as
deemed
appropriate
by
local
transportation
agencies
and/or
Caltrans.
j) Construction
activities
should
be
scheduled
to
direct
traffic
flow
to
off-‐peak
hours
as
much
as
practicable.
k) All
inactive
portions
of
the
construction
site
should
be
covered,
seeded,
or
watered
until
a
suitable
cover
is
established.
l)
The
applicant
will
be
responsible
for
applying
Town-‐approved
non-‐toxic
soil
stabilizers
(according
to
manufacturer's
specifications)
to
all
inactive
construction
areas
(previously
graded
areas
which
remain
inactive
for
96
hours)
in
accordance
with
the
local
grading
ordinance.
Acceptable
materials
that
may
be
used
for
chemical
stabilization
of
soils
include
petroleum
resins,
asphaltic
emulsions,
acrylics
and
adhesives
which
do
not
violate
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
or
California
Air
Resource
Board
standards.
m) During
initial
grading,
earth
moving,
or
site
preparation,
larger
projects
may
be
required
to
construct
a
paved
(or
dust
palliative
treated)
apron
at
least
100
feet
in
length
onto
the
paved
road(s).
n) Wheel
washers
will
be
installed
where
project
vehicles
and/or
equipment
enter
and/or
exit
onto
paved
streets
from
unpaved
roads
on
larger
projects.
Vehicles
and/or
equipment
will
be
washed
prior
to
each
trip,
if
necessary.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
mu s t
u t i l i z e
“ Di e s e l
Ox i d a t i o n
C a t a l y s t ” ,
a n d
T i e r e d
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
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐21
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:
C o n t r o l l i n g
a i r
t o x i c
e m i s s i o n s
b e c a m e
a
n a t i o n a l
p r i o r i t y
w i t h
t h e
passage
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
(CAAA)
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
I-‐80,
to
the
Tahoe
area.
While
there
are
some
large
diesel
truck
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐22
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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-‐
Traffic
Roads
•
Avoid
siting
new
sensitive
land
uses
within
500
feet
of
a
freeway,
urban
roads
with
100,000
vehicles/day,
or
rural
roads
with
50,000
vehicles/day.1
Distribution
Centers
•
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
residences
and
other
new
sensitive
land
uses
near
entry
and
exit
points.
Rail
Yards
•
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
approaches.
Ports
•
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
analyses
of
health
risks.
Refineries
•
Avoid
siting
new
sensitive
land
uses
immediately
downwind
of
petroleum
refineries.
Consult
with
local
air
districts
and
other
local
agencies
to
determine
an
appropriate
separation.
Chrome
Platers
•
Avoid
siting
new
sensitive
land
uses
within
1,000
feet
of
a
chrome
plater.
Dry
Cleaners
Using
Perchloro-‐
ethylene
•
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.
•
Do
not
site
new
sensitive
land
uses
in
the
same
building
with
perc
dry
cleaning
operations.
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
•
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.
SOURCES:
AIR
QUALITY
AND
LAND
USE
HANDBOOK:
A
COMMUNITY
HEALTH
PERSPECTIVE”
(CARB
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
AIR
QUALITY
3.1
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐23
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
CARB
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,
F i b e r g l a s s
M a n u f a c t u r i n g ,
T r a n s f e r
S t a t i o n ,
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.
3.1
AIR
Q UALITY
3.1-‐24
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
BIOLOGICAL
R ESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐1
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
disclose
and
analyze
the
potential
impacts
associated
with
the
biological
resources
of
the
project
site
and
general
vicinity.
This
section
is
largely
based
on
field
surveys
and
research
performed
by
biologists
from
Foothill
Associates
(2006)
as
detailed
in
Bio
Constraints
Survey
for
the
PC-‐3
(Joerger
Ranch)
Project
in
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
North
Fork
Associates
(2004)
as
detailed
in
Wetland
Delineation
for
the
69
Acre
Joerger
Ranch
PC-‐3
Project.
Subsequently,
field
surveys
were
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,
3.2.1
E NVIRONMENTAL
S ETTING
R EGIONAL
S ETTING
The
project
site
is
located
within
the
Sierra
Bioregion
and
is
surrounded
by
six
different
bioregions:
Sacramento
Valley,
San
Joaquin
Valley,
and
Bay/Delta
to
the
west,
Modoc
to
the
north,
Mojave
to
the
south,
and
the
Central
Basin
and
Range
in
Nevada
to
the
east.
The
Sierra
Bioregion
is
a
vast
and
rugged
mountainous
area
extending
approximately
380
miles
along
California's
eastern
side
and
largely
contiguous
with
Nevada.
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.
Named
for
the
Sierra
Nevada
mountain
range
it
encompasses,
the
Sierra
Bioregion
i n c l u d e s
forests,
lakes,
and
rivers
that
generate
much
of
the
state's
water
supply.
It
shares
Lake
Tahoe
with
Nevada
and
features
eight
national
forests,
three
national
parks
-‐-‐
Yosemite,
Kings
Canyon
and
Sequoia
-‐-‐
numerous
state
parks,
historical
sites,
wilderness,
special
recreation
and
national
scenic
areas,
and
mountain
peaks.
Due
to
the
relatively
high
elevations
and
its
orientation
in
the
Sierra
Nevada
mountain
range,
temperatures
range
from
cool
and
moderate
in
the
summer
to
repetitively
below
freezing
in
the
winter.
Precipitation
in
Truckee
occurs
as
rainfall
in
the
summer
months
and
as
a
combination
of
rainfall
and
snowfall
in
the
winter
months.
The
majority
of
precipitation
comes
in
the
form
of
snowfall,
which
occurs
in
the
winter
months,
with
some
rainfall
in
the
spring.
Average
minimum
temperature
is
14.5
°F
(January),
while
the
average
maximum
temperature
is
81.6
°F
(July).
Average
annual
precipitation
is
approximately
37
inches.
L OCAL
S ETTING
The
project
site
consists
of
approximately
67
acres
located
in
the
Martis
Valley
approximately
one
mile
southeast
of
Historic
Downtown
Truckee
within
the
jurisdictional
limits
of
the
Town
of
Truckee.
Located
within
Nevada
County,
the
project
site
shares
its
southern
boundary
with
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
contorta)
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).
C ALIFORNIA
W ILDLIFE
H ABITAT
R ELATIONSHIP
S YSTEM
The
California
Wildlife
H a b i t a t
R e l a t i o n s h i ps
( C W H R )
is
a n
i n f o r m a t i o n
s y s t e m
f o r
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.
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐3
Habitat
Descriptions
Barren
h a b i t a t
i s
d e f i n e d
b y
t h e
a b s e n c e
o f
v e g e t a t i o n .
I t
c a n
b e
f o u n d
w i t h
m a n y
d i f f e r e n t
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
Inyo
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
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
b y
J e f f r e y
p i n e ,
l o d g e p o l e
p i n e ,
w h i t e
f i r ,
i n c e n s e-‐cedar,
Douglas-‐fir,
California
black
oak
and
western
juniper.
Undergrowth
typically
includes
o n e
o r
m o r e
o f
t h e
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
a r e
f o u n d.
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.
S PECIAL-‐S TATUS
S PECIES
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.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐5
TABLE
3.2-‐1:
SPECIAL-‐STATUS
SPECIES
DOCUMENTED
WITHIN
5-‐MILE
RADIUS
OF
PROJECT
SITE
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA/
CNPS)
GENERAL
HABITAT
MICRO
HABITAT
BLOOMING
PERIOD
POTENTIAL
TO
OCCUR
IN
PROJECT
AREA
Plants
Common
moonwort
Botrychium
lunaria
-‐-‐/-‐-‐/2.3
Meadows,
subalpine
coniferous
forest,
upper
montane
coniferous
forest.
2760-‐3400M.
August
Some
habitat
qualities
present
along
the
drainages
within
the
project
site.
Not
observed.
Donner
Pass
buckwheat
Eriogonum
umbellatum
var.
torreyanum
-‐-‐/-‐-‐/1B.2
Upper
montane
coniferous
forest,
chaparral,
meadows.
Steep
slopes
and
ridge
tops;
rocky,
volcanic
soils;
usually
in
bare
or
sparsely
vegetated
areas.
1840-‐
2620M.
July-‐
September
Habitat
present
within
the
project
site.
Not
observed.
Plumas
ivesia
Ivesia
sericoleuca
-‐-‐/-‐-‐/1B.2
Great
basin
scrub,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
meadows,
vernal
pools.
Vernally
mesic
areas;
usually
volcanic
substrates.
1450-‐2000M.
May-‐
October
Some
habitat
qualities
present
along
the
drainages
within
the
project
site.
Not
observed.
Santa
Lucia
dwarf
rush
Juncus
luciensis
-‐-‐/-‐-‐/1B.2
Vernal
pools,
meadows,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
chaparral,
Great
Basin
scrub.
Vernal
pools,
ephemeral
drainages,
wet
meadow
habitat
and
streamsides.
300-‐2040M.
April-‐July
Some
habitat
qualities
present
along
the
drainages
within
the
project
site.
Not
observed.
Alder
buckthorn
Rhamnus
alnifolia
-‐-‐/-‐-‐/2.2
Meadows
and
seeps,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
upper
montane
coniferous
forest,
montane
riparian
scrub.
Mesic
sites.
1370-‐2130M.
May-‐July
Some
habitat
qualities
present
along
the
drainages
within
the
project
site.
Not
observed.
Tahoe
yellow
cress
Rorippa
subumbellata
C/E/1B.1
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
meadows,
and
seeps.
Sandy
beaches,
on
lakeside
margins
and
in
riparian
communities;
on
decomposed
granite
sand.
1885-‐
1900(2395)M.
May-‐
September
Some
habitat
qualities
present
along
the
drainages
within
the
project
site.
Not
observed.
marsh
skullcap
Scutellaria
galericulata
-‐-‐/-‐-‐/2.2
Marshes
and
swamps,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
meadows
and
seeps.
Swamps
and
wet
places.
0-‐2100M.
June-‐
September
Some
habitat
qualities
present
along
the
drainages
within
the
project
site.
Not
observed.
Birds
northern
goshawk
Accipiter
gentilis
-‐-‐/SSC
Within,
and
in
the
vicinity
of
coniferous
forest,
uses
old
nests,
and
maintains
alternate
sites.
Usually
nests
on
north
slopes,
near
water.
Red
fir,
lodgepole
pine,
Jeffrey
pine,
and
aspens
are
typically
nest
trees.
Known
to
occur
in
region.
Potential
nesting
and
foraging
habitat
present
within
the
Pinus
jefferyi
on
the
project
site.
None
observed.
yellow
warbler
Dendroica
petechia
brewsteri
-‐-‐/SSC
Riparian
plant
associations,
prefers
willows,
cottonwoods,
aspens,
sycamores,
and
alders
for
nesting
and
foraging.
Also
nests
in
montane
shrubbery
in
open
conifer
forests.
Known
to
occur
in
region.
Primary
habitat
is
not
present
on
the
project
site.
Potential
nesting
habitat
present
within
t h e
Pinus
jefferyi
on
the
project
site.
None
observed.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA/
CNPS)
GENERAL
HABITAT
MICRO
HABITAT
BLOOMING
PERIOD
POTENTIAL
TO
OCCUR
IN
PROJECT
AREA
willow
flycatcher
Empidonax
traillii
-‐-‐/E
Inhabits
extensive
thickets
of
low,
dense
willows
on
edge
of
wet
meadows,
ponds
or
backwaters.
2000-‐8000
FT
elevation
Requires
dense
willow
thickets
for
nesting/roosting.
Low,
exposed
branches
are
used
for
singing
posts/hunting
perches.
Known
to
occur
in
region.
Primary
habitat
is
not
present
on
the
project
site.
Limited
potential
to
occur
on
the
project
site.
None
observed.
Mammals
Sierra
Nevada
mountain
beaver
Aplodontia
rufa
californica
-‐-‐/SSC,
Dense
growth
of
small
deciduous
trees
and
shrubs,
wet
soil
and
abundance
of
forms
in
the
Sierra
Nevada
and
east
slope.
Needs
dense
understory
for
food
and
cover.
burrows
into
soft
soil.
Needs
abundant
supply
of
water.
Known
to
occur
in
region.
Primary
habitat
is
not
present
on
the
project
site.
Limited
potential
to
occur
on
the
project
site.
None
observed.
Sierra
Nevada
snowshoe
hare
Lepus
americanus
tahoensis
-‐-‐/SSC,
Boreal
riparian
areas
in
the
Sierra
Nevada.
Thickets
of
deciduous
trees
in
riparian
areas
and
thickets
of
young
conifers.
Known
to
occur
in
region.
Primary
habitat
is
not
present
on
the
project
site.
Limited
potential
to
occur
on
the
project
site.
None
observed.
Sierra
Nevada
red
fox
Vulpes
vulpes
necator
-‐-‐/T
Found
from
cascades
down
to
the
Sierra
Nevada.
Found
in
a
variety
of
habitats
from
wet
meadows
to
forested
areas.
Use
dense
vegetation
and
rocky
areas
for
cover
and
den
sites.
Prefer
forests
interspersed
w/
meadows
or
alpine
fell
fields.
Known
to
occur
in
region.
Potential
habitat
present
on
the
project
site.
None
observed.
Fish
Lahontan
cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus
clarkii
henshawi
T/-‐-‐
Historically
in
all
accessible
cold
waters
of
the
Lahonton
B a s i n
i n
a
w i d e
v a r i e t y
o f
water
temps
and
conditions.
Cannot
tolerate
presence
of
other
salmonids.
Requires
gravel
riffles
in
streams
spawning.
Primary
habitat
is
not
present
on
the
project
site.
No
potential
to
occur
on
the
project
site.
None
observed.
Notes:
CNPS
=
California
Native
Plant
Society
Status
explanations:
Federal
E
=
endangered
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
T
=
threatened
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
PE
=
proposed
for
endangered
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
PT
=
proposed
for
threatened
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
C
=
candidate
species
for
listing
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
D
=
delisted
from
federal
listing
status.
State
E
=
endangered
under
the
California
Endangered
Species
Act.
T
=
threatened
under
the
California
Endangered
Species
Act.
FP
=
fully
protected
under
the
California
Fish
and
Game
Code.
SSC
=
species
of
special
concern
in
California.
R
=
rare
under
the
California
Endangered
Species
Act
California
Native
Plant
Society
1B
=
rare,
threatened,
or
endangered
in
California
and
elsewhere.
2
=
rare,
threatened,
or
endangered
in
California,
but
more
common
elsewhere.
.1
=
seriously
endangered
in
California
(over
80%
of
occurrences
threatened-high
degree
and
immediacy
of
threat).
.2
=
fairly
endangered
in
California
(20-80%
occurrences
threatened).
.3
=
not
very
endangered
in
California
(<20%
of
occurrences
threatened).
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐7
N OXIOUS
W EEDS
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
S ETTING
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.
F EDERAL
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,
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐9
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
1 9 6 6 .
I t
w a s
e n a c t e d
a s
S e c t i o n
4 ( f )
o f
t h e
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,
a n d
w i t h
t h e
S t a t e s ,
i n
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.
S TATE
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.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
jurisdiction
over
any
proposed
activities
that
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.
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐11
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
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.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
L OCAL
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.
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐13
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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.
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
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
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
l i s t s
t h e
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
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐15
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
l i s t s
t h e
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:
T h i r t y
d a y s
p r i o r
t o
c o m m e n c e m e n t
o f
c o n s t r u c t i o n ,
t h e
p r o j e c t
proponent
shall
retain
a
qualified
biologist
to
perform
a
preconstruction
survey
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
occupied
nests,
including
but
not
limited
to
raptors,
if
construction
occurs
during
the
nesting
season
(March
to
September).
If
it
is
determined
from
the
preconstruction
survey
that
there
are
occupied
nests,
then
the
project
proponent
shall
either
avoid
the
project
area
until
the
nesting
season
is
over,
or
seek
consultation
with
the
appropriate
regulatory
agency
(CDFW
or
USFWS)
for
the
appropriate
permits
and
mitigation
measures.
If
it
is
determined
that
the
project
site
does
not
contain
occupied
nests
then
no
additional
action
is
necessary.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
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
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐17
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
w o o d l a n d s
a n d
m o u n t a i n
m e a d o w s
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
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
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.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
p e r e n n i a l
r h i z o ma t o u s
h e r b
of
t h e
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
i m p a c t
o n
t h i s
s p e c i e s .
N o
m i t i g a t i o n
i s
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
i m p a c t
o n
t h i s
s p e c i e s .
N o
m i t i g a t i o n
i s
necessary.
Santa
Lucia
dwarf
rush
(Juncus
luciensis).
This
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
i m p a c t
o n
t h i s
s p e c i e s .
N o
m i t i g a t i o n
i s
necessary.
Alder
buckthorn
(Rhamnus
alnifolia).
T h i s
s p e c i e s
i s
a
p e r e n n i a l
d e c i d u o u s
s h r u b
o f
t h e
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).
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐19
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
i m p a c t
o n
t h i s
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
i m p a c t
o n
t h i s
s p e c i e s .
N o
m i t i g a t i o n
i s
necessary.
Marsh
skullcap
(Scutellaria
galericulata).
This
species
is
a
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
of
t h e
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
i m p a c t
o n
t h i s
s p e c i e s .
N o
m i t i g a t i o n
i s
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.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
MITIGATION
MEASURES
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐2:
Prior
to
project
approval,
the
project
proponent
shall
incorporate
all
documented
Plumas
ivesia
l o c a t e d
a l o n g
t h e
B r o c k w a y
R o a d
f r o n t a g e
i n t o
t h e
O p e n
S p a c e
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
r e p l a n t i n g
s i t e
w i l l
c o n t a i n
s i m i l a r
s u i t a b l e
h a b i t a t
c o n d i t i o n s ,
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
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐21
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
w o u l d
b e
s u b j e c t
t o
t h e
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
a n d
d e t e r m i n a t i o n
b y
t h e
U S ACE
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
a
fill,
the
project
proponent
shall
secure
an
authorization
of
the
fill
through
the
Section
404
permit
process
and
Town
Minor
Use
Permit.
If
the
USACE
determines
that
the
drainages
are
not
jurisdictional
and
that
the
project
activities
would
not
result
in
a
fill,
no
permits
are
required.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐5:
The
project
proponent
shall
provide
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
a
wetland
determination
from
the
USACE
p r i o r
t o
t h e
i s s u a n c e
o f
a n y
g r a d i n g
o r
b u i l d i n g
p e r m i t s.
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
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐22
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
the
RWQCB
and/or
CDFW
d e t e r m i n e s
t h a t
t h e
p r o j e c t
a c t i v i t i e s
a r e
n o t
s u b j e c t
t o
t h e s e
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
s h a l l
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
fencing
shall
b e
t i g h t l y
s t r u n g
o n
p o s t s
w i t h
a
m a x i m u m
1 0-‐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
3.2-6:
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
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐23
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
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐24
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
R M-‐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.,
n o n-‐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
t o
a
less
than
significant
level.
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐25
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
±69-‐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
t h a t
h a v e
b e e n
o b s e r v e d
o r
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
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐26
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
B IOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.2-‐27
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.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐28
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
T r u c k e e R i v e r
267
267
SCHAFFER DR
J
O
ERGER
R
A
NCH D
R
T r u c k e e - Ta h o e A i r p o r tT r u c k e e - Ta h o e A i r p o r t
JOERGE
R
D
R
I
V
E
GLENSHIRE DRIVE
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
OMNI
W
A
Y
REYNOLD WA
Y
ESTATES DRIVE
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
JEFFERY PINE ROAD
HOP
E
C
O
U
R
T
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
RIVER STR
E
E
T
RIDGE ROAD
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
KAYHOE
C
O
U
R
T
Truckee River
Trout Creek
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 3.2-1: Land Cover Types
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
0 1,250625Feet
1:15,000
Data soure: Multi-source land cover data (v02_2), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2002.Other data sources: Nevada County GIS, ESRI Streetmap North America. Map date: August 12, 2011.
