Preface Executive Summary 1 - Introduction 2 - Project Description 3 - Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4 - Alternatives to the Project 5 - List of Persons Preparing this EIR 6 - Bibliography Appendices A - Notice of Preparation B - Responses to Notice of Preparation C - Goals, Objectives, Policies, Implementation Actions and Strategies D - General Plan Update Opinion Surveys CHAPTER 3.0 SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.1.1 Setting Geology The following information is taken from The City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf. Nevada County is part of the Sierra Nevada Range, a geologic block approximately 400 miles long and 80 miles wide which extends in a north-south band along the eastern portion of California. The terrain of Nevada County is distinctly characterized by two features of the Sierra Nevada. The western third of the county is comprised of rolling foothills which form a transition between the low-lying Sacramento Valley and the mountains to the east. The area extending from the Yuba County line to just northeast of the Grass Valley/Nevada City area is generally comprised of metavolcanic (Mesazoic Jura-Trias Metavolcanic) and granitic (Mesazoic Granitic) formations. As seen in Figure 3.1-1, a geologic map of the Planning Area, the central Grass Valley area is located on quartz diorite, tonalite, trondhjemite, and quartz mozonite rocks. East and west of this area are Lake Combie complex rocks, and serpentinized ultramafic rocks at the northwest edge of the existing city limits. The Glenbrook area has gabbro and diabase, while Miocine-Pliocene volcanic rocks are found at the northwest area along Deadman Flat Road and at the east end of the Planning Area around the Nevada County Air Park. Grass Valley is not within an Alquist-Priolo zone as defined in DMG Special Report 42 (DMG 1997). However, ground movement can be felt in Grass Valley from earthquakes at intermediate distances (i.e., the Truckee earthquake of 1968) and from distant earthquakes (i.e., the Winters-Vacaville 1892 event) (Sydnor 1998). There are a number of mapped faults (Figure 3.1-2) within a fifty mile radius of the Planning Area. A fault is defined as "a planar or gently curving fracture in the earth's crust across which there has been relative displacement." When movement occurs along a fault, the energy generated is released as waves, which causes groundshaking. Groundshaking intensity varies with the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of rock or sediment through which seismic waves move. The Planning Area is also located among the various alignments of the Foothills Fault Zone, described by the California Division of Mines and Geology as a Mesozoic (approximately 225 million years ago) fault system that has been reactivated in Cenozoic time (65 million years ago to present). It is believed that this system originated from tectonic forces exerted by the uplift of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. That makes this fault system different from most other fault zones in California, in that it is not generated by the tectonic pressures of plates moving past one another (i.e., the San Andreas fault system). This fault zone is generally considered inactive, although two short segments along the fault system have ruptured. Evidence of an earthquake has been found near Spenceville and is believed to have occurred sometime during the late Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1.6 million years). More recently (1975), an earthquake measuring 5.7 on the Richter Scale occurred near Oroville along a fault segment known as the Cleveland Hill fault, approximately 24 miles northwest of Grass Valley. The Cleveland Hill Fault is being studied under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, which was designed to identify active fault zones and prohibit the construction of structures along these zones (City of Grass Valley 1996). By Alquist-Priolo definition, a fault is potentially active if it has shown evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (the last 1.6 million years). Therefore, due to the Spenceville and Oroville earthquakes, the Foothills Fault System is technically considered a potentially active system. However, recent studies along the Bear Mountain fault segment near Auburn indicate that the seismic hazard related to the system is very low. Due to these recent measurements, the lack of recent movement along the majority of the system, and the lack of tectonic plate movement in the fault system, it is unlikely (although not improbable) that a large magnitude earthquake would occur in this fault system. However, if an earthquake were to occur, it is most likely that the epicenter would be along the Cleveland Hill fault segment. In summary, the Grass Valley area is rated as a low-intensity earthquake zone. A low-intensity zone is defined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as an area that is likely to experience an earthquake measuring 5.0-5.9 in magnitude on the Richter scale, and a maximum intensity of VI or VII on the Modified Mercalli scale. The Richter scale measures the amplitude of seismic waves recorded by a seismograph, while the Modified Mercalli scale (Table 3.1-1) measures the intensity of an earthquake by the way it is felt and responded to by humans, and by the amount of damage it does to buildings and structures (City of Grass Valley 1996). TABLE 3.1-1 MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY Scale Effects I Earthquake shaking not felt. II Shaking felt by those at rest. III Felt by most people indoors; some can estimate duration of shaking. IV Felt by most people indoors. Having objects swing, windows and doors rattle, wooden walls and frames creak. V Felt by everyone indoors; many estimate duration of shaking. Standing autos rock. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle, and glasses clink. Doors close, open, or swing. VI Felt by everyone indoors and most people outdoors. Many now estimate not only the duration of the shaking, but also its direction and have no doubt as to its cause. Sleepers awaken. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced. Weak plaster and weak materials crack. VII Many are frightened and run outdoors. People walk unsteadily. Pictures thrown off walls, books off shelves. Dishes or glasses broken. Weak chimneys break at roofline. Plaster, loose bricks, unbraced parapets fall. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. VIII Difficult to stand. Shaking noticed by auto drivers, waves on ponds. Small slides and cave-ins along sand or gravel banks. Stucco and some masonry walls fall. Chimneys, factory stacks, towers, elevated tanks twist or fall. IX General fright. People thrown to the ground. Steering of autos affected. Branches broken from trees. General damage to foundations and frame structures. Reservoirs seriously damaged. Underground pipes broken. X General panic. Conspicuous cracks in ground. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed along with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges are destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, and embankments. Railroads bent slightly. XI General panic. Large landslides. Water thrown out of banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flatland. General destruction of buildings. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Railroads bent greatly. XII General panic. Damage nearly total, the ultimate catastrophe. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air. Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973. Soils Grass Valley and the surrounding region are located in an area of mountainous upland soils (USDA 1993). Nine soil associations occur in Nevada County, and those that occur within the Grass Valley Planning Area are described below. Soil associations located north and northwest of Grass Valley may contain serpentine soils. Figure 3.1-3 illustrates the soil associations, and the text below provides a general description of the soils in the area. Central Grass Valley and land to the east, generally south of Wolf Creek, are located within the Josephine-Sites-Mariposa association, which exhibits undulating to very steep, well-drained loams formed over metasedimentary and metabasic rock. Vegetation in this area is mostly conifer-hardwood forest. Most of the soils in this association have depths of 40-60 inches to weathered bedrock. Josephine-Sites-Mariposa association soils have permeabilities in the range of 0.6 to 2.0 inches per hour (generally moderate permeabilities). Land to the northeast of central Grass Valley, generally north of Wolf Creek, is located in Secca-Boomer association soils, which have undulating to steep, well-drained and moderately well-drained gravelly silt loams and loams formed over metabasic rock. These soils have depths of 40-60 inches to weathered bedrock. Secca-Boomer association soils have permeabilities in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 inches per hour (moderately slow to slow permeabilities). Northwest of the city center, Aiken-Cohasset association soils exhibit gently sloping to steep, well-drained loams and cobbly loams formed over andesitic conglomerate and metabasic rock. Soil depths in this association are about 42-60 inches or more. Aiken-Cohasset association soils have permeabilities in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 inches per hour (moderately slow permeabilities). Finally, southeast of the central city, are Boomer-Sites-Sobrante association soils with undulating to steep, well-drained loams formed over metabasic rock. Most of these soils have depths of 40-60 inches or more to weathered bedrock. Boomer-Sites-Sobrante association soils have permeabilities in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 inches per hour, but Sobrante soils can have permeabilities up to about 2.0 inches per hour (moderately slow to moderate permeabilities). Slope Instability Unstable soils and geologic conditions have historically resulted from vegetation removal associated with wildfires, timber harvesting, mining, and grading as part of road building and site development. Depending on local topographic, geologic and hydrological conditions, significant precipitation can exacerbate unstable conditions, resulting in landslides and mudslides. Any area adjacent to a hydraulically mined area is subject to landslide activity due to the removal of supporting rock and soil. Under such conditions, earthquakes or heavy rains can initiate slide activity. Landslides are events in which surface masses of slope-forming earth move outward and downward from their underlying and stable floors in response to the force of gravity. Unstable or potentially unstable slopes are susceptible to slides, falls, creep, or mud flows. Although slope movement can occur in any type of rock material, certain bedrock formations exhibit a high susceptibility to such movement. This type of formation is generally not found in the western portion of the County (County of Nevada 1995), but could occur on a local basis. Figure 3.1-4 provides information identifying locations where soil type and steepness of slopes may cause landslide activity in the Planning Area. 3.1.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Based on consideration of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would be considered in this EIR to have a significant adverse impact on geology, soils or seismicity if it would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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. Strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Landslides. The project would also be considered to have a significant impact if it would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, or the loss of a unique geologic feature. A significant adverse impact could also result if the project is located on: Strata 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. Expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. Impact #3.1-1: Approval of projects in accordance with the updated General Plan in areas of unstable geology, including areas of natural soil or rock instability, fault rupture and areas made unstable by past activities of humans (e.g., mining) could result in ground failure, destruction of buildings, seismic shaking or hazards to occupants. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The General Plan update includes the Safety Element, which addresses geologic hazards, including seismicity, slope instability and landslide activity. New development could result in exposure of additional people to geologic hazards. All safety and hazard risks are addressed by the single Safety Goal (1-SG), to reduce the potential risk of death, injury, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from hazards. Specifically, the General Plan provides for assurance of a high level of protection from geologic and seismic hazards for all residents, structures, and vital services (1-SO). All new structures will be built in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, as directed by General Plan goals and objectives (1-SP and 11-SI). and utilize seismic shaking design criteria that will offer the highest protection from geologic activity. The City will review its building code enforcement practices and adjust to meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan, including those addressing instability and seismic considerations (6-LUI) and ensure the safety and structural integrity of housing and commercial/industrial facilities through code enforcement (2-SP). In addition, goals, policies, objectives and implementation actions and strategies have been incorporated in the General Plan for site-specific geologic studies in areas identified as potentially containing geologic hazards (11-SI). Therefore, this is a less-than-significant impact. Impact #3.1-2: Areas of landslide or mudflow could exist in the city and the Planning Area due to the combination of topography, slope, geology, soils and vegetative cover. In areas of sloping terrain, relatively permanent alteration to the natural topography may occur. If improper grading or cut-and-fill occurs, or if development is attempted on extremely steep slopes, it is likely that erosion, siltation, subsidence, or other unstable soil conditions could occur. Erosion will be most severe where soil cover is removed and soil particles are disturbed. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Areas potentially affected by landslides are identified in Figure 3.1-4. Landslides and mudflows typically occur as a result of natural conditions combined with land disturbing activities, which set up preconditions for such incidents. Similarly, subsidence, erosion/siltation of waterways, and other unstable conditions may be caused by cut/fill and grading practices unsuitable to the site or area. The City's Grading Ordinance is the single most important instrument for assuring that land disturbance associated with new development minimize these impacts. Proper administration of this ordinance, including frequent field inspections during grading, is required to provide such assurances. The General Plan addresses City responsibilities for preventing landslides and mudflows with policies requiring adoption of uniform construction codes (1-SP), careful regulation of development on steep slopes (5-COSP), and prevention of excessive alteration of natural topography (6-SP). Further policy direction commits the City to cooperate with Nevada County in preparing a hillside/slope ordinance to regulate....density and intensity (42-LUP) and to encourage City standards throughout the Sphere of Influence (44-LUP). Complementing these policies is 7-CDI, directing the City to amend the zoning ordinance and other development codes to facilitate clustering. Therefore, the goals, policies, objectives and implementation actions and strategies contained in the General Plan Update serve as effective mitigation measures for addressing landslide exposure, and will result in a less-than-significant impact. Impact #3.1-3: Subsidence of the land could result in association with new or expanded development in areas of former mining activities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Subsidence in areas of former mining activities poses a potential subsidence hazard problem for new and expanded development in areas of former mining activities. Due to the potential extent of hazard areas and the relatively poor records and other information about site specific potential hazards, the General Plan directs the City to establish a comprehensive mine-related hazards program (6-SI). The program entails data, base mapping and special technical studies; technical coordination with state and local agencies; technical assistance to property owners; and site specific field investigations during project planning and review. The State Division of Mines and Geology has recently established a technical program to deal with old mine hazards, and will be a continuing source of advice and assistance to the City. The mine hazards program directed by 6-SI will reduce mine-related subsidence and related impacts to a less than significant level. Impact #3.1-4: Expansive soils could affect new or expanded development occurring in accordance with the General Plan Update. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Implementation of the UBC, the City's Grading Ordinance and the goals, policies, objectives and implementation actions and strategies contained in the General Plan Update will serve as effective mitigation measures for dealing with potential expansive soil problems. Specifically, Safety Policy 1-SP addresses adopting current uniform codes for all new construction. Therefore, this is a less-than-significant impact. Impact #3.1-5: The project has the potential to impact unique geologic or physical features in the Planning Area. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: One unique geologic or physical feature, mine shafts and related features, have been identified and described in the General Plan. Mitigation measures have been included in the Safety Element to require site-specific geologic studies in areas where mine shafts may occur (6-SI). This will avoid potential hazards, and is therefore a less-than-significant impact. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures The goals, objectives, and policies and implementation actions and strategies that address geology and soils stability include: 1-SG 1-SI 16-SI 1-SO 2-SI 42-LUP 2-SO 3-SI 1-COSG 1-SP 6-SI 4-COSG 2-SP 11-SI 5-COSP 4-SP 12-SI 7-COSI 7-SP 15-SI 8-COSI Implementation of these goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies will reduce the effects on geology and soils to a less than significant level, and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.2.1 Setting The information in the Setting Section is taken from the City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf. Local Drainage The Planning Area lies primarily within the Wolf Creek drainage basin. Wolf Creek enters the Planning Area from the east in an east-west direction, and turns to the south as it passes through downtown Grass Valley, and continues south to its confluence with the Bear River. The South Fork of Wolf Creek and Little Wolf Creek drain the southeastern portion of the Planning Area and discharge into Wolf Creek in the central Grass Valley area. Alta Hill is located on the divide between the Wolf Creek and Deer Creek watersheds. Drainage north of this divide flows to Deer Creek. 100-Year Flood Areas As indicated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the City of Grass Valley and the General Plan Planning Area are relatively well drained. Flooding during the 100-year flood event is limited to relatively narrow areas along Wolf Creek and its tributaries, as shown on Figure 3.2-1. Major transportation corridors do not appear to be susceptible to flooding in a 100-year flood event. To the extent culverts and storm drains are not maintained, other localized flooding could occur. Homes located in the flood hazard areas would be subject to flooding in a 100-year event unless mitigation is employed. Dam Failure Upstream on Deer Creek, the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) Scotts Flat Dam forms Scotts Flat Reservoir. Mapping prepared by NID illustrates the area projected to be inundated should the dam suddenly fail. From this map, it is apparent that none of the Grass Valley Planning Area would be inundated should such an event occur (NID 1993). Water Quality Wolf Creek is influenced by the discharge of treated effluent from the Grass Valley wastewater treatment plant and use of the creek by NID for transport of irrigation water. The NID use, which occurs from mid-April through mid-October, results in an approximately five-fold increase in stream flows in the affected area. Thus, dissolved oxygen remains in good supply for the maintenance for desirable aquatic biota (City of Grass Valley 1996). 3.2.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that hydrology-related impacts can be considered significant if a project would: Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board 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. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impact #3.2-1: Future development in accordance with the General Plan Update could result in additional discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality in violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or waste discharge requirements. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Developments on watershed lands should be carefully evaluated for potential effects on surface water quality. Under the updated General Plan, new developments could be allowed that discharge additional runoff into surface waters. Processed wastewater discharges from the wastewater treatment facility will be subject to waste discharge requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which will require mitigation of significant water quality impacts. The construction of projects in the City of Grass Valley will be subject to City Grading Ordinance requirements, which will provide mitigation measures to address erosion and the introduction of construction materials into surface waters. Runoff from development may also discharges pollutants from motor vehicles, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, glycol, and dissolved heavy metals. Regulations under Section 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act are now in effect. They involve control of pollution in stormwater discharges. In California, the Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A 402(p) permit is required for most new developments that disturb over five acres. Mitigation measures have been identified in the goals, objectives, and policies implementation actions and strategies of the General Plan to ensure that potential impacts to surface waters are mitigated. This includes broad General Plan goals and accompanying objectives which call for the City to assure compliance with water quality regulations (6-COSG), protect ground and surface water quality (1-COSO) and include water quality in land use decisions (2-COSO). A specific policy instructs the City continue to implement water quality improvement plans, including stormwater separation and wastewater treatment plant expansion (21-COSP). Implementation of these standards will ensure a less-than-significant impact to surface water quality or Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and waste discharge requirements. Impact #3.2-2: Approval of projects in areas subject to inundation in the design-level (100-year) flood would result in potentially significant impacts. Discussion/Conclusion: Several areas within the Planning Area have been identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be subject to flooding during a 100-year storm event. Development within these areas would subject persons and property to loss, injury and possibly death. Flood-prone areas may enlarge or contract as developments both up-stream and downstream occur. Upstream development may include a variety of alterations to existing conditions: more impervious surface, thus more runoff; altered drainage patterns, shifting the location of surface runoff; increases in runoff velocity; and alterations to water quality. Downstream developments may block flood waters, thus creating ponding and backup of previously freer flowing waters. Existing stormwater drainage systems will need to be expanded and new systems will need to be constructed as a result of development under the General Plan. The following new development areas in particular will require new or expanded services: Special Development Areas - Loma Rica Ranch, North Star, and Kenny Ranch Loma Rica Industrial Park and Nevada County Airpark area East Bennett area proposed for residential designation Bear River Mill site proposed for commercial designation Grass Valley presently administers a variety of regulations designed to prevent flooding and address stormwater management. These include a flood ordinance, various provisions of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance, and