NN EE VV AA DD AA CC OO UU NN TT YY
PP LL AA CC EE RR CC OO UU NN TT YY
Wildlife-Habitat Relationhip (WHR) Name
Annual Grassland
Barren
Bitterbrush
Eastside Pine
Montane Chaparral
Montane Riparian
Sagebrush
Sierran Mixed Conifer
Urban
Water
Project Location
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐30
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 3.2-2: Wetlands and Documented Special Status Species- Within the Project Site
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
±
Data sources: Foothill Associates, 2006; Quad Knopf, 2006; Nevada County GIS; ESRI Streetmap North America. Map date: July 22, 2013
Ephemeral Stream
Intermittent Stream
Plumas Ivesia
Project Location
0 250 500125Feet
1:6,000
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
3.2-‐32
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
Brockway Rd
D o n n e r P a s s R d
Project Location
Truckee-TahoeAirport
Tro u t C r e e k
A l d er Cr e e k
N o r t h F o r k P r o s s e r C r e e k
T r u c k e e R i v e r
Truc
k
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
Prosser Creek
East M a r t i s Creek
M a r t i s C r e e k W e s t M a r t i s C
r
e
e
k
M
i
d
d
l
e
M
a
r
t
i
s
C
r
e
e
k
5-mile Radius
Martis Creek LakeRecreation AreaTruckee RiverRegional Park
Tahoe DonnerGolf Club
LahontanGolf Club
Northstar at TahoeGolf Course
PonderosaGolf Course
267
89
2889
89
80
80
2
3 5
1
6
11
13
12
6
6 6
9
10 7
7
14
49
9
4
4
7
7
7
7
10
7
13
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
7 13 7
7
7 7
Donner LakeDonner Lake
Boca ReservoirBoca Reservoir
Prosser Creek ReservoirProsser Creek Reservoir
Dry LakeDry Lake
MartisMartisCreekCreekLakeLake
Gooseneck LakeGooseneck Lake
Donner Memorial State ParkDonner Memorial State Park
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 3.2-3 : Special Status Specieswithin 5-mile Radius
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
0 1 20.5 Miles
1:100,000
Data soure: California Department of Fish and Game CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database)release date August 2, 2011. Base data from ESRI StreetMap North America. Map date: August 12, 2011.
1: alder buckthorn
2: common moonwort
3: Donner Pass buckwheat
4: Lahontan cutthroat trout
5: marsh skullcap
6: northern goshawk
7: Plumas ivesia
8: Santa Lucia dwarf rush
9: Sierra Nevada mountain beaver
10: Sierra Nevada red fox
11: Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare
12: Tahoe yellow cress
13: willow flycatcher
14: yellow warbler
*
***
Area of multiple species occurrence*
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐1
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
S ETTING
P REHISTORIC/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.
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
H ISTORY
OF
T RUCKEE
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
t r a p p e r s
a n d
e a r l y
e x p l o r e r s
m u s t
h a v e
b e e n
t h e
f i r s t
Euroamericans
to
find
the
natural
pass
through
the
Sierra
Nevada
Mountains
now
called
Donner
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
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐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
Donner
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
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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,
d e s p i t e
s e v e r a l
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
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐5
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
addition
to
winter
sports,
the
natural
scenery
around
Truckee
is
spectacular.
Of
course,
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.
K NOWN
C ULTURAL
R ESOURCES
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
½
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
441
Archaeological
Records
Search
&
Reconnaissance
Survey,
Martis
Valley
Estates
No.
4,
Truckee,
CA
Archaeological
Planning
1979
No
recorded
sites.
630
An
Archaeological
Survey
for
the
Martis
Valley
Meadows,
Placer
&
Nevada
Counties,
CA
Derr.
Eleanor
1981
No
recorded
sites.
852
First
Addendum:
Archaeological
Survey
Report
for
the
Proposed
California
Highway
Patrol
Commercial
Inspection
&
Scale
Facility.
Bass,
Henry
1982
NEV-‐460/H
112
A
Cultural
Resource
Reconnaissance
of
the
Martis
Valley
Mini-‐Storage
Project,
Gallagher
Development,
LTD
Lindström,
Susan
984
P-‐29-‐44
P-‐29-‐45-‐
H
394
Negative
Archaeological
Survey
Report
for
Proposal
Widening
&
Addition
of
a
Left-‐
turn
Lane
to
Route
267
at
Truckee
Airport,
East
of
Truckee,
Placer
County
Wiant,
W.
1984
No
recorded
sites.
3416
Positive
Archaeological
Survey
Report
for
the
Proposed
Truckee
Bypass
Project,
Nevada
Co.
Bass,
Henry
1989
NEV-‐531/H
NEV-‐
532-‐H
3284
Archaeological
Survey
of
Grapevine
Gulch
VMP
RX#
4-‐019-‐AEU
Gilbert,
C.
1991
No
recorded
sites.
3473
Archaeological
Survey
of
the
Donner
Lake
Shoreline
&
Adjacent
Areas
Within
Donner
Memorial
State
Park
Woodward,
J.
1991
NEV-‐13/H
NEV-‐
826
NEV-‐827-‐H
NEV-‐828-‐H
3481
Cultural
Resources
Survey
for
a
120
kV
Randolph,
J.
&
T.
1991
NEV-‐848-‐H
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
LIBRARY
NUMBER
PROJECT
NAME
AUTHOR
DATE
FINDINGS
Transmission
Line
Between
Squaw
Valley
&
Truckee,
Nevada
&
Placer
Counties
Burke
No
#
A
Cultural
Resources
Surface
Survey
of
the
Sierra
Meadow
Townhouses
Project,
A
One
Acre
Parcel
Near
Truckee
Lindström,
Susan
1991
No
recorded
sites.
3426
Confidential
Archaeological
&
Historical
Resources
Survey
&
Impact
Assessment
Smith,
D.
1992
No
recorded
sites.
3411
Cultural
Resources
Survey
of
a
10
Acre
Parcel
in
Nevada
County,
CA
Fryman,
L.
1993
P-‐29-‐1104-‐H
P-‐
29-‐1105-‐H
P-‐29-‐
1106
3438
Cultural
Resources
Inventory
of
The
Truckee
Pines
Apartments
Project,
Nevada
County
Maniery,
J.
1994
NEV-‐573
2048
Martis
Valley
Well
Project
Heritage
Resource
Inventory,
Truckee
Lindström,
Susan
1999
No
recorded
sites.
1944
Archaeological
Survey,
Zerweck
Module
Home/Subdivision
Project,
c.
30
ac.,
Nevada
&
Placer
Counties
Jensen,
P.
1999
No
recorded
sites.
2655
Second
Supplemental
Historic
Property
Survey
Report
&
Finding
of
Effect
for
the
Proposed
Truckee
Bypass
Project,
Nevada
County
Offerman,
J.
1999
No
recorded
sites.
3484
Archaeological
Inventory
Survey
Tahoe-‐
Truckee
Sanitation
District
Expansion
Project,
c.
500
acres
near
Truckee
Airport,
Nevada
County
Jensen,
P.
1999
No
recorded
sites.
3595
Sierra
Pines
Apartment
Homes
Project
Lindström,
Susan
1999
P-‐29-‐1171
(NEV-‐
839H)
3483
Archaeological
Survey
Percin
Development
Project,
c.
5
acres,
Nevada
&
Placer
Counties
Jensen,
P.
2000
No
recorded
sites.
2559
Sierra
Bible
Church
Project,
Heritage
Resource
Inventory,
Truckee
Lindström,
Susan
2000
No
recorded
sites,
one
high
cut
stump
isolate
2560
Mountain
Meadows
Townhomes
Project
Heritage
Resource
Inventory,
Truckee
Lindström,
Susan
2000
No
recorded
sites.
2438
A
Cultural
Resources
Inventory
Survey
for
a
Proposed
Sports
Complex,
Truckee
Donner
Recreation
&
Park
District,
Nevada
County
Hutchins,
J.
2000
NEV-‐642-‐H
145
Martis
Valley
Well
No.
1
Pump
Station
&
Easement
Project
Lindström,
Susan
2001
P-‐29-‐1166-‐H,
P-‐
29-‐1167-‐H,
P-‐29-‐
1168-‐H
575
Archaeological
Survey,
Riverview
Townhomes,
Truckee
Jensen,
P.
2001
No
recorded
sites.
3415
Community
Sports
Park
THP
Banka,
W.
2001
P-‐29-‐1109
3604
Ponderosa
Pines
Project
Lindström,
Susan
2001
No
recorded
sites.
2445
Timber
Management
Plan
Cultural
Resources
Report
Wayland,
B.
2002
No
recorded
sites.
No
#
Survey
of
line
sections
11
&
12,
Placer,
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
½
mile
radius
of
the
project
location.
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐7
TABLE
3.3-‐2:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES
WITHIN
THE
PROJECT’S
VICINITY
SITE
#
LIBRARY
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
P-‐29-‐1105-‐H
3411
Isolated
tin
can
scatter
(#10),
sanitary
&
tobacco,
road
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
P-‐29-‐1110
Not
provided
Lindström
Early
stage
basalt
biface
NS
P-‐29-‐1166-‐H
145
Surface
charcoal
oven
NE*
P-‐29-‐1167-‐H
145
Surface
charcoal
oven
NE
P-‐29-‐1168-‐H
145
Historic
two-‐track
road
with
dump
feature
NE
P-‐29-‐1189-‐H
3640,
not
provided,
Lindström
Old
Brockway
Road
NS
P-‐29-‐87
NEV-‐29
No
report
Elsasser
Reported
in
1954,
flaked
stone
scatter
(basalt)
with
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
unit
was
used
to
record
the
positions
of
cultural
resources
encountered
during
the
survey.
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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).
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐9
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).
P ALEONTOLOGICAL
R ESOURCES
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
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
S ETTING
F EDERAL
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
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐11
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
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.
S TATE
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
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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,
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐13
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.
L OCAL
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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.
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
½
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
½
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).
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐15
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
not
provided
information
regarding
sacred
lands
or
Native
American
tribe
contacts.
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).
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
s i t e s
a r e
r e c o m m e n d e d
a s
n o n-‐
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
i m p a c t
t o
u n k n o w n
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
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
3.3
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.3-‐17
resources
on
the
project
site.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
project
site
contains
s u b s u r f a c e
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:
I f
p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l
r e s o u r c e s
a r e
d i s c o v e r e d
d u r i n g
t h e
c o u r s e
o f
construction,
work
shall
be
halted
immediately
within
50
meters
(165
feet)
of
the
discovery,
the
Town
of
Truckee
shall
be
notified,
and
a
qualified
paleontologist
shall
be
retained
to
determine
the
significance
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.
3.3
CULTURAL
R ESOURCES
3.3-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4-‐1
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
S ETTING
R EGIONAL
G EOLOGY
The
project
site
is
located
in
the
Martis
Valley
approximately
one
mile
southeast
of
Historic
Downtown
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.
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
S EISMIC
H AZARDS
Faults
Faults
are
classified
a s
H i s t o r i c ,
H o l o c e n e ,
L a t e
Q u a t e r n a r y ,
Q u a t e r n a r y ,
a n d
P r e-‐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.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4-‐3
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
MAGNITUDE
Modified
Mercalli
Intensities
Effects
2
I-‐II
Usually
detected
only
by
instruments
3
III
Felt
indoors
4
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
8+
X-‐XI
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
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
( g r e a t e r
t h a n
5 0
f e e t ),
liquefaction
potential
is
considered
low
on
the
project
site
and
immediate
vicinity
(Blackburn
Consulting,
2003).
Landslide
Landslide
potential
is
influenced
b y
p h y s i c a l
f a c t o r s ,
s u c h
a s
s l o p e ,
s o i l ,
v e g e t a t i o n ,
a n d
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.
O THER
G EOLOGIC
H AZARDS
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.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4-‐5
• 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
REPRESENTATIVE
VALUE
MAP
SYMBOL
AND
SOIL
NAME
KF
%
SAND
%
SILT
%
CLAY
EUB—Euer-‐Martis
variant
complex,
2
to
5
percent
slopes
Euer
0.28
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:
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
"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
(INCHES)
LINEAR
EXTENSIBILITY
(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.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4-‐7
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.
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4.2
REGULATORY
S ETTING
F EDERAL
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
Building
Code
(UBC)
is
to
provide
minimum
standards
to
preserve
the
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.
S TATE
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.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4-‐9
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).
L OCAL
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.
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4-‐11
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.I.)
with
appropriate
fees
and
a
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(SWPPP)
to
the
RWQCB.
The
SWPPP
shall
include
non-‐structural
and
structural
BMPs
such
as:
minimizing
disturbance,
preserving
natural
vegetation,
good
housekeeping
(i.e.
daily
clean-‐up),
mulch,
grass,
stockpile
covers,
silt
fences,
inlet
protection,
stabilized
construction
entrances,
and
sediment
traps.
Mitigation
Measure
3.4-‐2:
During
construction,
the
project
proponent
shall
ensure
that
control
measures
and
practices
are
implemented,
properly
installed,
and
maintained.
The
project
proponent
shall
develop
and
implement
record
keeping
and
data
management
procedures
for
evaluation
of
SWPPP
compliance
and
reporting.
The
Town
of
Truckee
shall
inspect
the
construction
site
to
verify
that
SWPPPs
are
being
implemented.
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
( N R C S ,
2 0 1 1 ).
According
to
the
NRCS
(2011),
a
s m a l l
a r e a
i n
t h e
n o r t h e r n
p o r t i o n
a n d
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
d a m a g e
r o a d s
a n d
o t h e r
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.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.4-‐13
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
infrastructure,
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
a
less-‐than-‐significant
i m p a c t
f r o m
t h e s e
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.
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
LakeTahoe
WashoeLake
StampedeRes.
80
80
50
395
50
50
395
395
50
395
395
50
49
88
44770
89
193
20
445
341
4
208
431
207
446
174
338
209
267
89
89
89
70
70
89
89
49
49
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 3.4-1: Faults Map
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
1:900,000
Data soures: Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy; California Geological Survey,ESRI Streetmap North America, ESRI Shaded Relief Map Service. Map date: August 17, 2011.
Project Location
Quaternary Faults of the Western U.S.
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones (California)
267
0 5 10 152.5 Miles
Donner LakeDonner Lake
Prosser Creek ReservoirProsser Creek Reservoir
Boca ReservoirBoca Reservoir
Dry LakeDry LakeMartisMartisCreekCreekLakeLake
T r u c k e e R i v e r
A l d er Cr e e k
M a r t i s C r e e k
Trout Creek
C o l d C r e e k
Deep Creek
Juniper
C
reek
Middle Ma r t i s C r e e k
East Martis C r e e k
89
80
26789
80
5-mileradius
5-mile radius(see inset)
50-mile radius
LakeDavis
PyramidLake
Reno
Carson City
NN
EE
VVAA
DD
AA
CC
AALLIIFF
OO
RR
NNIIAA
C C
A A
L L
I I
F F
O O
R R
N N
I I
A A
N N
E E
V V
A A
D D
A A
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
J
O
E
R
G
ER RANCH
D
R
MARTIS DRIVE
J O E R G E R D R I V E
267
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
REYNOLD WA
Y
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
HOP
E
C
O
U
R
T
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
M E BM E B
E U BE U B
F U EF U E
E V BE V B
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 3.4-2: Soils Map
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
1:8,400
Data soure: USDA National Resource Conservation Service, Soil DataMart. Other data sources: Nevada County GIS, ESRI Streetmap North America. Map date: August 17, 2011.
Project Location
NRCS Soils
EUB:Euer-Martis variant complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes
EVB:Inville-Martis variant complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes
FUE:Kyburz-Trojan complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes
MEB:Martis-Euer variant complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes
267
Truckee-Tahoe Airport
0 400 800200Feet
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
3.4-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐1
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
G REENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
C HANGE
G REENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
C HANGE
L INKAGES
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
(H2O),
carbon
dioxide
(CO2),
methane
(CH4),
nitrous
oxide
(N2O),
and
ozone
(O3).
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
N2O
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)1.
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
(CH4),
ozone
(O3),
water
vapor,
nitrous
oxide
(N2O),
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/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_
physical_science_basis.htm
2 California
Air
Resources
Board.
2012.
“Greenhouse
Gas
Inventory
Data,
2000-‐2009.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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).
E FFECTS
OF
G LOBAL
C LIMATE
C HANGE
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
21st
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/climate_action_team/reports/
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐3
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
90oF
in
Los
Angeles
and
95oF
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
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐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.
E NERGY
C ONSUMPTION
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
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
E MISSIONS
I NVENTORY
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
–
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
a c c o u n t s
f o r
t h e
h i g h e s t
percentage
o f
G H G
e m i s s i o n s
(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,
C a l i f o r n i a
e m i t t e d
a p p r o ximately
480
million
metric
tons
of
CO2e
emissions
in
2004.
This
large
number
is
due
primarily
to
the
sheer
size
of
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐7
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
G H G
e m i s s i o n
i n v e n t o r y
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
S ETTING
F EDERAL
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
manufacturers’
compliance
with
the
fuel
economy
standards.
The
EPA
calculates
a
CAFE
value
for
each
manufacturer
based
on
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐9
S TATE
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
S-‐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.
In
2006,
this
goal
was
further
reinforced
with
the
passage
of
Assembly
Bill
32
(AB
32),
the
Global
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.
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐11
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.
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
L OCAL
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.
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐13
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
amendments
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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
b e
related
to
compliance
with
AB
32.
In
accordance
with
NSAQMD
recommendations
(per.
comm.
Sam
Longmire
4/17/13),
the
Town
of
Truckee,
as
lead
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.
I t
s h o u l d
b e
n o t e d
t h a t
t h e
p r o p o s e d
p r o j e c t
wo u l d
b e
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.
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
cumulatively
considerable
incremental
contribution
to
a
significant
cumulative
macro-‐scale
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
(N2O),
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)TM
( v . 2 0 1 1 . 1 . 1 4 ) .
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.
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐15
TABLE
3.5-‐1:
CONSTRUCTION
GHG
EMISSIONS
(UNMITIGATED
M ETRIC
TONS/YR)
Bio-
CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
2014
0.00
742.00
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
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:
CALEEMOD
(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
M T C O2e
with
mitigation
incorporated.
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TABLE
3.5-‐2:
OPERATIONAL
GHG
EMISSIONS
2020
(MITIGATED
METRIC
TONS/YR)
Bio-
CO2
NBio-
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)
Bio-
CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Area
43.38
55.36
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
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.
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
3.5
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.5-‐17
It
should
be
noted
that
although
a
reduction
related
to
such
attributes
would
occur
for
every
development
project,
CalEEMod
takes
into
consideration
how
much
of
each
attribute
is
applied
for
each
specific
project
based
on
the
size
of
the
project
and
associated
land
uses.
In
addition,
as
stated
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
i n
Section
3.1
(Air
Quality)
would
subsequently
result
in
an
associated
reduction
in
CO2
e m i s s i o n s .
F o r
e x a m p l e ,
M i t i g a t i o n
M e a s u r e
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
3.5
GREENHOUSE
G ASES
AND
C LIMATE
CHANGE
3.5-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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.
HAZARDS
AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐1
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
I
Environmental
Site
Assessment
(ESA)
Joerger
Ranch
PC-‐3
(Blackburn
and
Associates
2 0 0 3 ) ,
PC-‐3/Joerger
Ranch
Phase
1
Environmental
Site
Assessment
Peer-‐Review
( Q u a d
K n o p f
2 0 0 6 ) ,
a
r e v i e w
o f
t h e
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
C a l i f o r n i a
D e p a r t m e n t
o f
R e s o u r c e s
R e c y c l i n g
a n d
R e c o v e r y ,
S o l i d
W a s t e
Information
System
(SWIS)
(2013).
3.6.1
ENVIRONMENTAL
S ETTING
P HYSICAL
S ETTING
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.
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.
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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.
P HASE
I
E NVIRONMENTAL
S ITE
A SSESSMENT
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.
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐3
• 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.
F IRE
H AZARDS
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,
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
A IRPORT
O PERATIONS
H AZARDS
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:
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐5
• Almost
half
of
all
accidents
occur
on
airport
property.
• An
additional
15
percent
of
aircraft
accidents
occur
outside
airport
property
but
within
one
mile
of
the
airport
runway(s).
• A
substantial
concentration
of
aircraft
accidents
occur
within
the
initial
climb-‐out
and
the
final
approach
sectors
of
airports.
Further
refinement
of
this
data
points
to
an
increased
risk
near
the
ends
of
the
runway
and
under
the
airport
traffic
pattern.
In
order
to
reduce
these
risks,
especially
those
related
to
land
use
in
these
area,
safety
restriction
areas
are
established
around
airports
which
restrict
certain
land
uses
in
the
vicinity
of
the
airport.
Typically,
three
types
of
areas
are
established.
The
clear
zone
is
an
area
at
each
end
of
the
runway(s)
within
200
feet
of
the
runway
threshold.
The
clear
zone
is
the
most
restrictive
safety
area.
The
approach/departure
zone
extends
beyond
the
clear
zone
and
is
aligned
with
the
runway
as
well.
The
overflight
zone
represents
the
area
commonly
overflown
by
aircraft
utilizing
the
airport.
The
overflight
zone
surrounds
the
airport
and
is
the
least
restrictive
safety
area.