construction codes for residential and non-residential developments. The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a local stormwater drainage program and a regional stormwater drainage program, comprising a Drainage System Master Plan. CIP-planned projects extending through the Year 2015 includes numerous storm drainage improvements The General Plan addresses the multiple issues surrounding storm drainage, flood control, flood prevention, and flood avoidance in a variety of ways. The General Plan directs the City to carefully regulate development proposed for location in flood hazard areas (9-COSP) and to continue to regulate development to reduce the risks to life and property (7-SI). Acknowledging the changeable nature of flood prone areas, the General Plan calls for the revision of flood hazard maps at appropriate intervals to reflect the effects of land use changes (8-SI). Concerning new developments, specific implementation measures direct the City to avoid stream channel modifications (7-SI), require new developments to utilize on-site stormwater storage (8-SI), and establish site development standards to minimize impervious surface (9-SI), (13-CDP), (8-CDI). Encouraging a natural, as opposed to a structural approach to stormwater control, a General Plan policy directs the City to return to open space areas in which flooding poses a clear danger to life and property (11-COSP). Further, the Plan calls for amending the zoning ordinance and other development codes to facilitate clustering (7-CDI), thus providing additional development siting options on properties constrained by flooding and stormwater management considerations. In summary, the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions and strategies included in the General Plan will help to reduce potential impacts from drainage and flooding. In addition, the City of Grass Valley's CIP provides planning for improvements to drainage and flooding problems through the year 2015. However, without full provision of CIP flood and drainage related improvements through the life of the Plan (2020), this will remain a potentially significant impact. Impact #3.2-3: Future development associated with the General Plan Update could result in changes in the quality and quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Groundwater quality and quantity may be affected by a number of factors. Primary factors are withdrawal rates contrasted with recharge rates, and quality degradation from surface sources. Unincorporated portions of the Planning Area contain both residential and non-residential developments which rely on ground water for their water supplies and/or septic system for sanitary waste disposal. The General Plan, reflecting long-standing City policy, encourages systematic annexation and extension of City services into unincorporated portions of the Planning Area (10-LUP). Large scale annexations are anticipated in the three SDAs, with smaller annexations of other areas on the periphery of the present City limits. As unincorporated areas are annexed into the City, public water and sewer services will replace reliance on well and on-site septic systems. This will have an overall effect of reducing reliance on ground water as a potable water source in the Planning Area and reduce the potential for groundwater contamination from improperly operating septic systems. Conversely, development occurring under the provisions of the General Plan will, inevitably cause naturally (water) absorptive areas to accommodate impervious surfaces, thus potentially affecting ground water recharge in some areas. This impact will be countered by the General Plan's protection of wetlands (25-LUP) and (2-COSG), as well as implementation of the Open Space Opportunity overlay and numerous policies and implementation actions/strategies which address natural areas and open space preservation and enhancement. Much remains to be learned about ground water locations, patterns, and trends in the Planning Area and throughout western Nevada County. Little is known, or predictable, about the consequences of surface actions, such as land development, on ground water in specific situations. However, the broad trends anticipated to occur under the General Plan, as described above, indicate that the Plan will have a less than significant impact on ground water quantity and quality. Impact #3.2-4: On-site disposal of wastewater in areas of poor soil permeability could result in groundwater or surface water contamination. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Soils in the Planning Area have generally moderate to slow permeability. If projects with on-site wastewater disposal systems are approved, there is a potential for significant impacts to the environment through contamination of surface or groundwater with insufficiently treated wastewater. The Nevada County Department of Environmental Health regulates all on-site wastewater disposal systems, which must meet current health and safety standards. It is anticipated that the majority of new development will be on the municipal sewer system, and that septic systems will occur only on large residential parcels in areas not served by sewer. The General Plan and subsequent zoning ordinance amendment will assure that the minimum parcel size on which an on-site septic system may be permitted is 2 acres, an increase from the current General Plan's 1.5 acre minimum. Through annexation and service extension, parcels too small to accommodate effective on-site disposal systems and/or with currently failing systems will be provided service, thus alleviating the potential for ground and water contamination (9-LUI) and (10-LUI). The General Plan's commitment to protection of ground and water quality (15-COSO) directly addresses continued maintenance of small lot septic systems within the City limits. The General Plan will, therefore, reduce the effects of on-site disposal of wastewater to a less than significant level. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures The General Plan Update includes goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies which will substantially mitigate significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. These goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies are as follows:

1-SG 2-LUO 2-SO 2-LUG 3-SO 3-LUO 16-COSO 5-SO 4-LUO 3-COSP 3-SP 7-LUO 4-COSP 5-SP 2-LUP 9-COSP 7-SP 12-LUP 11-COSP 1-SI 25-LUP 17-COSP 2-SI 1-COSG 18-COSP 3-SI 1-COSO 21-COSP 7-SI 2-COSO 1-COSI 8-SI 2-COSG 2-COSI 9-SI 7-COSO 3-COSI 10-SI 8-COSO 6-COSI 15-SI 5-COSG 8-COSI 16-SI 6-COSG 12-COSI 1-LUG 15-COSG 8-CDI

Implementation of these goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies along with the additional mitigation measure discussed below will ensure that any impacts to hydrology and water quality resulting from the 2020 General Plan Amendment will result in a less than significant impact Mitigation Measure #3.2-1: The Capital Improvement Program currently addresses services and improvements through 2015, as developed under the 1982 General Plan. The CIP shall be updated along with the Drainage System Master Plan in the future in order to extend service/infrastructure needs through 2020, reflecting the needs of the 2020 General Plan (Applies to Impacts #3.2-2 and #3.5-5). Effectiveness of Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure #3.2-1 will assure that a CIP is in place that will reflect City needs through the life of the General Plan. 