Imaginary
surfaces
and
safety
restriction
areas
are
established
as
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Land
Use
Plan
(CLUP)
or
Airport
Land
Use
Plan
(ALUP)
for
the
airport.
Prepared
and
approved
by
the
local
Airport
Land
Use
Commission,
the
CLUP
or
ALUP
establishes
guidelines
for
development
in
the
vicinity
of
the
airport
in
the
areas
of
noise
impacts,
safety
hazards,
and
height
restriction.
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
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
(SOI).
The
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Map
designates
the
project
site
as
land
use
zones
B1,
B2
and
D,
as
shown
in
Figure
3.6-‐1.
The
residential
portion
of
the
project
is
located
exclusively
within
land
use
zone
D,
which
is
considered
a
low
risk.
The
density
at
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.
3.6.2
REGULATORY
S ETTING
F EDERAL
The
primary
federal
agencies
that
are
responsible
for
overseeing
regulations
and
policies
regarding
hazardous
materials
are
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA),
Department
of
Labor
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(OSHA),
and
the
Department
of
Transportation
(DOT).
Several
laws
governing
the
transport,
storage,
and
use
of
hazardous
materials
are
administered
by
these
agencies
as
well
as
oversight
for
contaminated
sites
cleanup.
Federal
laws
and
regulations
that
are
applicable
to
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
are
presented
below.
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐7
S TATE
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
materi al s
management.
I n
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
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
D ATABASES
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.
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐9
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
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
(FTTS)
tracks
administrative
cases
and
pesticide
enforcement
actions/compliance
activities
related
to
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
&
R o d e n t i c i d e
A c t
(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.
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐11
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
i n c l u d e s
r e c o r d s
o f
c o a l
g a s
p l a n t s
( m a n u f a c t u r e d
g a s
p l a n t s ) ,
w h i c h
w e r e
i n
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.
L OCAL
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.
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
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
e s t a b l i s h e d
b y
t h e
N a t i o n a l
Incident
Management
System
(NIMS).
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐13
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
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ,
f a c i l i t i e s ,
a n d
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
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
Consistent
with
Appendix
G
of
the
CEQA
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.
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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,
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐15
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-‐1:
Prior
to
bringing
hazardous
material
onsite,
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
shall
submit
a
Hazardous
Materials
Business
Plan
(HMBP)
to
Nevada
County
Environmental
Health
Division
(CUPA)
for
review
and
approval.
If
the
inventory
of
reportable
hazardous
materials
include
fuels
stored
in
Aboveground
Storage
Tanks
(AST)
that
exceed
1,320
gallons
(in
containers
>55
gallons)
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
must
file
documents
required
by
the
California
Aboveground
Storage
Tank
Act
(APSA).
If
one
of
the
AST’s
is
larger
than
20,000
gallons
or
the
accumulative
storage
capacity
exceeds
100,000
gallons
a
Spill
Prevention
and
Countermeasures
Plan
(SPCC)
will
be
required.
If
during
the
construction
process
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
or
his
subcontractors
generates
hazardous
waste,
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
must
register
with
the
CUPA
as
a
generator
of
hazardous
waste,
obtain
an
EPA
ID#
and
accumulate,
ship
and
dispose
of
the
hazardous
waste
per
Health
and
Safety
Code
Ch.
6.5.
(California
Hazardous
Waste
Control
Law).
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
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐17
• 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
B1,
B2
and
D,
as
shown
in
Figure
3.6-‐1.
Table
3.6-‐1
presents
the
applicable
airport
compatibility
zones.
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TABLE
3.6-‐1:
AIRPORT
COMPATIBILITY
ZONES
ZONE
NOISE
AND
OVERFLIGHT
FACTORS
SAFETY
AND
AIRSPACE
PROTECTION
FACTORS
B1
(Inner
Approach
/
Departure
Zone)
Noise
Impact:
High
• Encompasses
peak
season
60-‐
CNEL
contour
• Single-‐event
noise
sufficient
to
disrupt
wide
range
of
land
use
activities
including
indoors
if
windows
open
Risk
Level:
High
• Encompasses
areas
overflown
by
aircraft
at
low
altitudes—
typically
only
200
to
400
feet
above
the
runway
elevation.
• Some
10%
to
20%
of
off-‐
runway
general
aviation
accidents
near
airports
take
place
here
• Object
heights
restricted
to
as
little
as
50
feet
B2
(Adjacent
to
Runway)
Noise
Impact:
Moderate
to
High
• Partly
within
peak
season
60-‐
CNEL
contour
• Exposed
to
loud
single-‐event
noise
from
takeoffs
and
jet
thrust-‐reverse
on
landing;
also
from
pre-‐flight
run-‐ups
Risk
Level:
Low
to
Moderate
• Area
not
normally
overflown
by
aircraft;
primary
risk
is
with
aircraft
(especially
twins)
losing
directional
control
on
takeoff
• 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
• Noise
more
of
a
concern
with
respect
to
individual
loud
events
than
with
cumulative
noise
contours
• Portions
of
t h e
p e a k
s e a s o n ,
average
day
55-‐CNEL
contour
extend
into
this
zone
• Residential
density
criteria
for
this
zone
provide
two
options
on
the
basis
that
noise
concerns
can
be
minimized
either
by
limiting
the
number
of
dwelling
units
in
affected
areas
or
by
allowing
high-‐density
development
which
tends
to
have
comparatively
high
ambient
noise
levels
Risk
Level:
Low
• About
20%
to
30%
of
general
aviation
accidents
take
place
in
this
zone,
but
the
large
area
en-‐compassed
means
a
low
likelihood
of
accident
occurrence
in
any
given
location
• 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
generally
100
feet
above
runway
elevation
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
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.6-‐19
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
n o
d o c u m e n t e d
p r i v a t e
a i r s t r i p s
w i t h i n
c l o s e
p r o x i m i t y
t o
t h e
p r o j e c t
s i t e .
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.
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
H AZARDOUS
M ATERIALS
3.6-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.,
g r a s s l a n d
a n d
s a g e b r u s h)
t h a t
w h e n
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
L R A s
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
f i r e
f l o w
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.”
JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3)
Figure 3.6-1 - Airport Safety Map
PC-3
0 2000'4000'
Feet
¯
Data source: Foothill Airport Land Use Commission, Truckee Tahoe AirportLand Use Compatibility Plan (December 2004). Map date: April 25, 2012
Zone A
Zone B1
Zone B2
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Airport Influence Area Boundary
Height Review Overlay Zonek
Limits of FAR Part 77 Surfaces
Truckee Town Limits
Truckee Sphere of Influence
Airport Property Line
Nevada/Placer County Line
Federal Lands (USFS & ACE)
Boundary Lines
Compatability Zones
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐1
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
l e t t e r s
f r o m
t h e
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)
W a t e r
Q u a l i t y
o r d e r s
a n d
l i s t i n g s ,
S t a t e
D i v i s i o n
o f
S a f e t y
o f
D a m s
a n d
E m e r g e n c y
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
S ETTING
R EGIONAL
H YDROLOGY
AND
D RAINAGE
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
½
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.
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
L OCAL
H YDROLOGY
AND
D RAINAGE
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).
E XISTING
S ITE
D RAINAGE
The
project
site
is
located
upland
to
the
south
of
the
Truckee
River.
It
is
about
½
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
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐3
ephemeral
drainage
courses
that
are
fed
from
the
south
by
culverts
passing
underneath
Brockway
Road
and
State
Route
267.
Figure
3.7-‐3
d e p i c t s
t h e
l o c a t i o n
a n d
s i z e s
o f
e x i s t i n g
d r a i n
p i p e s
crossing
roadways
and
highways
within
and
adjacent
to
the
project
site
and
general
directions
of
drainage
flow.
F LOODING
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.
D AMS
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
½
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
½
miles
upstream
to
the
west
of
the
project
site
on
Donner
Creek,
and
Donner
Creek
discharges
to
the
Truckee
River
about
2
½
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.
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TABLE
3.7-‐1:
DAMS
DISCHARGING
TO
THE
TRUCKEE
RIVER
UPSTREAM
OF
THE
PC-‐3
SPECIFIC
PLAN
NAME
OF
DAM
STREAM
OWNER
CAPACITY
(ACRE-FEET)
RESERVOIR
AREA
(ACRES)
TYPE
OF
STRUCTURE
LENGTH
(FEET)
HEIGHT
(FEET)
Lake
Tahoe
Truckee
River
U.S.
Bureau
of
Reclamation
732,000
20,000
Gravity
109
14
Donner
Lake
Donner
Creek
Truckee
Meadows
Water
Authority
10,300
960
Slab
and
Buttress
45
16
SOURCE:
DSOD,
2011
There
are
no
dams
upstream
of
the
project
site
that
discharge
to
the
project
site.
G ROUNDWATER
AND
S OILS
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.
W ATER
Q UALITY
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.
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐5
TABLE
3.7-‐2:
CWA
LISTED
SECTION
303(D)
WATER
QUALITY
LIMITED
SEGMENTS
DOWNSTREAM
OF
PROJECT
SITE
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
90th
percentile
that
is
less
than
or
equal
to
25
milligrams
per
liter
within
20
years.
3.7.2
REGULATORY
S ETTING
F EDERAL
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
WATER
BODY
POLLUTANT/STRESSOR
POTENTIAL
SOURCES
TMDL
COMPLETION
Truckee
River
Sedimentation,
Siltation
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
2006
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐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
m o n i t o r i n g
a n d
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.
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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,
1 9 9 9 ,
t h e
U n i t e d
S t a t e s
E n v i r o n me n t a l
P r o t e c t i o n
A g e n c y
( U S E P A )
c i r c u l a t e d
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.
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐9
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;
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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
fishery
areas”;
• Specify
type
of
and
conditions
for
non-‐prohibited
discharges;
• Provide
for
individual
s t a t e
o r
i n t e r s t a t e
c o m p a c t
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
o f
g e n e r a l
p e r m i t
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
a c r e a g e
i n v o l v e d
a n d
t h e
p u r p o s e
o f
t h e
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
(BMPs).
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐11
S TATE
California
Water
Code
(Porter-Cologne
Water
Quality
Control
Act)
In
1969,
the
California
Legislature
enacted
the
Porter-‐Cologne
Water
Quality
Control
Act
t o
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.
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
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
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.
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐13
L OCAL
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
18.30,
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;
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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
drainages,
and
groundwater
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,
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐15
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐17
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
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
i m p a c t
o n
c o n s t r u c t i o n
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
Stormwater
Quality
Association.
The
Construction
Handbook
provides
general
guidance
for
selecting
and
implementing
best
management
practices
(BMPs)
that
will
eliminate
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
construction
sites,
and
the
SWPPP
will
document
the
selection
and
implementation
of
BMPs
for
the
particular
construction
projects
on
the
site.
The
site-‐specific
SWPPP
must
describe
the
site,
as
well
as
the
proposed
erosion
and
sediment
controls
(BMPs
for
water
quality),
the
means
of
waste
disposal,
implementation
of
approved
local
plans,
control
measures
of
post-‐construction
sediment
and
erosion,
monitoring
and
maintenance
responsibilities,
and
non-‐stormwater
management
controls.
Dewatering,
if
needed,
shall
be
done
in
a
manner
so
as
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
pollutants,
including
earthen
materials,
from
the
site.
The
project
applicant
shall
submit
the
SWPPP
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
the
Lahontan
RWQCB
for
review
and
approval.
The
project
applicant
shall
require
all
construction
contractors
to
retain
a
copy
of
the
approved
SWPPP
on
the
construction
site.
BMPs
identified
in
the
SWPPP
shall
be
utilized
in
all
project
site
development
activities.
Implementation
of
appropriate,
effective
water
quality
controls
will
ensure
that
stormwater
discharges
that
will
result
with
implementation
of
the
project
are
in
compliance
with
all
current
requirements
of
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-‐2:
Grading
activities
shall
be
prohibited
during
the
winter
months,
unless
approved
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.C.4
and
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
Exposed
graded
areas
shall
be
protected
during
the
winter
months
using
appropriate
methods.
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐19
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
90th
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
–
D r a i n a g e
a n d
S t o r m w a t e r
R u n o f f )
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
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
c o u l d
i n t r o d u c e
s e d i m e n t s
a n d
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
i m p a c t
o n
l o n g-‐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
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐21
degradation,
etc.
Storm
water
drainage
management,
BMPs,
and
water
quality
control
features
shall
be
identified
for
construction
staging
areas,
building
sites
and
site
improvements.
Permanent
water
quality
control
features,
including
LID
facilities,
described
in
the
report
shall
demonstrate
(at
minimum)
that
the
water
quality
controls
are
adequate
to
prevent
any
increase
in
sediment
or
other
pollutants
to
downslope
areas
over
pre-‐
development
conditions.
• Prior
to
the
design
of
new
detention/retention
basins
that
will
serve
the
project
site,
soil
borings
shall
be
taken
at
representative
locations
to
analyze
the
subsurface
soils
that
are
present
and
the
elevation
of
the
subsurface
water
table.
If
these
soil
borings
identify
perched
groundwater
within
2
feet
of
the
proposed
bottom
elevation
of
these
detention/retention
basins,
a
liner,
filter
fabric,
or
other
remedial
measures
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
design
of
the
applicable
storm
water
facilities
to
prevent
intrusion
of
development-‐related
pollutants
to
groundwater.
• Snow
storage
and
management
practices.
Snow
will
be
stored
on-‐site
in
landscape
areas
and
other
undeveloped
areas.
If
the
required
amount
of
snow
storage
cannot
be
handled
on-‐site,
the
applicant
shall
provide
a
long-‐term
snow-‐hauling
plan
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.130.B.3.b
.
Storm
water
runoff
from
snow
storage
areas
will
be
routed
through
water
quality
treatment
facilities
prior
to
discharge.
Snow
removal
shall
be
further
described
in
a
Maintenance
Agreement
between
the
property
owner
and
the
Town
of
Truckee
as
required
by
Development
Code
Section
18.30.105.B.
• 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
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐22
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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:
• 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
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐23
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
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐24
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
3.7
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.7-‐25
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
TMDLs,
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
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐26
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
Dam.
The
Truckee
River
flows
eastward
along
an
alignment
that
is
about
½
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
½
miles
upstream
to
the
west
of
the
project
site
on
Donner
Creek,
and
Donner
Creek
discharges
to
the
Truckee
River
about
2
½
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.
!
Tr u c k e e R i v e r
0 10 205
Miles
Truckee River Watershed Sub-basins
LAKE TAHOE (509 sq. mi.)
PYRAMID-WINNEMUCCA LAKE (1,394 sq. mi.)
MIDDLE TRUCKEE RIVER (1,212 sq. mi)
FIGURE 3.7-1: Truckee River
Overall Watershed and Primary Sub-basins
Data sources: USGS, Storm Water Consulting, Inc.
Map date: October 2011
Total Truckee River Watershed = ~3,115 sq. mi.
LakeTahoe
PyramidLake
Wi
n
n
e
m
u
c
c
a
L
a
k
e
(
D
r
y
)
Tahoe City
TruckeeProject Site
±
Reno
Sparks Fernley
JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3)
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐28
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
7
-
2
:
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
T
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
i
n
t
h
e
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Data sources: USGS, Storm Water Consulting. Map date: October 2011.
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
7
-
3
:
A
e
r
i
a
l
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
S
h
o
w
i
n
g
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
r
a
i
n
P
i
p
e
s
a
n
d
L
o
c
a
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
P
e
r
t
i
n
e
n
t
t
o
P
C
-
3
Data source: Storm Water Consulting, Inc. Map date:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
W ATER
QUALITY
3.7-‐32
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
7
-
4
:
F
E
M
A
F
l
o
o
d
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
R
a
t
e
M
a
p
D
a
t
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
F
E
M
A
F
l
o
o
d
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
R
a
t
e
M
a
p
P
a
n
e
l
s
5
3
3
a
n
d
5
3
4
(
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
1
0
)
,
S
t
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
M
a
p
d
a
t
e
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
.
M
a
p
s
c
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
8
0
0
'
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐1
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
S ETTING
R EGIONAL
S ETTING
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.
L OCAL
S ETTING
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
I-‐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
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
( 2 0 2 5
T r u c k e e
G e n e r a l
P l a n ,
E c o n o m i c
D e v e l o p m e n t
Element).
These
sectors
are
followed
by
the
government
sector,
accounting
for
18
percent
of
total
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
C o m m e r c i a l
u s e s ,
i n c l u d i n g
b o t h
r e t a i l
a n d
o f f i c e
d e v e lopment,
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
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐3
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
I-‐80.
Older
industrial
uses
are
located
in
central
Truckee
adjacent
the
railroad,
and
along
West
River
Street.
• Public/Institutional.
Exi st i ng
( 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.
E XISTING
S ITE
C ONDITIONS
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
S URROUNDING
L AND
U SES
The
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport,
a
general
aviation
facility,
is
the
major
land
use
east
of
the
Plan
Area.
Areas
north,
west
and
south
of
the
Plan
Area
are
characterized
by
a
mix
of
low
and
medium
density
residential,
commercial
and
recreational
uses.
The
Ponderosa
Golf
Course
borders
a
portion
of
the
Plan
Area
directly
to
the
west.
Surrounding
land
uses
are
shown
in
greater
detail
in
Figure
2-‐4
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
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.,
r e t a i l
a n d
s e r v i c e ) ,
i n d u s t r i a l
( e . g . ,
w a r e h o u s i n g
a n d
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.
E XISTING
L AND
U SES
AND
Z ONING
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.
P OPULATION
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.
H OUSING
S TOCK
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.
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐5
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
2000-2010
AVERAGE
GROWTH
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).
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
J OBS
AND
E MPLOYED
R ESIDENTS
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.
J OBS-‐TO-‐H OUSING
B ALANCE
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-‐
o r
o u t-‐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,
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐7
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
h a v e
h i g h
h o u s i n g
c o s t s
a n d
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
S ETTING
F EDERAL
There
are
no
applicable
federal
plans
or
policies
related
to
land
use
and
population.
S TATE
There
are
no
applicable
state
plans
or
policies
related
to
land
use
and
population.
L OCAL
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.
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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-‐
a n d
m o d e r a t e-‐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.
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐9
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.
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐11
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
c o m p l e t e
w o r k f o r c e
h o u s i n g
u n i t ( s )
f o r
e m p l o y e e s
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.
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8.3
IMPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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
o r d i n a n c e )
a d o p t e d
f o r
t h e
p u r p o s e
o f
a v o i d i n g
o r
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.
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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.
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐13
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.
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
residential
uses.
Services
for
employees,
such
as
day
care
facilities
and
food
sales,
shall
be
encouraged.
Yes
The
proposed
project
includes
a
range
of
commercial,
industrial
and
residential
uses.
The
Specific
Plan
is
consistent
with
this
policy.
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.
Yes
Chapter
3
of
the
Specific
Plan
includes
detailed
design
and
architectural
standards
for
all
future
development
within
the
Plan
Area.
These
design
standards
were
developed
to
be
consistent
with
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
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.
Yes
The
Specific
Plan
proposes
to
utilize
Brockway
Road
and
Soaring
Way
to
provide
adequate
access
to
SR
267.
Existing
trees
on
the
Plan
Area
will
be
retained
in
order
to
provide
visual
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
standards
for
the
design
of
retail
shopping
areas
which
avoid
"strip
commercial"
site
layout,
and
that
are
oriented
and
scaled
to
the
pedestrian
realm.
Yes
Chapter
3
of
the
Specific
Plan
includes
standards
to
require
pedestrian
access
and
orientation
for
all
buildings
within
the
Plan
Area.
The
Specific
Plan
includes
design
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
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.
Yes
The
Specific
Plan
includes
parking
standards,
parking
lot
design
and
lighting
standards,
and
snow
storage
standards
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Town’s
Development
Code
and
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.
Yes
As
described
below
under
Impact
3.8-‐4,
the
project
is
required
to
provide
97.37
workforce
housing
units.
Currently,
41
workforce
housing
units
are
proposed
within
the
RM
Zone
on
the
project
site.
The
remaining
56
workforce
housing
units
would
be
located
throughout
the
Plan
Area
as
commercial
and
industrial
uses
are
constructed.
Mitigation
Measure
3.8-‐1
requires
the
construction
of
on-‐site
workforce
housing
commensurate
with
the
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.
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐15
GENERAL
PLAN
GOALS
AND
POLICIES
FOR
PC-‐3
CONSISTENT
ANALYSIS
PC-‐3
Policy
7:
All
development
on
PC-‐3
s h a l l
support
community
character
goals
and
policies
for
the
Brockway
Road
Corridor.
Yes
The
Specific
Plan
Design
Guidelines
include
standards
and
provisions
that
would
ensure
development
on
the
Plan
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
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.
Yes
As
described
in
section
3.11
(Transportation
and
Circulation),
the
proposed
project
would
not
result
in
the
need
for
four
lanes
on
Highway
267
between
Interstate
80
and
the
Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
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
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
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
Full
Time
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
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
H OUSING
3.8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.8-‐17
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,
concur r ent l y
wi t h
or
pr i or
t o
compl et i on
of
t he
development
project
or
phase
thereof.
As
used
in
Chapter
18.216,
“concurrently”
means
that
a
proportionate
share
of
workforce
housing
units,
including
a
proportionate
share
of
units
by
income
affordability,
must
be
substantially
completed
by
the
time
50%
of
the
development
project
is
occupied.
The
Town
of
Truckee,
at
its
own
discretion
may
approve
an
alternative
timing
plan
if
the
Town
finds
the
alternative
timing
plan
will
further
affordable
housing
opportunities
in
the
Town
to
an
equal
or
greater
extent
and
the
completion
of
the
workforce
housing
units
is
secured
by
a
performance
bond
or
other
similar
security.
The
41
residential
multi-‐family
housing
units
proposed
with
the
RM
Zoning
District
shall
be
constructed
and
completed
prior
to
construction
and
occupation
of
42%
of
the
proposed
non-‐
residential
uses
(approximately
193,526
square
feet
of
non-‐residential
uses).
The
remaining
56
workforce
housing
units
shall
be
constructed
concurrent
with
the
development
of
the
remaining
58%
percent
of
the
non-‐residential
development
on
the
project
site.
As
future
applications
for
the
development
of
non-‐residential
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
are
received
by
the
Town,
the
Town
shall
require
project
applicants
to
construct
their
fair-‐share
of
workforce
housing
units
within
the
Plan
Area,
as
required
and
calculated
by
Chapter
18.216.040(B)
and
(C)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
No
project
within
the
Plan
Area
will
be
considered
exempt
from
the
workforce
housing
requirements
identified
in
this
measure.
All
workforce
housing
units
constructed
within
the
Plan
Area
shall
meet
the
affordability
requirements
specified
in
Chapter
18.216.040(D)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
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.
3.8
LAND
USE,
P OPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
3.8-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐1
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
S ETTING
K EY
T ERMS
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.
Leq
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.
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
F UNDAMENTALS
OF
A COUSTICS
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
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.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐3
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),
at
80
km/hr
(50
mph)
-‐-‐80-‐-‐
Food
Blender
at
1
m
(3
ft)
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)
Quiet
Urban
Daytime
-‐-‐50-‐-‐
Large
Business
Office
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.
E FFECTS
OF
N OISE
ON
P EOPLE
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.
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
–
i n c l u d i n g
s t a t i o n a r y
m o b i l e
s o u r c e s
s u c h
a s
i d l i n g
v e h i c l e s
–
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.
E XISTING
N OISE
L EVELS
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.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐5
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
s h o w s
t h e
l o c a t i o n
o f
t h e
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
(7:00
AM
-
10:00
PM)
NIGHTTIME
(10:00
PM
-
7
AM)
SITE
DATE
LOCATION
DURATION
24-HR
LDN
LEQ
L50
LMAX
LEQ
L50
LMAX
Continuous
Noise
Measurement
Sites
7/16/2010
61.7
59.8
58
75.9
53.8
48
69.0
1
7/17/2010
Regional
Commercial
Zoning
24
hours
60.3
58.2
56
73.5
52.5
47
67.2
7/19/2010
57.6
51.2
47
70.1
51.2
46
64.5
2
7/20/2010
Multi-‐Family
Residential
Zoning
24-‐hours
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.
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
( A D T )
v o l u m e s
w e r e
p r o v i d e d
b y
t h e
p r o j e c t
t r a f f i c
c o n s u l t a n t ,
a n d
t r u c k
m i x
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
DISTANCE
TO
CONTOURS
(FEET)
*
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
LDN/CNEL
AT
100
FEET*
70
DB
CNEL
65
DB
CNEL
60
DB
CNEL
S.
of
I-‐80
East
Interchange
60
dB
21
45
96
East
of
Bridge
Street
57
dB
15
31
68
Donner
Pass
Rd
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
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
S.R.
267
Summit
to
S.R.
28
64
dB
39
84
182
S.R.
267
to
Project
Access
60
dB
21
46
98
Project
Access
to
Martis
Valley
Rd
60
dB
21
45
97
Martis
Valley
Rd
to
Palisades
Dr
64
dB
38
82
176
Brockway
Rd
Palisades
Dr
to
West
River
Rd
62
dB
30
65
140
SOURCE:
FHWA-‐RD-‐77-‐108
WITH
INPUTS
FROM
LSC,
CALTRANS
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).
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐7
3.9.2
REGULATORY
F RAMEWORK
S TATE
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
Ldn
o r
C N E L
i n
a n y
h a b i t a b l e
r o o m .
Title
24
also
mandates
that
for
structures
containing
noise-‐sensitive
uses
to
be
located
where
the
Ldn
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.
L OCAL
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
compatibility
guidelines
and
policies
of
this
Element.
Noise
measurements
used
in
establishing
compatibility
shall
be
measured
in
dBA
CNEL
and
based
on
worst
case
noise
levels,
either
existing
or
future,
with
future
noise
levels
to
be
predicted
based
on
projected
2025
levels.
Yes
The
Environmental
Noise
Assessment
completed
for
the
proposed
project
determined
that
traffic
noise
impacts
were
within
the
prescribed
ranges.
Noise
Element
Policy
1.2:
Require
new
development
to
mitigate
exterior
noise
to
“normally
acceptable”
levels
in
outdoor
areas
where
quiet
is
a
benefit
such
as
in
the
backyards
of
single-‐family
homes.
Yes
Exterior
noise
levels
were
determined
to
be
acceptable
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
GENERAL
PLAN
GOALS
AND
POLICIES
CONSISTENT
ANALYSIS
Noise
Element
Policy
1.3:
Enforce
the
California
Noise
Insulation
Standards
for
interior
noise
levels
attributable
to
exterior
sources
for
all
proposed
new
single-‐
and
multi-‐family
residences.
(Note:
This
is
an
interior
noise
level
of
45
dB
Ldn/CNEL)
Yes
All
future
residential
development
(workforce
housing)
will
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
this
policy
Noise
Element
Goal
2:
Address
noise
issues
through
the
planning
and
permitting
process.
Noise
Element
Policy
2.1:
Require
mitigation
of
all
significant
noise
impacts
as
a
condition
of
project
approval.
Yes
Mitigations
measures
are
provided
in
this
EIR
and
implementation
of
these
measures
reduce
all
noise
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
Noise
Element
Policy
2.2:
Require
preparation
of
a
noise
analysis
which
is
to
include
recommendations
for
mitigation
for
all
proposed
projects
which
may
result
in
potentially
significant
noise
impacts
to
nearby
noise
sensitive
land
uses.
Yes
As
noise
analysis
was
prepared.
Recommendations
were
made
to
reduce
all
potential
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
levels
Noise
Element
Policy
2.3:
Require
preparation
of
a
noise
analysis
which
is
to
include
recommendations
for
mitigation
for
all
proposed
development
within
noise
impacted
areas
that
may
be
exposed
to
levels
greater
than
“normally
acceptable.”
Yes
As
noise
analysis
was
prepared.
Recommendations
were
made
to
reduce
all
potential
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
levels
Noise
Element
Policy
2.4:
Discourage
the
construction
of
sound
walls
and
require
development
projects
to
evaluate
site
design
techniques,
building
setbacks,
earthen
berms,
alternative
architectural
layouts
and
other
means
to
meet
noise
reduction
requirements.
Yes
The
project
is
subject
to
this
policy.
The
placement
of
sound
walls
will
be
considered
as
the
actual
site
plans
are
developed.
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
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
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.
Yes
Mitigation
Measures
3.9-‐1
and
3.9-‐2
provide
mitigation
for
construction
noise
impacts.
Implementations
of
these
measures
reduce
all
construction
noise
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐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
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
(7
AM
TO
10
PM)
NIGHTTIME
(10
PM
-
7
AM)
Hospital,
Library,
Religious
Institution,
Residential
or
School
Uses:
Cumulative
period
of
30
minutes
per
hour
L50
55
50
Cumulative
period
of
15
minutes
per
hour
L25
60
55
Cumulative
period
of
5
minutes
per
hour
L08
65
60
Cumulative
period
of
1
minute
per
hour
L02
70
65
Level
not
to
be
exceeded
for
any
time
during
hour
Lmax
75
70
Commercial
Uses:
Cumulative
period
of
30
minutes
per
hour
L50
65
60
Cumulative
period
of
15
minutes
per
hour
L25
70
65
Cumulative
period
of
5
minutes
per
hour
L08
75
70
Cumulative
period
of
1
minute
per
hour
L02
80
75
Level
not
to
be
exceeded
for
any
time
during
hour
Lmax
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
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐11
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
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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
i s
b a s e d
u p o n
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
m a d e
i n
A u g u s t
1 9 9 2
b y
t h e
F e d e r a l
I n t e r a g e n c y
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
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
dB
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
d e v e l o p e d
f o r
v i b r a t i o n
l e v e l s
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.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐13
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐14
TABLE
3.9-‐8:
PREDICTED
EXISTING
AND
EXISTING
PLUS
PROJECT
TRAFFIC
NOISE
LEVELS
Traffic
Noise
Levels
(CNEL)
@
100
feet
Distance
to
contours
Existing
(in
feet)
Distance
to
Contours
Existing
+
Project
(
in
feet)
Roadway
Segment
Existing
Existing
+
Project
Change
65
dB
CNEL
60
dB
CNEL
65
dB
CNEL
60
dB
CNEL
Donner
Pass
Rd
Donner
Pass
Rd
Donner
Pass
Rd
S.
of
I-‐80
East
Interchange
East
of
Bridge
Street
West
of
Bridge
Street
60
dB
57
dB
58
dB
60
dB
58
dB
58
dB
0
+1
dB
0
45
31
33
96
68
71
46
32
32
100
68
70
S.R.
267
S.R.
267
S.R.
267
S.R.
267
S.R.
267
S.R.
267
I-‐80
to
Brockway
Brockway
to
Town
Limit
Town
Limit
to
Airport
Rd
Airport
Rd
to
Northstar
Dr
Northstar
Dr
to
Summit
Summit
to
S.R.
28
66
dB
67
dB
67
dB
66
dB
65
dB
64
dB
67
dB
67
dB
67
dB
66
dB
66
dB
64
dB
+1
dB
0
0
0
+1
dB
0
117
129
126
117
107
84
252
278
272
253
231
182
141
133
130
122
111
86
305
286
281
264
240
184
Brockway
Rd
Brockway
Rd
Brockway
Rd
Brockway
Rd
S.R.
267
to
Project
Access
Project
Access
to
Martis
Valley
Rd
Martis
Valley
Rd
to
Palisades
Dr
Palisades
Dr
to
West
River
Rd
60
dB
60
dB
64
dB
62
dB
62
dB
61
dB
64
dB
62
dB
+2
dB
+1
dB
0
0
46
45
82
65
98
97
176
140
64
57
89
68
138
122
191
146
Source:
j.c.
brennan
&
associates,
Inc.
-‐
2013
Predicted
noise
levels
and
distances
to
contours
are
from
the
roadway
centerline.
1
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).
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐15
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.
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
MITIGATION
MEASURES
Mitigation
Measure
3.9-‐1: Construction
activities
shall
a d h e r e
t o
t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s
o f
t h e
T o w n
o f
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.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐17
TABLE
3.9-‐10:
VIBRATION
LEVELS
FOR
VARYING
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
TYPE
OF
EQUIPMENT
PEAK
PARTICLE
VELOCITY
AT
25
FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
APPROXIMATE
VELOCITY
LEVEL
(VDB)
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
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
Neq)
-‐
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
separately
through
a
combination
of
noise
level
measurements
and
application
of
accepted
noise
prediction
methodologies.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐19
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
noi s e
s our c e s
c oul d
e x c e e d
t he
De v e l opme nt
Code
hour l y
noi s e
l e v e l
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
potenti al l y
si gni fi cant
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;
l o c a t i n g
l o a d i n g
d o c k s
o n
t h e
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.
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐21
TABLE
3.9-‐11
-‐
PREDICTED
FUTURE
AND
FUTURE
PLUS
PROJECT
TRAFFIC
NOISE
LEVELS
TRAFFIC
NOISE
LEVELS
(CNEL)
AT
100
FEET
DISTANCE
TO
CONTOURS
FUTURE
(IN
FEET)
DISTANCE
TO
CONTOURS
FUTURE
+
PROJECT
(
IN
FEET)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
FUTURE
2032
NO
PROJECT
FUTURE
2032
+
PROJECT
CHANGE
65
DB
CNEL
60
DB
CNEL
65
DB
CNEL
60
DB
CNEL
S.
of
I-‐80
East
Interchange
61
dB
61
dB
0
52
113
58
125
East
of
Bridge
Street
58
dB
58
dB
0
37
79
37
79
Donner
Pass
Rd
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
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
S.R.
267
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
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
Brockway
Rd
Palisades
Dr
to
West
River
Rd
64
dB
64
dB
0
81
174
81
175
SOURCE:
J.C.
BRENNAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
-‐
2013
Predicted
noise
levels
and
distances
to
contours
are
from
the
roadway
centerline.
NOISE
AND
VIBRATION
3.9
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.9-‐22
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
1
2
Continuous Noise Measurement Sites#
Figure 3.9-1: Noise Measurement Sites
JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3)
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐24
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
Figure 3.9-2: Truckee-Tahoe Airport Noise Contours
JOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3)
Data sources: Mead & Hunt (May 2003), Truckee Tahoe
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (December 2004)
3.9
N OISE
AND
V IBRATION
3.9-‐26
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐1
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
F IRE
P ROTECTION
AND
E MERGENCY
S ERVICES
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.
P OLICE
P ROTECTION
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
Sheriff’s
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.
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Nevada
County
Sheriff’s
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
I-‐80.
The
CHP
will
respond
when
requested
by
the
Town
of
Truckee.
S CHOOLS
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.
P ARKS
AND
R ECREATION
S ERVICES
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.
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐3
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
t h r o u g h
a
p r i v a t e
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
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
P l a n
A r e a,
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.
S NOW
R EMOVAL
S ERVICES
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.
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐5
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
S ETTING
S TATE
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
a d d r e s s e d
i n
t h e
C o d e
i n c l u d e
f i r e
d e p a r t m e n t
a c c e s s ,
f i r e
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
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
include
fire
department
access,
fire
hydrants,
automatic
sprinkler
systems,
fire
alarm
systems,
fire
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-‐safety
requirements
for
new
and
existing
buildings
and
the
surrounding
premises.
The
Fire
Code
contains
specialized
technical
regulations
related
to
fire
and
life
safety.
CALIFORNIA
HEALTH
AND
SAFETY
CODE
State
fire
regulations
are
set
forth
in
Sections
13000
et
seq.
of
the
California
Health
and
Safety
Code.
This
includes
regulations
for
building
standards
(as
also
set
forth
in
the
California
Building
Code),
fire
protection
and
notification
systems,
fire
protection
devices
such
as
extinguishers
and
smoke
alarms,
high-‐rise
building
and
childcare
facility
standards,
and
fire
suppression
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)
prepared
a
School
Site
Selection
and
Approval
Guide
that
provides
criteria
for
locating
appropriate
school
sites
in
the
State
of
California.
School
site
and
size
recommendations
were
changed
by
the
CDE
in
2000
to
reflect
various
changes
in
educational
conditions,
such
as
lowering
of
class
sizes
and
use
of
advanced
technology.
The
expanded
use
of
school
buildings
and
grounds
for
community
and
agency
joint
use
and
concern
for
the
safety
of
the
students
and
staff
members
also
influenced
the
modification
of
the
CDE
recommendations.
Specific
recommendations
f o r
s c h o o l
s i z e
a r e
p r o v i d e d
i n
t h e
S c h o o l
S i t e
A n a l y s i s
a n d
Development
Guide.
This
document
suggests
a
ratio
of
1:2
between
buildings
and
land.
CDE
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
recommended
gross
site
size
and
building-‐to-‐ground
ratio.
Certain
health
and
safety
requirements
for
school
site
selection
are
governed
by
state
regulations
and
the
policies
of
the
SFPD
relating
to:
• Proximity
to
airports,
high-‐voltage
power
transmission
lines,
railroads,
and
major
roadways;
• Presence
of
toxic
and
hazardous
substances;
• Hazardous
facilities
and
hazardous
air
emissions
within
one-‐quarter
mile;
• Proximity
to
high-‐pressure
n a t u r a l
g a s
l i n e s ,
p r o p a n e
s t o r a g e
f a c i l i t i e s ,
g a s o l i n e
l i n e s ,
pressurized
sewer
lines,
or
high-‐pressure
water
pipelines;
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐7
• 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
III
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
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
QUIMBY
ACT
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.
L OCAL
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
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐9
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.
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
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.
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐11
• 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
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
o n
o r
a d j a c e n t
t o
t h e
p r o p e r t y
a n d
t h e
p a y m e n t
o f
d e v e l o p m e n t
f e e s
f o r
t h e
construction
of
facilities
and
purchase
of
equipment
to
address
cumulative
impacts
on
fire
services.
Because
land
use
permits
are
a p p r o v e d
b y
t h e
T o w n ,
a
T o w n
o f f i c i a l
s h o u l d
b e
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
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐13
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
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐15
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
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
a n d
d e v e l o p m e n t
o n
a n
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.
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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,
a n d
o t h e r
r e v e n u e s
g e n e r a t e d
b y
t h e
p r o j e c t ,
w o u l d
a s s i s t
i n
m a i n t a i n i n g
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
a n d
f i r e
a l a r m
s y s t e m s ,
r o a d w a y s
a n d
d r i v e w a y s ,
w i l d l a n d
f i r e
p r o t e c t i o n ,
a n d
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
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐17
the
proposed
project
must
provide
mitigation
revenue
for
the
new
multi-‐family
units
new
non-‐
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
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1. The
installation
of
an
approved
fire
sprinkler
s y s t e m
i s
r e q u i r e d
i n
a l l
n o n-‐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:
P r i o r
t o
t h e
c o mme n c e me n t
o f
b u i l d i n g
c o n s t r u c t i o n ,
t h e
p r o j e c t
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.
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐19
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
b e l o w
t h e i r
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
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
II,
whichever
is
greater.
The
reference
to
“sum
of
all
areas
listed
in
Section
18.46.10”
under
( a )
a b o v e
i n c l u d e s
t h e
following:
100-‐year
flood
plains,
environmentally
sensitive
areas;
lakes
and
ponds;
and
slopes
in
excess
of
30
percent.
T h e
o n l y
i t e m
a p p l i c a b l e
t o
t h e
P l a n
A r e a
within
this
list
is
the
environmentally
sensitive
areas
(wetlands).
The
Plan
Area
i n c l u d e s
t w o
w e t l a n d s
( 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
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐21
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,
M1,
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.
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐22
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
As
such,
this
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
i m p a c t .
I m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f
t h e
f o l l o w i n g
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.
PUBLIC
S ERVICES
AND
RECREATION
3.10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.10-‐23
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
i n
t h e
f u t u r e .
W i t h
t h e
e x e c u t i o n
o f
t h e
Maintenance
Agreement
in
accordance
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.105,
the
proposed
project
would
have
a
less-‐than-‐significant
impact.
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
R ECREATION
3.10-‐24
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
3.11
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐1
This
section
of
the
EIR
analyzes
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
project
on
the
surrounding
transportation
s y s t e m
i n c l u d i n g
r o a d w a y s ,
b i c y c l e / p e d e s t r i a n
f a c i l i t i e s ,
a n d
t r a n s i t
facilities/services.
This
chapter
identifies
the
significant
impacts
of
the
proposed
project
a n d
recommends
mitigation
measures
to
lessen
their
significance.
The
PC3
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Traffic
Impact
Analysis
p r e p a r e d
b y
L S C
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
Consultants,
Inc.
was
the
basis
of
all
referenced
material
in
this
section.
3.11.1
ENVIRONMENTAL
S ETTING
P ROJECT
L OCATION
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.
F i g u r e
3.11-‐1
displays
the
project
site
i n
r e l a t i o n
t o
t h e
s t u d y
i n t e r s e c t i o n s
included
in
the
transportation
analysis.