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.3.1 Setting The following information is taken from The City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf. Vegetation The Planning Area is located in a transition zone between the lower foothill elevations and the higher Sierra Nevada mountains. This transition zone is considered the Yellow Pine Belt (Storer and Usinger 1963) (Figure 3.3-1). Because it is a transition zone, a variety of intermingled species occur in the area that typically occur at zones of either higher or lower elevations. As well as being surrounded by ponderosa pines (Pinus ponderosa) and blue oaks (Quercus douglasii), the Grass Valley Planning Area also accommodates many other locally important natural communities. Localized areas of serpentine or gabbro support native plant species that have adapted to unique soil conditions other species cannot tolerate. Vernal pools, seasonally flooded depressions underlain with clay or hardpan soils, accumulate water and support unique native vegetation and wildlife species. Other areas of biological significance in the Grass Valley area include riparian corridors, creeks and tributaries that support native trees, shrubs, herbaceous vegetation and wildlife, including special status species listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and/or California Native Plant Society (CNPS). As a transition area, the Yellow Pine Belt in the Grass Valley area is comprised of a number of specific habitat types. The following describes these habitat types using the system of Holland (1986). Northern Mixed Chaparral Located on rocky, south-facing slopes with sparse soil, this dense habitat type usually consists of little or no understory vegetation and is adapted to frequent fires. Dominant species include Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), and various species of manzanita (Arctostaphylos) and California lilac (Ceanothus spp.). Additional characteristic species include: California buckeye (Aesculus californica), western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), mountain-mahogany (Cerococarpus betuloides), flannelbush (Fremontia californica), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland typically occurs on fine-textured, clay soils that alternate between excessively moist to drought-like conditions. Growth, flowering, seed setting and germination occur during the moist seasons. Characteristic grass species commonly include: wild oat (Avena spp.), brome (Bromus spp.), rye (Lolium spp.), and vulpia (Vulpia spp.), while associated annual wildflower species include filaree (Erodium spp.), California poppy (Eschscholtzia californica), Gilia (Gilia spp.), lupines (Lupinus spp.), and fiddleneck (Amsinckia spp.). Black Oak Woodland This community consists of moderately open to dense stands of California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) associated with Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Although black oaks are fairly fire resistant, young stands (60 years) often cannot withstand a hot blaze. These trees are very intolerant to shade and will often decline in numbers where taller trees have created a denser canopy. Blue Oak Woodland Even though this community is dominated by blue oak (Quercus douglassii), it may also include other oak species along with foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana). While the associated foothill pines do not tolerate frequent fires, blue oaks have adapted to them by becoming vigorous stump-sprouters. Although most commonly observed as an intermingled woodland, pure stands of blue oaks occur in a thin zone between foothill pine woodlands (lower elevations) and black oak woodland (higher elevations). Other common associated plants include manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), lilac (Ceanothus spp.), yerba santa, (Eriodictyon californicum), spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea), California coffeeberry (R. californica), and Hansen's larkspur (Delphinium hansenii). Canyon Live Oak Forest This dense, evergreen vegetation community is dominated by canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and typically forms forests with little understory in canyons on north-facing slopes, while on south-facing slopes it forms low-growing, chaparral-like stands. Soils are typically rocky and have little soil development. Trees often have multiple trunks, a condition probably resulting from crown-sprouting after fire. Associated species include incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and California bay (Umbellaria californica). Foothill Pine-Oak Woodland This community contains a mixture of foothill pines (Pinus sabiniana) and blue oak (Quercus douglasii), and is much more common than pure stands of either species. It is found on well-drained soils along rocky ridges or in canyons. Understories usually consist of annual herbaceous plants, and other associated species include various oak species such as canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis), Nuttall's scrub oak (Q. dumosa), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), valley oak (Q. lobata), and interior live oak (Q. wislizenii). Westside Ponderosa Pine Forest The primary plant community in the Grass Valley area is open forest dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), with sparse scattered chaparral shrubs and young trees. It usually occurs on coarse soils and will intermingle with a number of other vegetation communities. This community, which contains a mixture of foothill pines (Pinus sabiniana) and blue oak (Quercus douglassii), is much more common than pure stands of either species and is found on well-drained soils along rocky ridges or in canyons. Understory usually consists of annual herbaceous plants and other associated species, including various oak species such as canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis), Nuttall's scrub oak (Q. dumosa), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), valley oak (Q. lobata), and interior live oak (Q. wislizenii). Other species that may occur in this community include white fir (Abies concolor), greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), mountain misery (Chamaebatia foliolosa), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), and California black oak (Q. kelloggii). Riparian Habitats Riparian and aquatic communities are represented by several creeks in the Grass Valley area, namely, the lower portion of Wolf Creek, Squirrel Creek and South Fork Wolf Creek. Dominant vegetation found along these waterways includes dogwood (Cornus ssp.), box elder (Acer negundo), alder (Alnus ssp.), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). In the Planning Area, these communities contain declining native populations of riparian valley oaks (Quercus lobata), northwestern pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata marmorata), foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii), and western spade foot toads (Scaphiopus hammondii). Portions of these streams are becoming increasingly urbanized, therefore jeopardizing the health of these native populations. Wildlife Due to the variety of vegetation communities, many different wildlife species exist or have a high potential to exist in the Planning Area. Resident deer, as well as migratory deer from the Downieville and Nevada City deer herds, are known to inhabit the area. The Downieville/Nevada City Deer Herd Management Plan (CDFG/USFWS 1985) and California Department of Fish and Game (Grass Valley Regional Wildlife Manager Jeff Finn) were consulted for current herd statistics and critical habitat designations. Of particular concern is the portion of the herd's range known as Critical Winter Range. These are areas determined by state and federal agencies to be critical to the life cycle of migratory deer. Also of interest is a potential fisheries resource along Wolf Creek. Revegetation along the stream and restocking could bring back native fish. Following is a brief description of wildlife species that may potentially occur within the Planning Area. Migratory and Upland Bird Species Because California is located within the Pacific Flyway (the migration route through the western portion of the United States), various species of waterfowl routinely migrate through the area. The Grass Valley area is a prime location for migrating bird species due to existing riparian, grassland and tree covered areas. Common migratory waterfowl that may utilize the Grass Valley area include: Canada geese (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), American wigeon (Anas americana), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and common merganser (Mergus merganser). Observed raptor species include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). There are also many passerine and nonpasserine birds that migrate from colder climates to the warmer weather of the southern United States and elsewhere. Upland bird species such as California quail (Callipepla californica) are also commonly observed in the Grass Valley vicinity. Other Common Species The Grass Valley area is also host to many other wildlife species. Documented rodent species include deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatis), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), California meadow vole (Microtis californicus), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and beaver (Castor canadensis). These populations provide a constant food source for predatory species such as the coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), as well as for several raptors. In addition, the Grass Valley area also supports limited potential winter habitat for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the form of riparian corridors. Sensitive Species The Federal Endangered Species Act (1973) and the California Endangered Species Act (1984) provide legal protection for plant and animal species in danger of becoming extinct. The Federal Endangered Species Act requires the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to provide a findings report on any federally accredited actions that could jeopardize the existence of any federally listed species. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) analyzes projects for possible impacts to species as well as their habitats. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) helps to determine which plant species and habitats should be listed as special status under the California Endangered Species Act. Consultation with the CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB, 1997) revealed six sensitive species potentially located within the Grass Valley and Chicago Park USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. These species are listed in Table 3.3-1. The following is a description of each: Stebbin's Morning Glory (Calystegia stebbins II) Stebbin's morning glory occurs on red clay soils of gabbro or perhaps serpentine origins in chaparral. A query of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (NDDB 1997) revealed that this species may occur near the Planning Area in open grassland near the junction of South Ponderosa Way and Squirrel Creek Road. This plant is listed as endangered by both the USFWS and the CDFG. Pine Hill Flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens) Pine Hill flannelbush is a gabbro or serpentine endemic, growing on rocky ridges with these substrates in chaparral or cismontane woodlands at elevations of about 1,400 to 2,000 feet. In Nevada County it is known to be near the old Nevada County Landfill on McCourtney Road. It is partially protected at this site via the establishment of fenced designated endangered plant protection areas. This plant is listed as endangered by the USFWS and as Rare in California. Red-anthered Rush (Juncus marginatus var. marginatus) Red-anthered rush is found in marshes and swampy places in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada at elevations below about 3,300 feet. It is a CNPS List 2 Species (Plants categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere). Follett's Monardella (Monardella folletti) Follett's monardella grows on open, rocky, serpentine slopes in lower montane coniferous forests at elevations ranging from about 1,800 to 6,500 feet. It is known from Plumas and Nevada Counties, and is on the CNPS List as a 1B species (Plants categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere). Scadden Flat Checkerbloom (Sidalcea stipularis) Sidalcea stipularis is known only from the Scadden Flat area along Highway 20, just west of Grass Valley. It grows in marshy areas at an elevation of about 2,400 feet. It is listed as a Federal Species of Concern and an Endangered species in California. California Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale) The horned lizard occurs in valley-foothill hardwood, conifer and riparian habitats as well as in pine-cypress, juniper and annual grass habitats. It ranges from southern Tehama County to the southern California Desert Regions, preferring open country, especially sandy areas, washes and flood plains. It is listed as a Federal Species of Concern. Blacktail Deer According to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Regional Wildlife Manager, Jeff Finn, deer are not a significant issue to the City of Grass Valley. However, the Downieville/Nevada City Deer Herd does migrate from higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada to just north of the City of Grass Valley. The Planning Area does not contain any designated Critical Winter Range for the Downieville/Nevada City Deer Herd (CDFG 1985). Table 3.3-1 lists sensitive species that may occur in the Planning Area. Wetlands Wetland communities support aquatic and other hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland sites are typically flooded marshy areas that vary in size and proportion to the particular topography and hydrology of the area. These sites are either seasonally or permanently wet and are dominated by perennial, emergent monocots such as cattail (Typha spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), rush (Juncus spp.), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) and tule (Scirpus spp.). According to the USGS Wetlands Inventory Map for the Grass Valley and Chicago Park USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles, there are several identified wetlands within the Planning Area (Figure 3.3-2). Activities within "jurisdictional" wetlands requires a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Clean Water Act permit, California Regional Water Quality Control Board Clean Water Certification or Waiver, and California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement. TABLE 3.3-1 SENSITIVE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE GRASS VALLEY PLANNING AREA

Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed State CNPS Animals Phrynosoma coronatum frontale California horned lizard FSC CE N/A Plants Calystegia stebbinsii Stebbin's morning-glory FE CE 1B Fremontodendron decumbens Pine Hill flannelbush FE CR 1B Juncus marginatus var. marginatus Red anthered rush Monardella follettii Follett's monardella --- --- 1B Sidalcea stipularis Scadden Flat checkerbloom FSC CE 1B FE Federal Endangered Species FSC Federal Species of Concern CE California State Endangered Species CR Species listed as Rare in California CNPS1B Plants categorized by the California Native Plant Society as Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere CNPS 2 Plants categorized by the California Native Plant Society as Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California but more common Elsewhere N/A Not Applicable --- None Sources: California Department of Fish and Game, 1997. California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. Special Publication No. 1 (fifth edition), California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Important Biological Resource Areas The 1982 General Plan Update for the City of Grass Valley listed four sensitive habitats. Following are brief descriptions of these areas, as found in the 1981-82 General Plan. Important Natural Community Areas of Nevada County, California (1998) provided additional information regarding these areas and three additional sites. Important biological resource areas in the Grass Valley Planning Area are discussed below and illustrated on Figure 3.3-3. Scadden Flat Marsh Four acres west of Grass Valley along Highway 20 and north of the Nevada County Fairgrounds contain a freshwater marsh that supports a wet and dry meadow surrounded by a ponderosa pine forest. Scadden Flat hosts the only documented population of Scadden Flat Checkerbloom (Sidalcea stipularis). This area is threatened by grazing, encroachment of non-native plant species, poor water quality and destruction due to vehicles. Hell's Half Acre Hell's Half Acre is a local example of northern volcanic mudflow vernal pool habitat about 1.5 miles northwest of Grass Valley. This habitat consists of open, rocky flats surrounded by Foothill and Ponderosa Pines. The 70-acre area contains over 100 species of indigenous or rare plants (Lonsdorf 1998), including the best example of a low elevation wildflower field in the north-central Sierra Nevada. It supports many native plant species such as Sanborn's onion (Allium sanbornii var. sanbornii), Lemon's stipa (Achnatherum lemmonii var. pubescens), Kettledome buckwheat (Eriogonum prattenianum var. avium), Orcutt's quillwort (Isoetes orcuttii) and wildlife species such as Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and several species of bats (Myotis spp). Slate Creek Area Adjacent to the southern boundary of the Hell's Half Acre (north of Grass Valley and south of