S TUDY
A REA
R OADWAYS
AND
I NTERSECTIONS
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
• SR
89
North/SR
267/I-‐80
Westbound
Ramps
• SR
89
North/SR
267/I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramps
• SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
• SR
267/Truckee
Airport
Road/Schaffer
Mill
Road
(Placer
County)
• SR
267/Northstar
Drive
(Placer
County)
• SR
267/SR
28
(Placer
County)
• Donner
Pass
Road/Pioneer
Trail
• Donner
Pass
Road/I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Eastbound
Off-‐Ramp
• Donner
Pass
Road/I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Westbound
On-‐Ramp
• Donner
Pass
Road/Glenshire
Drive
• Donner
Pass
Road/Bridge
Street
• West
River
Street/Bridge
Street
• West
River
Street/McIver
Crossing
• Brockway
Road/Palisades
Drive
• Brockway
Road/Martis
Valley
Road
• Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
(Site
Access)
• Brockway
Road/Hope
Court/Proposed
Site
Access
• Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive/Proposed
Site
Access
• Site
Access/Joerger
Drive
(Proposed
Intersection)
In
addition
to
the
intersections
described
above,
the
following
roadway
segments
were
identified
for
analysis:
3.11
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐2
• Bridge
Street,
Across
Railroad
Tracks
• Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
SR
89
North
• Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
• Donner
Pass
Road,
East
of
Bridge
Street
• Donner
Pass
Road,
West
of
Bridge
Street
• SR
89,
North
of
I-‐80
• SR
267,
Between
I-‐80
and
Brockway
Road
• SR
267,
Between
Brockway
Road
and
Town
Limit
• SR
267,
Between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
• SR
267,
Between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
• SR
267,
Between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
• SR
267,
North
of
SR
28
• Brockway
Road,
Between
SR
267
and
Project
Access
• Brockway
Road,
Between
Project
Access
and
Martis
Valley
Road
• Brockway
Road,
Between
Martis
Valley
Road
and
Palisades
Drive
• Brockway
Road,
Between
Palisades
Drive
and
West
River
Street
Key
roadways
in
the
project
vicinity
include
Interstate
80
(I-‐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
I-‐80,
34
miles
west
of
Reno
and
90
miles
east
of
Sacramento.
This
section
of
I-‐
80
is
currently
a
four-‐lane
divided
highway
with
limited
truck
climbing
lanes,
and
with
a
posted
speed
limit
of
65
miles
per
hour.
There
are
a
total
of
eight
interchanges
serving
Truckee
on
I-‐80,
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
I-‐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
i s
a
1 . 5
m i l e s
l o n g
r o a d w a y ,
w h i c h
r u n s
i n
a
g e n e r a l l y
e a s t-‐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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐3
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
i d e n t i f i e d
i m p a c t s
o n
s t u d y
r o a d w a y s
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
30th-‐
highest
winter
PM
peak
hour
was
analyzed
for
intersections
within
Placer
County.
The
winter
peak
hour
is
technically
defined
as
the
30th-‐highest
hour
of
travel
demand
during
the
ski
season
(Placer
County,
2003).
The
30th-‐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/I-‐80
Westbound
Ramps
• SR
89
North/SR
267/I-‐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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐5
TABLE
3.11-‐1:
WINTER
INTERSECTION
TURING
MOVEMENT
VOLUMES
WITHOUT
PROJECT
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
INTERSECTION
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
TOTAL
SR
267
/
Airport
Rd
/
Schaffer
Mill
Rd
19
1,123
15
8
560
21
42
1
9
5
2
18
1,823
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.
E XISTING
B ICYCLE
F ACILITIES
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
III
Bike
Routes.
T RANSIT
S ERVICE
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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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:
P l a c e r
C o u n t y ’ s
T a h o e
A r e a
R e g i o n a l
T r a n s i t
( T A R T )
f i x e d
r o u t e
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).
F REIGHT
R AIL
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
M ETHODS
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐7
• 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.
A NALYSIS
S CENARIOS
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
D ATA
C OLLECTION
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
PM
PEAK
HOUR
INTERSECTION
CONTROL1,
2
LOS
THRESHOLD
DELAY1
LOS
Summer
LOS
1. SR
89
North
/
Donner
Pass
Road
Roundabout
D
6.1
A
2. SR
267
/
SR
89
North
/
I-‐80
Westbound
Ramps3
Signal
D
18.4
B
3. SR
267
/
I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramps3
Signal
D
12.2
B
4. Donner
Pass
Road
/
I-‐80
Westbound
On-‐
ramp
Uncontrolled
D
8.8
A
5. Donner
Pass
Road
/
I-‐80
Eastbound
Off-‐ramp
Stop
Controlled
D
28.9
D
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
PM
PEAK
HOUR
INTERSECTION
CONTROL1,
2
LOS
THRESHOLD
DELAY1
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
Way3
Signal
D
21.2
C
14. SR
267
/
Airport
Road
/
Schaffer
Mill
Road3
Signal
E
16.7
B
15. SR
267
/
Northstar
Drive
Signal
E
9.8
A
16. SR
267
/
SR
28
Signal
D/E5
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
D/E5
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐9
TABLE
3.11-‐3:
ROADWAY
LOS
ANALYSIS
-‐
2012
WITHOUT
PROJECT
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
SUMMER
Bridge
Street,
across
railroad
tracks
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,077
580
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
SR
89
North
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
907
523
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
916
475
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
East
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
990
639
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
West
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
1,068
717
N/A
N/A
No
SR
89,
North
of
I-‐80
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
771
413
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
I-‐80
and
Brockway
Road
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,291
766
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Road
and
Town
Limit
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,493
846
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,448
801
11.19
16,200
No
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,295
669
11.19
14,490
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,130
647
11.19
12,640
No
SR
267,
north
of
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
25,000
1,306
659
11.19
14,610
No
Brockway
Road,
between
project
access
and
Martis
Valley
Road
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
935
496
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
Martis
Valley
Road
and
Palisades
Drive
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,249
733
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,609
997
N/A
N/A
No
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
Palisades
Drive
and
West
River
Street
WINTER
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,772
1,183
10.19
18,100
No
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,731
1,157
10.19
17,600
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,290
898
10.19
13,100
No
SR
267,
north
of
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
25,000
1,407
903
10.19
14,300
No
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐11
3.11.3
P ROJECT
T RAVEL
C HARACTERISTICS
P ROPOSED
P ROJECT
C ONDITIONS
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
ZONE
ITE
LAND
USE
CODE
ASSUMED
MIX
PARCEL
SIZE
(ACRES)
FAR
QUANTIT
Y
UNITS
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
50%
60.86
KSF
1&2
BIZ
BUSINESS
INNOVATION
ZONE
770
BUSINESS
PARK
50%
13.97
0.2
60.86
KSF
3
RM
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
220
APARTMENT
100%
3.48
12
42
DU
4&5
CL
LIFESTYLE
COMMERCIAL
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
100%
7.59
0.2
66.12
KSF
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
70%
46.28
KSF
6
CL
LIFESTYLE
COMMERCIAL
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
30%
7.59
0.2
19.84
KSF
7
OS
OPEN
SPACE
-‐
PARK
AND
RIDE
LOT/TRAILHEAD
PARKING
2.73
n/a
12
Spaces
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
70%
33.91
KSF
8
M1
MANUFACTURING
/
INDUSTRIAL
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
30%
5.56
0.2
14.53
KSF
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
70%
9.88
KSF
9
CRS
REGIONAL
SUPPORT
COMMERCIAL
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
30%
1.62
0.2
4.23
KSF
10
CRS
REGIONAL
SUPPORT
COMMERCIAL
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
100%
1.20
0.2
10.45
KSF
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
70%
0.2
23.97
KSF
11&12
M1
MANUFACTURING
/
INDUSTRIAL
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
30%
3.93
10.27
KSF
13
M1
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
70%
4.08
0.2
24.88
KSF
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
PARCEL
ZONE
ITE
LAND
USE
CODE
ASSUMED
MIX
PARCEL
SIZE
(ACRES)
FAR
QUANTIT
Y
UNITS
MANUFACTURING
/
INDUSTRIAL
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
30%
10.66
KSF
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
70%
19.82
KSF
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
20%
5.66
KSF
CRS
REGIONAL
SUPPORT
COMMERCIAL
946
GAS/SERVICE
STATION
WITH
CONV.
MARKET
AND
CAR
WASH
10%
3.25
0.2
8.00
KSF
820
SHOPPING
CENTER
75%
153.69
KSF
14
CS
REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL
850
SUPERMARKET
25%
11.69
0.4
50.00
KSF
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐13
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
(ITE)
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,
r e g r e s s i o n
e q u a t i o n s
a r e
a p p l i e d
r a t h e r
t h a n
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
o f
n o n-‐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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
c o m b i n a t i o n s
o f
s h o p p i n g
c e n t e r s / r e t a i l ,
o f f i c e ,
a n d
r e s i d e n t i a l .
T h e
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐15
TABLE
3.11-‐5:
PC-‐3
JOERGER
RANCH
-‐
TRIP
GENERATION
ANALYSIS
TRIP
GENERATION
RATES1
PROJECT
GENERATED
VEHICLE
TRIPS
AT
SITE
ACCESS2
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PARCEL
DESCRIPTION
/
ITE
LAND
USE
CODE
DAILY
IN
OUT
REDUCTION
FOR
INTERNAL
TRIPS
DAILY
IN
OUT
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
8.11
EQUATION3
0%
494
12
69
1&2
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
CENTER
44.32
1.19
1.52
0%
2,930
79
100
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
44.32
1.19
1.52
20%
1,641
44
56
6
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
127.15
5.91
3.94
13%
2,195
102
68
7
-‐
PARK
AND
RIDE
LOT/TRAILHEAD
PARKING
N/A
0%
55
11
11
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
6.83
0.18
0.67
0%
232
6
23
8
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
8.11
EQUATION3
0%
118
3
16
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
44.32
1.19
1.52
19%
355
10
12
9
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
127.15
5.91
3.94
12%
473
22
15
10
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
44.32
1.19
1.52
0%
463
12
16
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
6.83
0.18
0.67
0%
164
4
16
11&12
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
8.11
EQUATION3
0%
83
2
12
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
6.83
0.18
0.67
0%
170
4
17
13
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
8.11
EQUATION3
0%
86
2
12
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
44.32
1.19
1.52
40%
527
14
18
14
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
127.15
5.91
3.94
40%
432
20
14
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TRIP
GENERATION
RATES1
PROJECT
GENERATED
VEHICLE
TRIPS
AT
SITE
ACCESS2
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PARCEL
DESCRIPTION
/
ITE
LAND
USE
CODE
DAILY
IN
OUT
REDUCTION
FOR
INTERNAL
TRIPS
DAILY
IN
OUT
946
GAS/SERVICE
STATION
WITH
CONV.
M A R K E T
A N D
CAR
WASH
152.84
7.07
6.79
40%
734
34
33
820
SHOPPING
CENTER
EQ5
EQUATION6
17%
7,453
318
345
850
SUPERMARKET
102.24
4.83
4.65
29%
3,630
172
165
TOTAL
TRIP
GENERATION
17%
23,271
908
1,084
SOURCE:
LSC
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.
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐17
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
( s u c h
a s
a
g r o c e r y
s t o r e ) .
T h e s e
r e d u c t i o n s
a r e
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
I-‐80
to
the
east.
3.11
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐18
TABLE
3.11-‐6:
PC-‐3
JOERGER
RANCH
–
EXTERNAL
TRIP
GENERATION
GENERATED
VEHICLE
TRIPS
EXTERNAL
TO
PROJECT
PROJECT
IMPACT
OF
EXTERNAL
ROADWAYS
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PARCEL
DESCRIPTION
/
ITE
LAND
USE
CODE
REDUCTION
FOR
TRIPS
MADE
BETWEEN
PROJECT
ZONES
DAILY
IN
OUT
REDUCTION
FOR
PASS-‐BY
TRIPS
DAILY
IN
OUT
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
9%
450
11
63
0%
450
11
63
1&2
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
CENTER
24%
2,227
60
76
34%
1,470
40
50
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
24%
1,247
33
43
34%
823
22
28
6
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
24%
1,668
78
5
43%
958
45
29
7
-‐
PARK
AND
RIDE
LOT/TRAILHEAD
PARKING
5%
52
10
11
0%
52
10
11
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
9%
211
5
21
0%
211
5
21
8
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
9%
107
3
14
0%
107
3
14
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
24%
270
8
9
34%
178
5
6
9
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
24%
359
17
11
43%
206
10
6
10
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
24%
352
9
12
34%
232
6
8
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
9%
149
4
14
0%
149
4
14
11&12
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
9%
76
2
11
0%
76
2
11
130
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
9%
155
4
15
0%
155
4
15
13
760
RESEARCH
AND
DEV
CENTER
9%
78
2
11
0%
78
2
11
14
826
SPECIALTY
RETAIL
CENTER
11%
469
12
16
34%
310
8
10
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐19
GENERATED
VEHICLE
TRIPS
EXTERNAL
TO
PROJECT
PROJECT
IMPACT
OF
EXTERNAL
ROADWAYS
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PM
PEAK
HOUR
PARCEL
DESCRIPTION
/
ITE
LAND
USE
CODE
REDUCTION
FOR
TRIPS
MADE
BETWEEN
PROJECT
ZONES
DAILY
IN
OUT
REDUCTION
FOR
PASS-‐BY
TRIPS
DAILY
IN
OUT
932
HIGH-‐TURNOVER
RESTAURANT
11%
384
18
12
43%
220
10
7
946
GAS/SERVICE
STATION
WITH
CONV.
MARKET
AND
CAR
WASH
11%
653
30
30
56%
284
13
13
820
SHOPPING
CENTER
11%
6,633
283
307
34%
4,347
185
202
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
-‐55
-‐56
-‐5
-‐5
-60
-61
ADDITIONAL
REDUCTIONS
IN
2012
INTERCEPTED
TRIPS
TO/FROM
SOUTH
(MARTIS
VALLEY/NORTHSTAR
AREAS)
INTERCEPTED
TRIPS
TO/FROM
WEST
(BROCKWAY
ROAD
AREA)
SUBTOTAL
INTERCEPTED
TRIPS
IN
2012
2012
PROJECT
NET
IMPACT
ON
EXTERNAL
ROADWAYS
454
611
-‐53
-‐54
-‐9
-‐9
-62
-63
ADDITIONAL
REDUCTIONS
IN
FUTURE
2032
INTERCEPTED
TRIPS
TO/FROM
SOUTH
(MARTIS
VALLEY/NORTHSTAR
AREAS)
INTERCEPTED
TRIPS
TO/FROM
WEST
(BROCKWAY
ROAD
AREA)
SUBTOTAL
INTERCEPTED
TRIPS
IN
2032
2032
PROJECT
NET
IMPACT
ON
EXTERNAL
ROADWAYS
452
609
SOURCE:
LSC
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS,
INC.,
TABLE
4.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐21
TABLE
3.11-‐7:
PC-‐3
JOERGER
RANCH
EXTERNAL
TRIP
DISTRIBUTION
-‐
SUMMER
PM
EXISTING
YEAR
2012
FUTURE
YEAR
2032
ORIGIN
/
DESTINATION
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
R
E
T
A
I
L
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
N
O
N
-
R
E
T
A
I
L
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
R
E
T
A
I
L
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
N
O
N
-
R
E
T
A
I
L
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
(Kings
Beach)
2%
3%
5%
2%
3%
5%
I-‐80,
West
of
Truckee
2%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
I-‐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
Martis
Valley
Rd
4%
6%
3%
3%
5%
3%
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
Alder
Creek
3%
6%
5%
5%
6%
5%
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:
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐22
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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
EXISTING
YEAR
2012
FUTURE
YEAR
2032
LOCATION
BROCKWAY
ROAD
SR
267
BYPASS
BROCKWAY
ROAD
SR
267
BYPASS
West
River
Street
West
of
McIver
Crossing
100%
0%
100%
0%
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐23
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
r e t a i l
t r i p s
m a d e
t o / f r o m
t h e
s o u t h
o n
S R
2 6 7
a r e
e x p e c t e d
t o
b e
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
r e t a i l
u s e s
a n d
p o i n t s
t o
t h e
s o u t h
a r e
e x p e c t e d
t o
b e
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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐24
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
TOTAL
SR
267
/
Airport
Rd
/
Schaffer
Mill
Rd
0
10
2
4
71
2
8
0
0
32
12
4
145
SR
267
/
Northstar
Dr.
0
9
-‐
-‐
30
73
3
-‐
0
-‐
-‐
-‐
115
SR
267
/
SR
28
0
0
0
14
0
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
26
SOURCE:
LSC
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS,
INC.,
TABLE
8.
TABLE
3.11-‐10:
PROJECT
NET
IMPACTS
OF
2032
WINTER
INTERSECTION
TURNING
MOVEMENT
VOLUMES-‐
PLACER
COUNTY
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
INTERSECTION
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
TOTAL
SR
267
/
Airport
Rd
/
Schaffer
Mill
Rd
0
21
2
4
67
6
11
0
0
2
9
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐25
TABLE
3.11-‐11:
WINTER
2012
INTERSECTION
TURNING
MOVEMENT
VOLUMES
WITH
PROJECT
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
INTERSECTION
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
TOTAL
SR
267
/
Airport
Rd
/
Schaffer
Mill
Rd
19
1,133
17
12
631
23
50
1
9
37
14
22
1,968
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
project
generates
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
p r o j e c t .
H o w e v e r ,
t h e
T r a n s C A D
m o d e l
d o e s
n o t
r e f l e c t
r e d u c t i o n s
f o r
p a s s-‐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
PROJECT
LAND
USE
ASSUMPTIONS
TRUCKEE
MODEL
TAZS
SOURCE
MULTIFAMILY
(DU)
COMMERCIAL
(KSF)
LT
INDUSTRIAL
(KSF)
TOTAL
PM
PEAK-
HOUR
TRIP
GENERATION
AT
SITE
ACCESS
POINTS1
NET
INCREASE
IN
PM
PEAK-HOUR
TRIPS
ON
EXTERNAL
ROADWAYS
GENERAL
PLAN
355
360
140
2,130
NA
CURRENT
CITY
TRANSCAD
MODEL
47
161
243
1,725
1,300
60,
61
AND
62
CURRENT
PROJECT2
42
549
83
1,992
DIFFERENCE
(PROJECT
–
GENERAL
PLAN)
-‐313
189
-‐57
-‐318
NA
DIFFERENCE
(PROJECT
–
CITY
MODEL)
-‐5
388
-‐160
267
-‐239
SOURCE:
LSC
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS,
INC.,
TABLE
11.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐26
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
S ETTING
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.
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:
Policy
P2.1
–
Establish
and
maintain
a
Level
of
Service
D
or
better
on
road
segments
and
for
total
intersection
movements
in
portions
of
the
Town
outside
of
the
Downtown
Study
Area.
Establish
and
maintain
a
Level
of
Service
E
or
better
on
arterial
and
collector
road
segments
and
for
total
intersection
movements
within
the
Downtown
Specific
Plan
Area.
Throughout
the
Town,
individual
turning
movements
at
unsignalized
intersections
shall
not
be
allowed
to
reach
LOS
F
and
to
exceed
a
cumulative
vehicle
delay
of
four
vehicle
hours.
Both
of
these
conditions
shall
be
met
for
traffic
operations
to
be
considered
unacceptable.
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐27
• The
number
of
hours
per
day
that
the
intersection
or
roadway
segment
would
operate
at
the
conditions
worse
than
the
standard
• The
ability
of
the
required
improvement
to
significantly
reduce
peak-‐hour
delay
and
improve
traffic
operations
• The
right-‐of-‐way
needs
and
the
physical
impacts
on
surrounding
properties
• The
visual
aesthetics
of
the
required
improvement
and
its
impact
on
community
identity
and
character
• Environmental
impacts
including
air
quality
and
noise
impacts
• Construction
and
right-‐of-‐way
acquisition
costs
• The
impacts
on
general
safety
• The
impacts
of
the
required
construction
phasing
and
traffic
maintenance
• The
impacts
on
quality
of
life
as
perceived
by
residents
• Consideration
of
other
environmental,
social
or
economic
factors
on
which
the
County
may
base
findings
to
allow
exceedance
of
the
standards
Exceptions
to
the
standards
will
only
be
allowed
after
all
feasible
measures
and
options
are
explored,
including
alternative
forms
of
transportation.
MARTIS
VALLEY
COMMUNITY
PLAN
The
adopted
Martis
Valley
Community
Plan
(Placer
County,
2003)
specifies
that
the
County
shall
develop
and
manage
its
roadway
system
to
maintain
the
following
minimum
levels
of
service
(LOS):
• LOS
“C”
on
rural
roadways,
except
within
one-‐half
mile
of
state
highways
where
the
standard
shall
be
LOS
“D.”
• LOS”C”
on
urban/suburban
roadways
except
within
one-‐half
mile
of
state
highways
where
the
standards
shall
be
LOS
“D.”
It
also
states
that
the
County’s
LOS
standard
for
SR
267
shall
be
no
worse
than
LOS
“E.”
CALTRANS
The
concept
LOS
defined
in
the
State
Route
267
Transportation
Concept
Report
for
Segment
2
(Nevada/Placer
County
Line
to
Brockway
Summit
is
LOS
“E”.
According
to
Caltrans
standards,
this
threshold
should
be
applied
to
state
highways
unless
a
local
jurisdiction
has
adopted
a
higher
standard
for
identification
of
significant
impacts
for
any
improvement
project
requiring
an
encroachment
permit
from
Caltrans.
TAHOE
REGIONAL
PLANNING
AGENCY
The
LOS
standards
for
the
Lake
Tahoe
Basin,
established
by
the
Tahoe
Regional
Planning
Agency
(TRPA),
require
that
the
following
LOS
not
be
exceeded
during
peak-‐period
traffic
flow:
• LOS
C
on
rural
scenic/recreational
roads
• LOS
D
in
rural
developed
areas
• LOS
D
on
urban
roads
• LOS
D
for
signalized
intersections
–
LOS
E
may
be
acceptable
during
peak
periods
not
to
exceed
4
hours
per
day
The
TRPA
does
not
have
a
specific
adopted
standard
for
unsignalized
intersections.
Consistent
with
the
approach
used
in
other
traffic
analyses
conducted
for
projects
in
the
Tahoe
Region,
an
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐28
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
G e n e r a l
P l a n
a n d
r e c o m m e n d e d / e x a m p l e
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐29
3.11.6
IMPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
A NALYSIS
M ETHODOLOGY
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
r e f l e c t
t h e
c a l i b r a t e d
d r i v e r
behavior
discussed
below.
As
the
HCM
2010
methodology
is
not
applicable
for
roundabouts
with
more
than
two
circulating
lanes,
the
SIDRA
software
(Version
4 )
i s
u s e d
t o
a n a l y z e
L O S
f o r
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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐30
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
I NTERSECTION
L EVEL
O F
S ERVICE
A NALYSIS
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐31
•
TABLE
3.11-‐13:
2012
PM
PEAK
HOUR
INTERSECTION
LEVEL
OF
SERVICE
–
NO
PROJECT
AND
PLUS
CONDITIONS
PLUS
PROJECT
NO
PROJECT
PLUS
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
CONTROL1,
2
LOS
THRESHOLD
DELAY
(SEC/VEHICLE)1
LOS
DELAY
(SEC/VEHICLE)1
LOS
Summer
LOS
1. SR
89
North
/
Donner
Pass
Road
Roundabout
D
6.1
A
7.0
A
2. SR
267
/
SR
89
North
/
I-‐80
Westbound
Ramps3
Signal
D
18.4
B
18.4
B
3. SR
267
/
I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramps3
Signal
D
12.2
B
12.5
B
4. Donner
Pass
Road
/
I-‐80
Westbound
On-‐ramp
Uncontrolled
D
8.8
A
9.0
A
5. Donner
Pass
Road
/
I-‐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
Unconventional4
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
Way3
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
D/E5
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
D
N/A
11.2
B
Winter
LOS
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐32
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
NO
PROJECT
PLUS
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
CONTROL1,
2
LOS
THRESHOLD
DELAY
(SEC/VEHICLE)1
LOS
DELAY
(SEC/VEHICLE)1
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
B
15.9
B
16.
SR
267
/
SR
28
Signal
D/E5
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐33
I NTERSECTION
Q UEUING
A NALYSIS
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
S t r e e t
i n t e r s e c t i o n s
g e n e r a l l y
i n t e r f e r e
w i t h
t h e
a d j a c e n t
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.
R OADWAY
C APACITY
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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐34
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
T RAFFIC
O PERATIONS
ON
SR
267
B YPASS
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
I-‐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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐35
TABLE
3.11-‐14:
ROADWAY
LOS
ANALYSIS
–
2012
WITHOUT
PROJECT
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
SUMMER
Bridge
Street,
across
railroad
tracks
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,077
580
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
SR
89
North
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
907
523
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
916
475
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
East
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
990
639
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
West
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
1,068
717
N/A
N/A
No
SR
89,
North
of
I-‐80
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
771
413
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
I-‐80
and
Brockway
Road
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,291
766
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Road
and
Town
Limit
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,493
846
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,448
801
11.19
16,200
No
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,295
669
11.19
14,490
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,130
647
11.19
12,640
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,306
659
11.19
14,610
Yes
Brockway
Road
Between
SR
267
and
project
access
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
945
505
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
project
access
and
Martis
Valley
Road
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
935
496
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
Martis
Valley
Road
and
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,249
733
N/A
N/A
No
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐36
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
Palisades
Drive
Brockway
Road,
between
Palisades
Drive
and
West
River
Street
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,609
997
N/A
N/A
No
WINTER
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,772
1,183
10.19
18,100
No
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,731
1,157
10.19
17,600
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,290
898
10.19
13,100
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,407
903
10.19
14,300
Yes
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐37
TABLE
3.11-‐15:
ROADWAY
LOS
ANALYSIS
–
2012
WITH
PROJECT
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
SUMMER
Bridge
Street,
across
railroad
tracks
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,072
576
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
SR
89
North
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,059
592
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
967
508
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
East
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
1,009
650
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
West
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
1,040
703
N/A
N/A
No
SR
89,
North
of
I-‐80
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,045
559
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
I-‐80
and
Brockway
Road
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,717
997
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Road
and
Town
Limit
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,562
883
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,518
839
11.19
16,990
No
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,383
736
11.19
15,480
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,201
704
11.19
13,440
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,337
683
11.19
14,960
Yes
Brockway
Road
Between
SR
267
and
project
access
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,568
800
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
project
access
and
Martis
Valley
Road
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,307
703
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,412
802
N/A
N/A
No
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐38
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
Martis
Valley
Road
and
Palisades
Drive
Brockway
Road,
between
Palisades
Drive
and
West
River
Street
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,712
1,039
N/A
N/A
No
WINTER
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,871
1,205
10.19
19,100
No
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
1,846
1,169
10.19
18,800
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,329
928
10.19
13,500
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,433
925
10.19
14,600
Yes
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐39
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/I-‐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.1
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
1
In Synchro/SimTraffic, a bend node is an intersection with only two links. These are used at
merge/ diverge locations and roadway curves.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐40
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
s i m i l a r
d e l a y
a t
a n
u n s i g n a l i z e d
i n t e r s e c t i o n
w o u l d
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
o f
t h e
s i m u l a t i o n s .
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/I-‐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
SR
267
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
LINK
LENGTH
(FEET)
DIRECTION
PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
AVERAGE
TRAVEL
SPEED
(MPH)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(SEC/VEHICLE)
2032
Without
PC-3
I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramp
to
Merge
North
of
Truckee
River
Bridge
1,164
Southbound
525
37
4.3
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
Truckee
River
Bridge
2,862
Northbound
766
45
5.6
2032
With
PC-3
I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramp
to
Merge
North
of
Truckee
River
Bridge
1,164
Southbound
720
35
5.4
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
Truckee
River
Bridge
2,862
Northbound
997
41
7.2
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐41
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”
l e f t-‐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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐42
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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).
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐43
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
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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐44
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐45
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
D)
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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐46
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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.
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
r e s p o n s i bility
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐47
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-‐1I
w o u l d
r e d u c e
t h i s
i m p a c t
t o
less
than
significant.
MITIGATION
MEASURES
• Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1A:
The
project
applicant
shall
construct
a
center
turn
lane
on
Donner
Pass
Road
to
allow
two-‐stage
left-‐turn
movements
to
be
made
from
Glenshire
Drive.
The
turn
lane
shall
be
constructed
during
Phase
1
of
project
construction
and
prior
to
any
Parcel
or
Final
Map
recordation.
•
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1B:
Installation
of
a
traffic
signal
at
the
Bridge
Street/Donner
Pass
Road
intersection
is
included
in
the
Town’s
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program.
Payment
of
traffic
impact
fees
is
considered
to
be
an
adequate
mitigation
measure
for
this
intersection.
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
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-‐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-‐1I:
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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐48
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
I m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f
M i t i g a t i o n
M e a s u r es
3.11-‐1A
through
3.11-‐1H
would
reduce
queuing
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
MITIGATION
MEASURES
Implement
Mitigation
Measures
3.11-‐1A
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/I-‐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/I-‐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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐49
TABLE
3.11-‐18:
2012
INTERSECTION
LOS
MITIGATION
SUMMARY
UNMITIGATED
LOS
MITIGATED
LOS
NO
PROJECT
WITH
PROJECT
NO
PROJECT
WITH
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
UNMITIGATED
CONTROL
TYPE1,2
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
LOS
DELAY
SEC/VEH)
LOS
MITIGATION
MEASURE
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
LOS
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
LOS
Donner
Pass
Road
/
Glenshire
Drive
Stop
Controlled
OVF
F
OVF
F
Add
Center
Lane
for
Two-‐Stage
Left-‐Turns
48.0
E
4.12
VEH-
HRS
4
Donner
Pass
Road
/
Bridge
Street
Non-‐Standard
3
OVF
F
OVF
F
Signalize.
Use
Coordinated
Signal
Timing
5
11.2
B
13.3
B
Bridge
Street
/
West
River
Street
Stop
Controlled
OVF
F
OVF
F
Signalize.
Use
Coordinated
Signal
Timing
5
6.0
A
5.9
A
West
River
Street
/
McIver
Crossing
Stop
Controlled
71.9
F
141.5
F
Modify
Center
Lane
for
Two-‐Stage
Left-‐Turns
32.9
D
44.6
E
SR
267
/
Brockway
Road
/
Soaring
Way
Signal
21.2
C
100.9
F
Construct
Dual-‐Lane
Roundabout
with
Right-‐Turn
Bypasses
for
Eastbound
and
Westbound
Traffic
N/A
N/A
31.5
D
Brockway
Road
/
Hope
Court
Stop
Controlled
13.3
B
OVF
F
Construct
Single-‐Lane
Roundabout
with
Single-‐
Lane
Approaches
N/A
N/A
12.4
B
Brockway
Road
/
Martis
Drive
Stop
Controlled
N/A
OVF
F
Provide
TWLTL
for
Two-‐Stage
SB
Left-‐Turn
N/A
N/A
45.2
E
Soaring
Way
/
Joerger
Dr
/
Site
Access
Stop
Controlled
9.4
A
OVF
F
Construct
Single-‐Lane
Roundabout
with
Single-‐
Lane
Approaches
N/A
N/A
9.3
A
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 / 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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐50
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐51
C UMULATIVE
C ONDITIONS
T RAFFIC
I MPACTS
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.
T h i s
n e w
r o a d w a y
w i l l
e x t e n d
e a s t
f r o m
t h e
e a s t e r n
p o r t i o n
o f
D o w n t o w n
T r u c k e e
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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐52
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐53
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
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
TOTAL
SR
267
/
Airport
Rd
/
Schaffer
Mill
Rd
45
1,30
1
28
27
852
209
169
3
14
8
7
150
2,812
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
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
TOTAL
SR
267
/
Airport
Rd
/
Schaffer
Mill
Rd
45
1,322
30
31
919
215
180
3
14
37
31
154
2,980
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
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐54
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• SR
267/I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramps
• Brockway
Road/Hope
Court/Site
Access
• Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
• Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive/Site
Access
3.11
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐55
TABLE
3.11-‐21:
2032
PM
PEAK-‐HOUR
INTERSECTION
LOS
SUMMARY(
NO
PROJECT
AND
PLUS
PROJECT)
NO
PROJECT
PLUS
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
CONTROL1,
2
LOS
THRESHOLD
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
LOS
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
LOS
Summer
LOS
1. SR
89
North
/
Donner
Pass
Road
Roundabout
D
OVF
F
OVF
F
2. SR
267
/
SR
89
North
/
I-‐80
Westbound
Ramps3
Signal
D
35.4
D
81.1
F
3. SR
267
/
I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramps3
Signal
D
19.6
B
59.4
E
4. Donner
Pass
Road
/
I-‐80
Westbound
On-‐ramp
Uncontrolled
D
15.5
C
17.4
C
5. Donner
Pass
Road
/
I-‐80
Eastbound
Off-‐
ramp
Stop
Controlled
D
OVF
F
OVF
F
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
Unconventional6
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
Way3
Signal
D
141.8
F
OVF
F
14. SR
267
/
Airport
Road
/
Schaffer
Mill
Road3
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
52.3
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
Road
Signal
E
122.7
F
138.7
F
15.
SR
267
/
Northstar
Drive
Signal
E
27.1
C
26.7
C8
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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐56
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
NO
PROJECT
PLUS
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
CONTROL1,
2
LOS
THRESHOLD
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
LOS
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
LOS
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐57
Future
Intersection
Queuing
Analysis
The
95th-‐percentile
traffic
queue
length
was
reviewed
at
locations
w h e r e
q u e u i n g
c o u l d
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
I-‐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/I-‐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
exceed
capacity
in
traffic
simulation.
Therefore,
roadway
and
intersection
capacity
improvements
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐58
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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/I-‐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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐59
TABLE
3.11-‐22:
ROADWAY
LOS
ANALYSIS
–
2032
WITHOUT
PROJECT
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
SUMMER
Bridge
Street,
across
railroad
tracks
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,686
853
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
SR
89
North
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
2,466
1,268
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,161
671
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
East
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
1,248
711
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
West
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
730
402
N/A
N/A
No
SR
89,
North
of
I-‐80
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
1,791
955
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
I-‐80
and
Brockway
Road
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
2,376
1,330
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Road
and
Town
Limit
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
2,869
1,567
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,832
1,533
11.19
31,690
Yes
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,331
1,246
11.19
26,080
Yes
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
2,237
1,248
11.19
25,030
Yes
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,505
753
11.19
16,840
Yes
Brockway
Road
Between
SR
267
and
project
access
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,401
720
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
project
access
and
Martis
Valley
Road
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,382
700
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,712
987
N/A
N/A
No
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐60
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
Martis
Valley
Road
and
Palisades
Drive
Brockway
Road,
between
Palisades
Drive
and
West
River
Street
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
2,232
1,252
N/A
N/A
No
WINTER
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,707
1,620
10.19
27,600
Yes
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,249
1,374
10.19
22,900
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,718
1,126
10.19
17,500
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,617
1,031
10.19
16,500
Yes
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐61
TABLE
3.11-‐23:
ROADWAY
LOS
ANALYSIS
–
2032
WITH
PROJECT
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
SUMMER
Bridge
Street,
across
railroad
tracks
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,677
853
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
SR
89
North
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
2,732
1,410
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
South
of
I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
1,360
778
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
East
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
1,245
710
N/A
N/A
No
Donner
Pass
Road,
West
of
Bridge
Street
(Commercial
Row)
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,200
709
389
N/A
N/A
No
SR
89,
North
of
I-‐80
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
2,174
1,160
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
I-‐80
and
Brockway
Road
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
2,954
1,649
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Road
and
Town
Limit
Town
of
Truckee/Caltrans
Highway
D
N/A
1
2,914
1,595
N/A
N/A
No
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,877
1,561
11.19
32,190
Yes
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,408
1,303
11.19
26,950
Yes
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
2,305
1,296
11.19
25,790
Yes
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,524
768
11.19
17,050
Yes
Brockway
Road
Between
SR
267
and
project
access
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
2,037
1,019
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
project
access
and
Martis
Valley
Road
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,589
821
N/A
N/A
No
Brockway
Road,
between
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
D
1,420
1,771
1,006
N/A
N/A
No
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐62
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION
LOS
THRESHOLD
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
PEAK-HOUR
VOLUME
PER
LANE
TO
OBTAIN
LOS
THRESHOLD
PEAK-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
PEAK-HOUR
PEAK-
DIRECTION
VOLUME
ADT
FACTOR
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1
LOS
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED?
Martis
Valley
Road
and
Palisades
Drive
Brockway
Road,
between
Palisades
Drive
and
West
River
Street
Town
of
Truckee
Minor
Arterial
E
1,600
2,246
1,252
N/A
N/A
No
WINTER
SR
267,
between
Town
Limit
and
Airport
Road
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,820
1,656
10.19
27,600
Yes
SR
267,
between
Airport
Road
and
Northstar
Drive
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
25,000
2,368
1,397
10.19
22,900
No
SR
267,
between
Northstar
Drive
and
Brockway
Summit
Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
E
21,000
1,772
1,163
10.19
17,500
No
SR
267,
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
TRPA/Placer
County/Caltrans
Highway
D
11,400
1,658
1,060
10.19
16,500
Yes
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
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐63
TABLE
3.11-‐24:
TRAFFIC
PERFORMANCE
ON
SR
267
BYPASS
IN
2032
SR
267
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
LINK
LENGTH
(FEET)
DIRECTION
PEAK
HOUR
TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
AVERAGE
TRAVEL
SPEED
(MPH)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(SEC/VEHICLE)
2032
Without
PC-3
I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramp
to
Merge
North
of
Truckee
River
Bridge
1,164
Southbound
1,046
33
7.2
Truckee
River
Bridge
(2-‐Lane
Section)
3,142
Southbound
1,046
50
3.8
Truckee
River
Bridge
(2-‐Lane
Section)
3,142
Northbound
1,330
48
5.3
Brockway
Road
to
Merge
South
of
Truckee
River
Bridge
2,862
Northbound
1,330
36
16.9
2032
With
PC-3
I-‐80
Eastbound
Ramp
to
Merge
North
of
Truckee
River
Bridge
1,164
Southbound
1,305
28
11.5
Truckee
River
Bridge
(2-‐Lane
Section)
3,142
Southbound
1,305
48
5.1
Truckee
River
Bridge
(2-‐Lane
Section)
3,142
Northbound
1,649
40
14.0
Brockway
Road
to
Merge
South
of
Truckee
River
Bridge
2,862
Northbound
1,649
27
33.0
SOURCE:
LSC
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS,
INC.,
TABLE
20.
Impact
3.11-4:
Under
cumulative
conditions,
project
implementation
would
worsen
already
unacceptable
levels
of
service
at
study
intersections
and
roadways.
(Less
Than
Significant
after
Mitigation)
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-‐5,
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-‐5
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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐64
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
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/I-‐80
Interchange
Ramps
No
intersection
LOS
improvements
are
needed
at
the
SR
267/I-‐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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐65
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/I-‐80
Interchange
Ramps
intersections,
and
• SR
267
-‐
widening
SR
267
to
four
travel
lanes
from
the
Town
Limit
to
south
of
Northstar
Drive,
extending
the
southbound
truck
climbing
lane
to
Brockway
Summit,
and
constructing
a
northbound
passing
lane
at
Brockway
Summit.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐66
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
T RANSIT,
B ICYCLE,
P EDESTRIAN,
AND
A DDITIONAL
I MPACTS
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐67
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
s u m m a r y ,
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.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐68
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
c r o s s i n g s .
T h e
p r o p o s e d
b i c y c l e
a n d
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
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.11-‐69
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:
T h e
p r o j e c t
p r o p o n e n t
s hall
p r e p a r e
a
C o n s t r u c t i o n
T r a f f i c
Management
Plan
for
review
and
approval
by
Town
staff,
prior
to
construction.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐70
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
19
89
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
26
7
T
R
A
I
L
PI
O
N
E
E
R
W
E
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
M
C
I
V
E
R
PALLISADES DR.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
D
MA
R
T
I
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
.
D
S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
Y
.
S
C
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
.
D
TO
T
A
H
O
E
&
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
2
3
11
13
14
9
H
O
P
E
C
T
.
18
17
ST
R
E
E
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
CO
U
N
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WA
T
E
R
/
L
A
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
(U
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
TR
A
F
F
I
C
S
I
G
N
A
L
(U
N
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
L
E
G
E
N
D
1 11
9
1
SR
8
9
N
/
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
RD
/
H
E
N
N
E
S
S
R
D
5
3
7
11
8
6
10
2
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
8
9
N
/
I-
8
0
W
B
R
A
M
P
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
PI
O
N
E
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
/
MC
I
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
4
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
I
-
8
0
E.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
WB
O
N
-
R
A
M
P
12
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
D
R
.
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
/
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
EB
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
A
M
P
S
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
&
M
a
r
t
i
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
7
26
7
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
LA
K
E
T
A
H
O
E
28
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
TA
H
O
E
&
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
15
16
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
.5
1
2
0
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
13
14
SR
2
6
7
/
B
R
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
SR
2
6
7
/
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
.
/
SC
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
.
1
9
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
/
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
15
SR
2
6
7
/
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
16
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
2
8
1817
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
HO
P
E
C
T
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
D
R
.
20
2-
L
A
N
E
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
SIT
E
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
1
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
a
n
e
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ma
p
d
a
t
e
:
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
3
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐72
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
13
19
14
5
39
8
12
4
30
2
78
12
0
3 18
9
16
0
5
89
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
26
7
T
R
A
I
L
PI
O
N
E
E
R
W
E
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
M
C
I
V
E
R
PALLISADES DR.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
D
MA
R
T
I
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
.
D
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
Y
.
S
C
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
.
D
TO
T
A
H
O
E
&
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
2
3
11
13
14
9
H
O
P
E
C
T
.
18
17
ST
R
E
E
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
CO
U
N
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WA
T
E
R
/
L
A
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
(U
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
TR
A
F
F
I
C
S
I
G
N
A
L
(U
N
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
L
E
G
E
N
D
1 11
9
1
SR
8
9
N
/
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
RD
/
H
E
N
N
E
S
S
R
D
5
3
7
11
8
6
10
2
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
8
9
N
/
I-
8
0
W
B
R
A
M
P
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
PI
O
N
E
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
/
MC
I
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
4
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
I
-
8
0
E.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
WB
O
N
-
R
A
M
P
12
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
D
R
.
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
/
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
EB
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
A
M
P
S
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
&
M
a
r
t
i
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
7
26
7
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
LA
K
E
T
A
H
O
E
28
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
TA
H
O
E
&
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
15
16
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
.5
1
2
0
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
13
14
SR
2
6
7
/
B
R
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
SR
2
6
7
/
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
.
/
SC
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
.
1
9
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
/
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
DR
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
15
SR
2
6
7
/
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
16
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
2
8
1817
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
HO
P
E
C
T
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
SIT
E
30
2
32
2
31
3
45
14
4
3
11
1
53
3
23
3
28
4
17
3
91
0 24
1
68
55
5
5
5
5
32
9
17
8
44
1
32
9
18
2
14
6
17
5
12
5
37
0
37
5
24
0
26
1
16
5
92
24
0
18
84
62 48
38
1
28
8
20
8
12
4
19
22
5
36
8
19
25
47
9
76
91
13
50
6
12
9
30
25
6
62 10
1
35
4
18
7
12
5
16
1
12
9
60
4
32
7
7943
7
28
7
55
5
4
35
36
4
12
6
11
9
41 28
0
392
92
22
58
9
24
36
56
5
46 10
16
8
64
31
6
44
71
41
2
55
2
11
7
17
9
95
0
2
0
41
2
24
7
27
0
68
6
2
065
7
37
5
10
2
43
8
1
49
5
7
84
31
49
1
10
3
8
12
4
25
9
30
0
12
0
23
5
27
6
37
21
0
2825
15
11
3
7
10
8
10
1
8
4
32
1
43
9837
5
23
43
9
49
6
0
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
49
91
39
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
20
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
.
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
2
:
2
0
1
2
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ma
p
d
a
t
e
:
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
3
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐74
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
0
18
0
0
33
50
51
0 0
0
0
0
89
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
26
7
T
R
A
I
L
P
I
O
N
E
E
R
W
E
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
PALLISADES DR.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
D
MA
R
T
I
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
.
D
S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
Y
.
S
C
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
.
D
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
2
3
11
13
14
9
H
O
P
E
C
T
.
18
17
ST
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
CO
U
N
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WA
T
E
R
/
L
A
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
LE
G
E
N
D
1 11
9
1
SR
8
9
N
/
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
RD
/
H
E
N
N
E
S
S
R
D
5
3
7
11
8
6
10
2
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
8
9
N
/
I-
8
0
W
B
R
A
M
P
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
PI
O
N
E
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
/
MC
I
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
4
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
I
-
8
0
E.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
WB
O
N
-
R
A
M
P
12
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
D
R
.
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
/
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
EB
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
A
M
P
S
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
&
M
a
r
t
i
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
7
26
7
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
LA
K
E
T
A
H
O
E
28
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
TA
H
O
E
&
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
15
16
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
.5
1
13
14
SR
2
6
7
/
B
R
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
SR
2
6
7
/
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
.
/
SC
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
.
1
9
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
/
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
15
SR
2
6
7
/
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
16
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
2
8
18
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
.
SIT
E
14
6
63
12
8
0
17
00
20
9
22
14
5
0
0 0 50
0
18
33
0
18
33 0 0
16
40
-2
1
27
48-1
5
-1
2
-3
14
0
-3
0
0
-3 -1
1
10
-2
0
62
-1
0
0
-4
0
0
0 46
0
0
0
-4
23
46
-4
2965
-2
-1
0
1
14
0
21
5
-7
5
55
85
22
5
18
8924
2
24
7
0
21
0
4
36
-8
-1
13 0
3140
4
0
14
57
10 7 0
0
0
0
8
16
7 0 0
0 0 0
1
75
46
13
20
1
83
65
-2
0
61
0
0 0 69
-2
00
-5
0
50
-1
0
0
-2
-2
12
5
-5
6515
7
-1
5
0
2
0
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
64
0
17
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
HO
P
E
C
T
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
12
12
23
3
7
18
0
5
1
83
1
38
44
10
3
15
8
75
39
12
6
13
2
91
48
3
0
14
12
52
1
3
41
7
13
0
7
0
0 0
170
19
20
NO
T
E
:
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
d
u
e
t
o
p
a
s
s
b
y
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
e
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
4
0
0
53
67
6
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
e
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
D
u
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ma
p
d
a
t
e
:
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
3
.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐76
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
19
0
92
0
0
10
7
50
50
0 0
0
0
0
89
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
26
7
T
R
A
I
L
P
I
O
N
E
E
R
W
E
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
PALLISADES DR.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
D
MA
R
T
I
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
.
D
S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
Y
.
S
C
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
.
D
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
2
3
11
13
14
9
H
O
P
E
C
T
.
18
17
ST
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
CO
U
N
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WA
T
E
R
/
L
A
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1 11
9
1
SR
8
9
N
/
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
RD
/
H
E
N
N
E
S
S
R
D
5
3
7
11
8
6
10
2
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
8
9
N
/
I-
8
0
W
B
R
A
M
P
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
PI
O
N
E
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
/
MC
I
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
4
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
I
-
8
0
E.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
WB
O
N
-
R
A
M
P
12
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
D
R
.
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
/
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
EB
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
A
M
P
S
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
&
M
a
r
t
i
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
7
26
7
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
LA
K
E
T
A
H
O
E
28
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
TA
H
O
E
&
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
15
16
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
.5
1
13
14
SR
2
6
7
/
B
R
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
SR
2
6
7
/
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
.
/
SC
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
.
1
9
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
/
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
15
SR
2
6
7
/
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
16
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
2
8
18
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
.
20
SIT
E
20
5
79
17
8
0
18
00
28
4
35
19
6
0
0 0 63
0
92
10
7
0
92
10
7
0 0
-2
4
49
43
8
5948
-2
-3
5
0
-6
0 0
-6
-7
4
-6
0
15
-1
0
0
-8
0
0 0 8
0
0
0
-3
18
1 -3
23
17
19
-1
2
5
13
4
27
0
-1
0
3
92 13
2
17
0
36
8418
7
31
2
0
18
0
6
27
-1
6
-1
4 0
2940
6
0
20
48
9 0
0
0
0
2
13
4
0
0
0
0 0
1
75
46
12
28
1
15
7
51
-3
0
48
0
0 0 14
2
-1
2
0
0
0
0
38
-9
0
-1
-1
57
0
49
83
-1
1
0
2
0
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
64
0
17
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
HO
P
E
C
T
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
.
14
14
22
6
16
1
3
1
98
23
24
12
3
18
9
44
20
66
77
11
0
48
0
0
14
12
51
6
3
41
7
13
0
7
0
0 0
170
51
NO
T
E
:
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
d
u
e
t
o
p
a
s
s
b
y
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
e
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
0
-3
0
0
11
19
-2
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
4
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
e
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
D
u
r
i
n
g
2
0
3
2
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ma
p
d
a
t
e
:
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
3
.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐78
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
19
14
5
41
6
12
4
33
5
12
8
17
1
3 18
9
16
0
5
89
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
26
7
T
R
A
I
L
PI
O
N
E
E
R
W
E
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
M
C
I
V
E
R
PALLISADES DR.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
D
MA
R
T
I
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
.
D
S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
Y
.
S
C
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
.
D
TO
T
A
H
O
E
&
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
2
3
11
13
14
9
H
O
P
E
C
T
.
18
17
ST
R
E
E
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
CO
U
N
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WA
T
E
R
/
L
A
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
(U
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
TR
A
F
F
I
C
S
I
G
N
A
L
(U
N
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
L
E
G
E
N
D
1 11
9
1
SR
8
9
N
/
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
RD
/
H
E
N
N
E
S
S
R
D
5
3
7
11
8
6
10
2
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
8
9
N
/
I-
8
0
W
B
R
A
M
P
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
PI
O
N
E
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
/
MC
I
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
4
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
I
-
8
0
E.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
WB
O
N
-
R
A
M
P
12
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
D
R
.
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
/
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
EB
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
A
M
P
S
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
&
M
a
r
t
i
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
7
26
7
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
LA
K
E
T
A
H
O
E
28
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
TA
H
O
E
&
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
15
16
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
.5
1
2
0
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
13
14
SR
2
6
7
/
B
R
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
SR
2
6
7
/
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
.
/
SC
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
.
1
9
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
/
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
DR
.
/
SI
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
15
SR
2
6
7
/
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
16
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
2
8
1817
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
HO
P
E
C
T
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
D
R
.
20
SIT
E
44
8
38
5
44
1
45
16
1
3
11
1
74
2
25
5
17
3
42
9
91
0 29
1
68
57
3
36
2
17
8
45
9
36
2
18
2
14
6
19
1
16
5
34
9
40
2
24
6
28
8
15
3
89
25
4
18
81
62 48
37
8
27
7
21
8
12
2
19
28
7
36
7
19
25
47
5
76
91
13
55
2
12
9
30
15
7
15
2
65
0
32
3
10
8
50
2
28
5
45
4
14
4
25
0
28
9
18
1
20
4
26
6
29
8
92
33
4
33
9
22
61
0
24
40
60
1
38
918
1
64
6246
48
71
42
6
60
9
12
7
18
6 95
41
46
13
27
7
68
6
2
37
5
65
7
0
22
14
67
1
8
67
5
8
15
9
77
62
6
12
3
9
20
7
32
4
28
0
18
1
23
5
27
6
37
27
9
2625
15
10
8
7
15
8
0
1
6
2
44
6
38
16
3
53
2
8
56
5
62
8
98
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
26
0
62 10
1
40
7
25
4
13
1
1
38
83
1
44
10
3
67
1
844
75
15
8
39
91
48
3
14
12
52
1
3
64
17
2
0
0
42
0
26
3
0
0
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
5
:
2
0
1
2
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ma
p
d
a
t
e
:
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
3
.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐80
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
19
15
5
93
0
38
17
86
7
28
1
32
3
8 26
2
32
3
15
89
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
26
7
T
R
A
I
L
PI
O
N
E
E
R
W
E
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
M
C
I
V
E
R
PALLISADES DR.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
D
MA
R
T
I
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
.
D
S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
Y
.
S
C
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
.
D
TO
T
A
H
O
E
&
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
2
3
11
13
14
9
H
O
P
E
C
T
.
18
17
ST
R
E
E
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
CO
U
N
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WA
T
E
R
/
L
A
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
(U
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
TR
A
F
F
I
C
S
I
G
N
A
L
(U
N
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
L
E
G
E
N
D
1 11
9
1
SR
8
9
N
/
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
RD
/
H
E
N
N
E
S
S
R
D
5
3
7
11
8
6
10
2
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
8
9
N
/
I-
8
0
W
B
R
A
M
P
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
PI
O
N
E
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
/
MC
I
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
4
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
I
-
8
0
E.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
WB
O
N
-
R
A
M
P
12
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
D
R
.
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
/
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
EB
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
A
M
P
S
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
&
M
a
r
t
i
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
7
26
7
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
LA
K
E
T
A
H
O
E
28
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
TA
H
O
E
&
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
15
16
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
.5
1
2
0
JO
E
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
13
14
SR
2
6
7
/
B
R
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
SR
2
6
7
/
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
.
/
SC
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
.
1
9
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
/
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
DR
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
15
SR
2
6
7
/
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
16
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
2
8
1817
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
HO
P
E
C
T
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
D
R
.
20
SIT
E
74
7
44
1
79
1
45
19
7
3
20
8
1,
0
9
7
23
3
23
2
75
6
91
0 29
0
21
7
11
2
3
37
5
78
6
49
0
37
5
85
0
29
6
74
31
5
17
8
46
3
46
7
17
7
69
22
9
55
5
90
27
6
62
48
66
28
8
26
9
19
7
71
39
8
56
3
19
30
62
5
17
5 25
3
13 61
5
12
23
30
25
6
17
4
24
8
62
3
33
0
26
9
22
4
13
8
84
9
39
3
8663
9
45
6
1,
0
9
2
19
84
79
0
17
2 12
1
72 48
8
2492
11
7
52
1,
0
3
0
45
53
1,
0
4
3
20
3 2832
6
99
5221
17
7
10
8
88
1
11
0
1
14
5
20
4
14
7
0
2
0
47
1
28
2
31
2
79
3
2
43
8
76
7
0
36
21
66
0
22
68
4
8
15
1
95
80
16
82
8
41
9
48
2
54
25
25
4
54
5
81
3
99
35
6
22
620
1
40
11
3
13
10
8
67
6
58
51
50
7
43
9851
6
86
68
2
70
0
0
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
15
9
10
3
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
AC
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
AC
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
AC
C
E
S
S
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
T
E
AC
C
E
S
S
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
6
:
2
0
3
2
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ma
p
d
a
t
e
:
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
3
.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐82
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
19
15
5
1,
0
2
2
38
17
97
4
33
1
37
3
8 26
2
32
3
15
89
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
26
7
T
R
A
I
L
PI
O
N
E
E
R
W
E
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
M
C
I
V
E
R
PALLISADES DR.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
.
D
MA
R
T
I
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
.
D
S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
Y
.
S
C
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
.
D
TO
T
A
H
O
E
&
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
2
3
11
13
14
9
H
O
P
E
C
T
.
18
17
ST
R
E
E
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
CO
U
N
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WA
T
E
R
/
L
A
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
(U
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
TR
A
F
F
I
C
S
I
G
N
A
L
(U
N
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
)
L
E
G
E
N
D
1 11
9
1
SR
8
9
N
/
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
RD
/
H
E
N
N
E
S
S
R
D
5
3
7
11
8
6
10
2
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
8
9
N
/
I-
8
0
W
B
R
A
M
P
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
PI
O
N
E
E
R
T
R
A
I
L
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
/
MC
I
V
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
4
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
/
I
-
8
0
E.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
WB
O
N
-
R
A
M
P
12
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
D
R
.
BR
I
D
G
E
S
T
.
/
WE
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
.
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
.
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
EB
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
A
M
P
S
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
/
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
&
M
a
r
t
i
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
7
26
7
NO
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
LA
K
E
T
A
H
O
E
28
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
KI
N
G
S
BE
A
C
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
TA
H
O
E
&
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
15
16
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
.5
1
2
0
JO
E
R
G
E
R
D
R
.
/
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
13
14
SR
2
6
7
/
B
R
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/S
O
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
SR
2
6
7
/
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
.
/
SC
H
A
F
F
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
.
1
9
SO
A
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
/
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
DR
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
15
SR
2
6
7
/
N
O
R
T
H
S
T
A
R
D
R
.
16
SR
2
6
7
/
S
R
2
8
1817
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
HO
P
E
C
T
.
/
S
I
T
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
BR
O
C
K
W
A
Y
R
D
.
/
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
.
20
SIT
E
95
2
52
0
96
9
45
21
5
3
20
8
1,
3
8
1
26
8
23
2
95
2
91
0 35
3
21
7
12
1
5
48
2
78
6
58
2
48
2
85
0
29
6
50
36
4
22
1
47
1
52
6
22
5
67
22
6
56
0
90
27
0
62
48
60
28
1
27
3
19
1
71
41
3
56
2
19
30
61
7
17
5
25
3
13 62
3
12
23
30
22
1
15
6
85
0
39
0
10
965
6
47
5
96
7
15
3
35
4
68
7
26
4
25
3
24
2
52
4
10
827
9
42
9
52
1,
0
4
8
45
59
1,
0
7
0
18
7 2733
0
99
8161
18
3
10
8
90
1
11
4
9
47
3
20
4
14
7
41
11
0
13
31
6
79
3
2
43
8
76
7
0
50
35
27
84
5
9
22
6
14
1
92
19
11
0
9
57
6
53
3
51
25
30
2
54
5
81
3
99
49
8
21
420
1
40
11
3
13
14
6
58
6
57
50
56
4
43
14
7
59
9
75
74
8
77
7
16
6
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
25
3
17
4
24
8
63
4
34
9
26
7
1
23
98
1
12
3
88
6
24
44
18
9
20
11
0
48
0
14
12
51
6
3
64
17
2
29
5
0
0
15
4
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
7
:
2
0
3
2
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ma
p
d
a
t
e
:
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
3
.
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐84
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
JO
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
-
8
:
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
y
o
u
t
,
T
w
o
-
S
t
a
g
e
L
e
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
,
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Da
t
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
:
S
C
O
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
&
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
,
2
0
1
2
3.11
T RANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
3.11-‐86
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
UTILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐1
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
E XISTING
S ETTING
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
R EGULATORY
S ETTING
-‐
W ASTEWATER
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
S t o r m
S e w e r
S y s t e m s
( M S 4
p e r m i t
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
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐3
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
s y s t e m s ,
d r a i n a g e
w o r k s ,
a n d
w a t e r
r e c l a m a t i o n
a n d
d i s t r i b u t i o n
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
C o d e
( T S D )
o u t l i n e s
p o l i c i e s ,
p r o v i s i o n s ,
r e g u l a t i o n s ,
f e e s ,
a n d
charges
related
to
service,
installation,
inspection,
and
maintenance
of
sanitary
sewer
facilities.
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
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.
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐5
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
p e r m i t t e d
s a n i t a r y
s e w e r
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
w h e r e
i t
w o u l d
b e
t r e a t e d
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h
t h e
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
m a y
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
n o t
s p e c i f i c a l l y
p r o v i d e
c o l l e c t i o n
a n d
t r e a t m e n t
f o r
i n d u s t r i a l
u s e s ;
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
w h e r e
i t
w o u l d
b e
t r e ated
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.
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐7
3.12.2
WATER
SERVICE
E XISTING
S ETTING
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
D o n n e r
P u b l i c
U t i l i t i e s
D i strict
Urban
Water
Management
Plan
( 2 0 1 1 ) ,
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
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
R EGULATORY
S ETTING
–
W ATER
S ERVICE
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
D o n n e r
P u b l i c
U t i l i t i e s
D i s t r i c t
U r b a n
W a t e r
Management
Plan
( 2 0 1 1 )
w a s
a d o p t e d
b y
t h e
T D P U D
i n
J u n e
2 0 1 1 .
T h e
U W M P
u s e s
g r o w t h
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
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐9
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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).
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE-‐
W ATER
S ERVICE
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.
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐11
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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
D r a f t
2 0 1 2
W a t e r
M a s t e r
P l a n
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
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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),
a r e
p l a n n e d
a s
p a r t
o f
t h e
2 0 1 1
U W M P
t o
p r o v i d e
t h i s
a d d i t i o n a l
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.
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐13
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
Star®
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
U W M P .
A s
s u c h ,
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12.3
S OLID
WASTE
E XISTING
S ETTING
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
50
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.
R EGULATORY
S ETTING
–
S OLID
W ASTE
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.
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐15
In
2007,
SB
1016
amended
AB
939
to
establish
a
per
capita
disposal
measurement
system.
The
per
capita
disposal
measurement
system
is
based
on
two
factors:
a
jurisdiction’s
reported
total
disposal
o f
s o l i d
wa s t e
d i v i d e d
b y
a
j u r i s d i c t i o n ’ s
p o p u l a t i o n .
C I WMB
s e t s
a
t a r g e t
p e r
c a p i t a
disposal
rate
for
each
jurisdiction.
Each
jurisdiction
must
submit
an
annual
report
to
CIWMB
with
an
update
of
its
progress
in
implementing
diversion
programs
and
it’s
current
per
capita
disposal
rate.
AB
341
(75
PERCENT
SOLID
WASTE
DIVERSION)
AB
341
requires
CalRecycle
to
issue
a
report
to
the
Legislature
that
includes
strategies
and
recommendations
that
would
enable
the
state
to
divert
75
percent
of
the
solid
waste
generated
in
the
state
from
disposal
by
January
1,
2020,
requires
businesses
that
meet
specified
thresholds
in
the
bill
to
arrange
for
recycling
services
by
January
1,
2012,
and
also
streamlines
various
regulatory
processes.
SB
1374
(CONSTRUCTION
AND
DEMOLITION
WASTE
MATERIALS
DIVERSION)
Senate
Bill
1374
(SB
1374),
Construction
and
Demolition
Waste
Materials
Diversion
Requirements,
requires
that
jurisdictions
summarize
their
progress
realized
in
diverting
construction
and
demolition
waste
from
the
waste
stream
in
their
annual
AB
939
reports.
SB
1374
required
the
CIWMB
to
adopt
a
model
construction
and
demolition
ordinance
for
voluntary
implementation
by
local
jurisdictions.
CALIFORNIA
GREEN
BUILDING
STANDARDS
CODE
(CALGREEN)
CALGreen
requires
the
diversion
of
at
least
50
percent
of
the
construction
waste
generated
during
most
new
construction
projects
(CALGreen
Sections
4.408
and
5.408)
and
some
additions
and
alterations
to
nonresidential
building
projects.
Local
2025
TRUCKEE
GENERAL
PLAN
Land
Use
Element
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.
Safety
Element
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE-‐
S OLID
W ASTE
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.
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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.
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐17
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
E XISTING
S ETTING
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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).
R EGULATORY
S ETTING
–
E NERGY
AND
T ELECOMMUNICATIONS
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:
U TILITIES
3.12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.12-‐19
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.
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE-‐
E NERGY
AND
T ELECOMMUNICATIONS
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.
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
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.
3.12
U TILITIES
3.12-‐20
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
VISUAL
AND
AESTHETIC
R ESOURCES
3.13
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.13-‐1
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
S ETTING
L ANDSCAPE
S ETTING
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
I-‐80
and
the
Town
of
Truckee.
The
Plan
area
consists
of
a
largely
level,
low-‐lying
portion
of
the
floodplain
of
tributaries
to
Martis
Creek.
The
valley-‐bottom
portions
of
the
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
I-‐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
I-‐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,
c o u l d
c o n t r a s t
s t r o n g l y
w i t h
o t h e r
e x i s t i n g
d e v e l o p m e n t
i n
t h e
region,
potentially
3.13
V ISUAL
AND
AESTHETIC
R ESOURCES
3.13-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
E XISTING
S ITE
C ONDITIONS
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
S ETTING
S TATE
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
VISUAL
AND
A ESTHETIC
RESOURCES
3.13
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.13-‐3
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
I-‐80
and
SR-‐89
are
eligible
to
be
State
Scenic
Highways,
but
are
not
officially
designated.
L OCAL
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
h a r mo n y
o f
t h e
b u i l t
e n v i r o n me n t
t h a t
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.
3.13
V ISUAL
AND
AESTHETIC
R ESOURCES
3.13-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
i t
i s
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.
VISUAL
AND
A ESTHETIC
RESOURCES
3.13
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.13-‐5
3.13.3
IMPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
MEASURES
T HRESHOLDS
OF
S IGNIFICANCE
Consistent
with
Appendix
G
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines,
the
proposed
project
will
have
significant
impact
on
aesthetics
if
it
will:
• Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
a
scenic
vista;
• Substantially
damage
scenic
resources,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
trees,
rock
outcroppings,
and
historic
buildings
within
a
state
scenic
highway;
• Substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
or
quality
of
the
site
and
its
surroundings;
and/or
• Create
a
new
source
of
substantial
light
or
glare
which
would
adversely
affect
day
or
nighttime
views
in
the
area.
I MPACTS
AND
M ITIGATION
M EASURES
Impact
3.13-1:
Project
implementation
has
the
potential
to
result
in
substantial
adverse
effects
on
scenic
vistas
or
substantially
damage
scenic
resources
within
a
State
Scenic
Highway
(No
Impact)
As
described
in
the
Environmental
Setting
section
above,
there
are
no
State-‐designated
Scenic
Highways
in
Truckee.
Both
I-‐80
and
SR-‐89
are
eligible
to
be
State
Scenic
Highways,
but
are
not
officially
designated.
Given
that
there
are
no
officially
designated
State
Scenic
Highways
in
or
adjacent
to
the
Plan
Area,
the
proposed
project
would
have
no
impact
related
to
this
environmental
topic.
No
mitigation
is
required.
Impact
3.13-2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
or
quality
of
the
site
and
its
surroundings
(Less
than
Significant)
As
described
in
the
Environmental
Setting
section
above,
a
very
high
numbers
of
motorists
with
unusually
high
sensitivity
to
scenic
values
could
experience
a
high
level
of
foreground
visual
exposure
to
development
in
the
Plan
Area.
The
site
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
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.
3.13
V ISUAL
AND
AESTHETIC
R ESOURCES
3.13-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
Figure
3.13-‐1
shows
views
of
the
Plan
Area
from
the
northwest
corner
of
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road
and
SR
267,
looking
east
down
Soaring
Way
into
the
Plan
Area.
The
two
images
shown
on
Figure
3.13-‐1
depict
the
existing
site
conditions,
as
well
as
a
photo
simulation
of
post-‐
development
site
conditions.
The
exact
building
facades
and
designs
have
not
been
determined
at
this
point,
however,
the
visual
simulations
depict
buildings
that
could
be
built
within
the
design
parameters
established
by
the
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan.
Figure
3.13-‐2
shows
views
of
the
Plan
Area
from
SR
267,
south
of
the
intersection
of
SR
267
and
Brockway
Road,
looking
northeast
across
the
Plan
Area
towards
Soaring
Way.
The
two
images
shown
on
Figure
3.13-‐2
depict
the
existing
site
conditions,
as
well
as
a
photo
simulation
of
post-‐
development
site
conditions.
Figure
3.13-‐3
shows
views
of
the
Plan
Area
from
the
southeast
corner
of
the
intersection
of
SR
267
and
Soaring
Way,
looking
northwest
onto
the
northwest
corner
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
two
images
shown
on
Figure
3.13-‐3
depict
the
existing
site
conditions,
as
well
as
a
photo
simulation
of
post-‐
development
site
conditions.
Figure
3.13-‐4
shows
views
of
the
Plan
Area
from
the
northeast
corner
of
the
i n t e r s e c t i o n
o f
Soaring
Way
and
Joerger
Drive,
looking
west
by
southwest
towards
the
intersection
of
SR
267
and
Brockway
Road.
The
two
images
shown
on
Figure
3.13-‐4
depict
the
existing
site
conditions,
as
well
as
a
photo
simulation
of
post-‐development
site
conditions.
Development
of
the
Plan
Area
would
introduce
new
commercial,
industrial,
and
residential
structures
into
an
area
of
the
Town
that
is
currently
undeveloped
and
visually
perceived
as
open
space.
VISUAL
AND
A ESTHETIC
RESOURCES
3.13
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.13-‐7
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
3.13
V ISUAL
AND
AESTHETIC
R ESOURCES
3.13-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
a r e as;
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.
T h e
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
pri or
to
issuance
of
building
permits.
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmFigure 3.13-1: Visual Simulation View 1 View: 46 degrees Shadows: 21 May, Noon Map date: December 6, 2012
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
o
n
l
y
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
w
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
ot
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Camera LocationJOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3)
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmFigure 3.13-2: Visual Simulation View 2 Field of View: 46 degrees Shadows: 21 May, Noon Map date: December 6, 2012
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
o
n
l
y
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
w
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
ot
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Camera LocationJOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3)
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmFigure 3.13-3: Visual Simulation View 3 Field of View: 46 degrees Shadows: 21 May, Noon Map date: December 6, 2012
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
o
n
l
y
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
w
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
ot
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Camera LocationJOERGER RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PC-3)
D
e
N
o
v
o
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
G
r
o
u
p
A
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
D
e
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
F
i
r
m
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
3
-
4
:
V
i
s
u
a
l
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
V
i
e
w
4
F
i
e
l
d
o
f
V
i
e
w
:
4
6
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
S
h
a
d
o
w
s
:
2
1
M
a
y
,
N
o
o
n
M
a
p
d
a
t
e
:
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
6
,
2
0
1
2
Buildings shown in the visual simulation are only examples of what could be built within the Specific Plan constraints and are not propo
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
C
a
m
e
r
a
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
J
O
E
R
G
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
(
P
C
-
3
)
OTHER
CEQA-‐R EQUIRED
TOPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐1
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
C UMULATIVE
S ETTING
AND
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
I NTRODUCTION
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
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
C UMULATIVE
S ETTING
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
(SOI).
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.
C UMULATIVE
E FFECTS
OF
THE
P ROJECT
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
CEQA
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
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐3
Guidelines
§§15130[a]-‐[b],
§15355[b],
§15064[h],
§15065[c];
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment
v.
California
Resources
Agency
[2002]
103
Cal.App.4th
98,
120.)
In
other
words,
the
required
analysis
first
creates
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
site
itself,
and
then
determines
whether
the
proposed
project’s
incremental
contribution
to
any
significant
cumulative
impacts
from
all
projects
is
itself
significant
(i.e.,
“cumulatively
considerable”).
There
are
two
approaches
to
identifying
cumulative
projects
and
the
associated
impacts.
The
list
approach
identifies
individual
projects
known
to
be
occurring
or
proposed
in
the
surrounding
area
in
order
to
potential
cumulative
impacts.
The
projection
approach
uses
a
summary
of
projections
in
adopted
General
Plans
or
related
planning
documents
to
identify
potential
cumulative
impacts.
This
EIR
uses
the
projection
approach
for
the
cumulative
analysis
and
considers
the
development
anticipated
to
occur
upon
buildout
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan.
Project
Assumptions
The
project’s
contribution
to
environmental
impacts
under
cumulative
conditions
is
based
on
full
buildout
of
the
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
(PC-‐3)
Specific
Plan.
See
Chapter
2,
Project
Description,
for
a
complete
description
of
the
proposed
project.
Cumulative
Impacts
Cumulative
impacts
for
most
issue
areas
are
not
quantifiable
and
are
therefore
discussed
in
general
terms
as
they
pertain
to
development
patterns
in
the
surrounding
region.
Exceptions
to
this
are
traffic,
noise
and
air
quality
(the
latter
two
of
which
are
associated
with
traffic
volumes),
which
may
be
quantified
by
estimating
future
traffic
patterns,
pollutant
emitters,
etc.
and
determining
the
combined
effects
that
may
result.
In
consideration
of
the
cumulative
scenario
described
above,
the
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
project
may
result
in
the
following
cumulative
impacts.
AIR
QUALITY
Impact
4.1:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
the
region's
air
quality
(Cumulatively
Considerable
and
Significant
and
Unavoidable)
The
cumulative
setting
for
air
quality
impacts
is
the
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin.
Under
buildout
conditions
in
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan,
the
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin
would
continue
to
experience
increases
in
criteria
pollutants
and
efforts
to
improve
air
quality
throughout
the
basin
would
be
hindered.
As
described
in
Section
3.1,
Nevada
County
has
a
state
designation
of
Nonattainment
for
Ozone,
and
PM10
and
is
either
Attainment
or
unclassified
for
all
other
criteria
pollutants.
Table
3.1-‐2
presents
the
state
and
nation
attainment
status
for
Nevada
County.
As
discussed
under
Impact
3.1-‐1,
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
increased
emissions
primarily
from
vehicle
miles
travelled
associated
with
project
implementation.
The
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
(NSAQMD)
has
developed
a
tiered
approach
to
significance
levels;
a
project
with
emissions
qualifying
it
for
Level
A
thresholds
will
require
the
most
basic
mitigations.
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Projects
which
qualify
for
Level
B
will
require
more
extensive
mitigation,
and
subsequently,
those
projects
which
qualify
for
Level
C
will
require
the
most
extensive
application
of
mitigation.
Table
3.1-‐5
provides
the
project-‐level
operational
threshold
of
significance
for
ROG,
NOx,
and
PM10.
There
is
no
threshold
established
for
PM2.5.
As
shown
in
Table
3.1-‐6,
operational
ROG,
NOx
and
PM10
emissions
exceed
the
Level
C
threshold
of
significance.
The
NAAQMD
has
determined
that
projects
with
emissions
that
exceed
this
Level
C
threshold
will
have
a
significant
impact
and
require
mitigation
to
reduce
emissions
to
the
extent
possible.
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
3.1-‐3
include
requirements
that
the
project
must
implement
in
order
to
reduce
operational
emissions
associated
with
project
implementation.
However,
as
shown
in
Table
3.1-‐7,
while
emissions
are
reduced
w i t h
t h e
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f
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
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐5
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
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
known
and
undiscovered
cultural
resources
(Less
than
Cumulatively
Considerable)
The
cumulative
setting
for
cultural
resources
includes
the
Town
of
Truckee,
the
Truckee
SOI,
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
SOI.
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.
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
The
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
SOI.
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
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐7
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.
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐9
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
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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-‐5,
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-‐5
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
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐11
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/I-80
Interchange
Ramps
No
intersection
LOS
improvements
are
needed
at
the
SR
267/I-‐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
f r o m
t h e
T o w n
L i m i t
t o
s o u t h
o f
N o r t h s t a r
D r i v e ,
e x t e n d i n g
t h e
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
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
utilities
(Less
than
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
l e s s
t h a n
c u m u l a t i v e l y
c o n s i d e r a b l e,
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.
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐13
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
d i s p o s a l
r a t e
t h a t
e f f e c t i v e l y
e n s u r e s
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.
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
G ROWTH-‐INDUCING
E FFECTS
I NTRODUCTION
Section
15126.2(d)
o f
t h e
C E Q A
G u i d e l i n e s
r e q u i r e s
t h a t
a n
E I R
e v a l u a t e
t h e
g r o w t h-‐inducing
impacts
of
a
proposed
action.
A
growth-‐inducing
impact
is
defined
by
the
CEQA
Guidelines
as:
The
way
in
which
a
proposed
project
could
foster
economic
or
population
growth,
or
the
construction
of
additional
housing,
either
directly
or
indirectly,
in
the
surrounding
environment.
Included
in
this
are
projects
which
would
remove
obstacles
to
population
growth…It
is
not
assumed
that
growth
in
an
area
is
necessarily
beneficial,
detrimental,
or
of
little
significance
to
the
environment.
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
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐15
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.
G ROWTH
E FFECTS
OF
THE
P ROJECT
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
f o r
e v e r y
5 0 0
s . f .
o f
g r o s s
f l o o r
s p a c e :
R e g i o n a l
C o m m e r c i a l
( C R ) ,
R e g i o n a l
S u p p o r t
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.
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
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
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
E FFECTS
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);
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐17
•
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
I MPACTS
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15126.2(b)
requires
an
EIR
to
discuss
unavoidable
significant
environmental
effects,
including
those
that
can
be
mitigated
but
not
reduced
to
a
level
of
insignificance.
The
following
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
of
the
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
Project
are
discussed
in
Chapters
3.1
through
3.13
(project-‐level)
and
previously
in
this
chapter
(cumulative-‐level).
4.0
OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED
T OPICS
4.0-‐18
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• 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.
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐1
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.”
( C E Q A
G u i d e l i n e s ,
S e c t i o n
1 5 1 2 6 . 6 ( f ) . )
T h e
C E Q A
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)
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.
( M i r a
M a r
M o bile
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:
s i t e
s u i t a b i l i t y ,
e c o n o m i c
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.
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
P ROJECT
O BJECTIVES
The
alternatives
to
the
proposed
project
selected
for
analysis
in
the
EIR
were
developed
to
minimize
significant
environmental
impacts
while
fulfilling
the
basic
objectives
of
the
project.
As
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
Ollar,
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
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐3
N O
P ROJECT
(NO
B UILD)
A LTERNATIVE
The
CEQA
Guidelines
(Section
15126.6[e])
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.
R EDUCED
I NTENSITY
A LTERNATIVE
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
C o d e ,
e m p l o y e e s
g e n e r a t e d
b y
a
d e v e l o p m e n t
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.
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐4
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
The
Open
Space
(OS)
zone
would
be
expanded
under
this
alternative.
Table
5-‐1
shows
the
approximate
acreage
of
t h e
o n s i t e
z o n i n g
d i s t r i c t s,
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
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
Full
Time
Equivalent
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
I NDUSTRIAL
U SES
O NLY
A LTERNATIVE
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
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐5
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
Potential
Full
Time
Equivalent
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
A LTERNATIVES
N OT
S ELECTED
FOR
F URTHER
A NALYSIS
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
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐6
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
Given
the
specific
attention
paid
in
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
to
future
development
of
this
particular
site,
the
analysis
of
an
alternative
site
location
is
not
considered
in
this
EIR.
5.3
E NVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS
The
alternatives
analysis
provides
a
summary
of
the
relative
impact
level
of
significance
associated
with
each
alternative
for
each
of
the
environmental
issue
areas
analyzed
in
this
EIR.
Following
the
analysis
of
each
alternative,
Table
5-‐3
summarizes
the
comparative
effects
of
each
alternative.
N O
P ROJECT
(NO
B UILD)
A LTERNATIVE
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,
the
project
site
would
not
be
developed
and
these
mobile
source
air
emissions
would
not
occur.
Additionally,
while
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
less
than
significant
construction
emissions
impacts,
under
this
alternative,
no
construction
emissions
would
be
generated.
Therefore,
this
impact
is
avoided
under
this
alternative.
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
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐7
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.
U n d e r
t h i s
a l t e r n a t i v e ,
t h e
p r o j e c t
w o u l d
n o t
b e
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
s i t e
w o u l d
n o t
b e
d e v e l o p e d ,
a n d
t h e r e
w o u l d
b e
n o
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.
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐8
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
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.
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐9
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.
R E DUCED
I NTENSITY
A LTERNATIVE
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.
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐10
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
t h e
p r o j e c t
s i t e ,
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.
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐11
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
schools,
parks
and
other
public
facilities.
Under
the
Reduced
Intensity
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
A l t e r n a t i v e
w o u l d
i n t r o d u c e
f ewer
vehicle
trips
onto
the
study
area
roadways
identified
i n
S e c t i o n
3 . 1 1 .
A s
d e s c r i b e d
i n
S e c t i o n
3 . 1 1 ,
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f
t h e
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
w h e n
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.
I NDUSTRIAL
AND
B USINESS
P ARK
O NLY
A LTERNATIVE
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
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐12
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐13
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
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
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐14
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
A LTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
5.0-‐15
E NVIRONMENTALLY
S UPERIOR
A LTERNATIVE
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
Table
5-‐3
p r e s e n t s
a
c o m p a r i s o n
o f
t h e
a l t e r n a t i v e
p r o j e c t
i m p a c t s
w i t h
t h o s e
o f
t h e
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan.
TABLE
5-‐3:
COMPARISON
OF
ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT
IMPACTS
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUE
NO
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
REDUCED
INTENSITY
ALTERNATIVE
INDUSTRIAL
USES
ONLY
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
Materials
Less
Less
Equal
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality
Less
Less
Equal
Land
Use,
Planning
&
Population
Equal
Equal
Greater
Noise
Less
Less
Less
Public
Services
Less
Less
Less
Transportation
and
Circulation
Less
Less
Less
Utilities
Less
Less
Equal
Visual
and
Aesthetic
Resources
Less
Less
Equal
GREATER
=
GREATER
IMPACT
THAN
THAT
OF
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
LESS
=
DECREASED
IMPACT
THAN
THAT
OF
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
+/-‐
=
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
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
5.0-‐16
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
As
shown
in
the
table
above,
the
No
Project
A l t e r n a t i v e
i s
t h e
e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y
s u p e r i o r
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.
REPORT
PREPARERS
6.0
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
6.0-‐1
T OWN
OF
T RUCKEE
John
McLaughlin ........................................................................Community
Development
Director
Denyelle
Nishimori ....................................................................................................Senior
Planner
D E
N OVO
P LANNING
G ROUP
Ben
Ritchie .................................................................................Principal
Planner/Project
Manager
Steve
McMurtry......................................................................................................Principal
Planner
Beth
Thompson ......................................................................................................Principal
Planner
LSC
T RANSPORTATION
C ONSULTANTS,
I NC.
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
S TORM
W ATER
C ONSULTING,
I NC.
Jim
Nelson,
P.E......................................................................................................Principal
Engineer
6.0
R EPORT
PREPARERS
6.0-‐2
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.