Deer Creek) lies the Slate Creek area. This region supports serpentine soils and contains natural vegetation communities such as mixed serpentine chaparral, serpentine foothill pine chaparral woodland, northern interior (MacNab) cypress forest, and leather oak chaparral. According to Lonsdorf (1998), this is a possible location of Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron decumbens) and additional rare plants and butterflies. Because the northern edge of this site is adjacent to Hell's Half Acre, conservation opportunities are significant. Serpentine and Gabbro Soil Plant Communities North of Grass Valley near Highway 20, along Dorsey Drive/Hughes Road, is another local example of a serpentine soil inclusion community consisting of approximately 160 acres. Plant communities located in this region include mixed serpentine chaparral (Holland), serpentine foothill pine chaparral woodland, northern interior (MacNab) cypress forest, and leather oak chaparral. Also documented in this area is Sanborn's onion and an endemic butterfly species (Lonsdorf 1998). Several endemic plants are supported by locations such as American Ranch Hill/McCourtney Road Landfill/Wolf Mountain/Ponderosa Way. According to Lonsdorf (1998), this area is a conglomeration of gabbroic soil that contains a mixture of endemic species along with other foothill communities. These areas run southeasterly from east of Rough and Ready, north of Highway 20 and south to beyond Wolf Mountain. Vegetation communities include gabbroic northern mixed chaparral and northern interior (MacNab) cypress forest. Individual native species include Stebbin's morning-glory (Calysegia stebbinsii), Pine Hill flannelbush, Bacigalupi's perideridea (Perideridia bacigalupii), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale) and foothill yellow-legged frogs. There is also a potential for additional rare plants and animals to be identified on site. Even though this is a large area with many existing roads, ranches, and the old County landfill, there are areas that still have high integrity. There is a potential for BLM land to be traded, allowing urban encroachment (Lonsdorf 1998). Union Hill Meadow Union Hill Meadow contains important elements of several ecosystems, which it shares with Empire Mine State Historic Park. The property contains perhaps the finest stand of madrone forest in California. The meadow is likely to be the best example of what the Grass Valley area looked like prior to early development. Few low elevation montane meadows remain intact, and this represents an ecosystem now rare in California. It is extremely diverse in native grasses and forbs, many of which are uncommon on a regional basis. According to a State report, it is the best example of natural grassland in the western Sierra Nevada (Barry, et al., California Department of Parks and Recreation, Ecological Assessment of the Meadow North of Union Hill, August 1, 1997). Wolf Creek Wolf Creek runs through the City of Grass Valley, and has undergone considerable channelization and augmentation. Prior to entering the city to the northeast and upon leaving to the south, it returns to its natural course. The Riverine habitat of Wolf Creek supports in-stream species, such as invertebrates, amphibians, and fish, including a resident fishery of rainbow trout, brown trout, and several warm-water fishes. The invertebrate population is typical for a trout stream and includes stonefly larvae, mayfly larvae, addisfly larvae, and aquatic snails. Canadian Geese Wintering Habitat This area is located southwest of the City of Grass Valley on the 130 acre Conway Ranch. It is a large open meadow that provides wintering habitat for migratory Canada geese. Currently, this area is not designated as Critical Habitat (Mary Moore, USFWS, pers. comm.). However, as the only wintering ground for such migratory waterfowl species in western Nevada County, it is an important part of the ecosystem. 3.3.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Section 21001 of the Public Resources Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), states California's policies with respect to fish and wildlife, summarized as follows: Prevent the elimination of fish and wildlife species due to human activities. Ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self sustaining levels. Preserve representatives of all plant and animal communities for future generations. Section 15382 of CEQA defines a significant effect as: "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Section 15065 of CEQA provides for mandatory findings of significance when: The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the following criteria for determining the significance of biological resources impacts: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or 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. A "rare or endangered species", as defined in Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, is "endangered" when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors; or "rare" when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a portion of its range, and may be considered "threatened" as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (50 CFR 17) provides legal protection, and requires definition of critical habitat and development of recovery plans for plant and animal species in danger of extinction. California has similar mandates in the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 and the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. These laws regulate the process by which plant or animal species are listed as endangered or threatened. Some species listed by the State are not necessarily protected by the federal protection agencies, therefore consultation with both the USFWS and the CDFG should occur when reviewing projects and their potential impacts to plants, wildlife, and their associated habitats. In addition to federal and state endangered and threatened listings, species may also be listed as a "species of concern" due to their limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. These species are not afforded the same legal protection as listed species, but may be added to official lists in the future. There are two general categories for these special interest species: 1) candidates for official federal or state listing as threatened or endangered; and 2) species that are not candidates, but have been unofficially identified as species of special interest by private conservation organizations or local governments. Federal candidate species are assigned to one of two categories, depending on current knowledge about the species and its biological importance for listing. Federal Category 1 (FC1) includes candidate species for which the USFWS has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list a species as endangered or threatened; and Federal Species of Concern (FSC) includes taxa for which existing information may warrant listing, but substantial biological information to support proposed listing is lacking. The CDFG, in conjunction with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), have compiled a data base, called the California Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB), which references California's rare and endangered plants and animals. Some plants listed by the CNPS may not be officially listed by the State, but many of these would still be protected by CEQA; and any impacts affecting these species and their immediate habitat would be considered significant. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the "taking" of listed species. If it is believed that a project will inadvertently harm, harass or collect a species, or that a species would suffer due to habitat modification, the USFWS must be consulted, and subsequent agency recommendations and permits must be obtained and adhered to. With respect to plants, Section 9 states that it is unlawful to import or export; remove and reduce to possession; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship; sell; or violate any regulation pertaining to such species or any threatened species of plants listed pursuant to the Act. If disruption of wetlands is to occur, a "no net loss" policy through the Clean Water Act must be adhered to, and contact with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permitting program for either a Nationwide Permit or a Section 404 permit may be required, the determination of which is based on actual acreage that would be affected. Disruption or loss of wetlands is a significant effect. A "Streambed Alteration Agreement", pursuant to CDFG Code Section 1600 et seq., must be made with the CDFG when a project will influence or divert the natural flow of a stream, substantially change its bed or bank, cross a stream bed, or utilize existing streambed materials. The CDFG is also involved in the Section 404 process by providing recommendations for mitigation measures. During the Section 1600 process, it may be decided that a Section 401 permit for water quality is required. Engaging in activities which may generate a need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement or Section 401 permit is a potentially significant effect. Impact #3.3-1: Approval of projects under the updated General Plan could reduce or destroy the habitat of species identified as sensitive, including species identified as endangered, candidate, and/or special status by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Construction of projects under the General Plan and future roadway improvements could directly eliminate the habitat of species listed as endangered, candidate, and/or special status species by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Consultation with the CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB, 1997) revealed six sensitive species potentially located within the Grass Valley and Chicago Park USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. This includes Stebbin's Morning Glory, Pine Hill Flannelbush, Red-anthered Rush, Follett's Monardella, Scadden Flat Checkerbloom and the California Horned Lizard. These species would be affected by a loss of habitat due to site grading, road building, infrastructure installation, and construction of residential, commercial and industrial development. Additionally, such development could result in the fragmentation of areas that currently consist of relatively undeveloped, uninterrupted wildlife habitat. Projects could otherwise indirectly impact such habitat through human intrusions, erosion, or invasive species. The General Plan addresses the potential for loss of habitat from future development by concentrating growth, thereby reducing the overall habitat loss and fragmentation that could occur if growth occurred in a more dispersed pattern. Specifically, Land Use goals and objectives promote infill as an alternative to peripheral expansion where feasible (2-LUG) and to ensure that future development proposals include full environmental review to assure minimization of environmental impacts (2-LUP). In addition, there are numerous goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies contained in the Conservation/Open Space Element developed to reduce potential impacts to habitat and endangered, candidate, sensitive and/or special status species. This includes preparing an inventory of sensitive environmental areas and features (1-COSO), the protection of rare and endangered animals and plants (3-COSO), encouragement of wildlife through habitat protection (5-COSO), and assurance of appropriate resource conservation and environmental protection measures as prerequisites to development (6-COSO). Although the General Plan defines goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies that will reduce potentially significant impacts to habitat and sensitive species, the Plan does not fully mitigate these potential impacts at the project level. The potential still exists for a substantial adverse effect through habitat modification on a species identified as endangered, candidate, or special status. Therefore, this will remain as a potentially significant impact but can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Impact #3.3-2: Approval of projects under the updated General Plan could impact wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool). This impact is potentially significant. Discussion/Conclusion: Wetlands in Nevada County are generally small, isolated features dependent on riparian water. Construction of projects under the General Plan could directly eliminate wetland habitats or the introduction of non-native species. Indirect impacts can occur to wetlands due to development upgradient of such areas. Silt and other contaminants can be deposited in wetlands via drainage from construction sites and developed areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the fill of wetlands under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. The Department of Fish and Game recognizes wetlands for their critical value. Both agencies have policies of "no net loss" of wetlands. Therefore, the fill of significant wetland habitats associated with the 2020 General Plan land uses and future roadway and infrastructure improvements would be considered a significant impact. However, there are regulatory processes designed to identify and mitigate the loss of wetlands. The City of Grass Valley's Grading Ordinance will help mitigate these impacts, but should be reviewed to identify potential modifications to increase protection of downstream wetlands. The General Plan contains goals and objectives in the Conservation/Open Space Element to inventory sensitive environmental areas and features (1-COSO), protect, enhance and restore hydrologic features, including stream corridors, wetlands and riparian zones (2-COSG), and the protection of surface water quality (15-COSO). Although this impact is potentially significant, it can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Impact #3.3-3: Approval of projects under the updated General Plan could adversely affect movement and dispersal of wildlife and wildlife migration corridors. This could have a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Construction of projects under the General Plan could potentially create barriers to wildlife movement and dispersal and migration corridors. As an example, deer populations throughout the County have been characterized by both the California Department of Fish and Gand and the Tahoe National Forest as unstable and declining. Development in the western portion of the County and disruption of migration corridors are significant contributors to the decline. Factors such as fire suppression, road kills, subdivision and development of land, and harassment by dogs also relate to the decline (1995 Nevada County General Plan). There are regulatory processes designed to identify and mitigate potential impacts to the dispersal of wildlife and wildlife migration corridors that will be implemented at the project level. The City of Grass Valley's General Plan contains numerous land use goals and objectives to provide higher densities and infill development, which will help minimize impacts to wildlife corridors, as well as requiring adequate information when reviewing development proposals, including full environmental review to assure minimization of environmental impacts (2-LUP). Conservation and Open Space goals and objectives provide for the inventory of sensitive environmental areas and features (1-COSO), reduction of urban development impacts on native vegetation, wildlife and topography (4-COSO), encouragement of wildlife through habitat protection (5-COSO). The Conservation/Open Space Element also contains policies, objectives and implementation actions to prevent excessive alteration of the natural topography (6-COSP), develop and achieve agreement with the County of Nevada on a strategy for conservation and open space protection within the Grass Valley Planning Area (18-COSP), and to enlist the interest and efforts of appropriate state and federal agencies and private foundations regarding conservation and open space protection (19-COSP). Therefore, the goals, policies, objectives and implementation actions and strategies contained in the General Plan that will assist in mitigating this impact to a less than significant level. 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures The General Plan Update includes goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies which will substantially mitigate significant impacts to Biological Resources. These goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies are as follows:

1-COSG 13-COSG 4-COSI 1-COSO 14-COSO 9-COSI 2-COSO 10-COSP 10-COSI 3-COSO 2-COSP 14-COSI 4-COSO 3-COSP 15-COSI 5-COSO 4-COSP 10-CO 2-COSG 10-COSP 6-COSO 19-COSP 3-COSG 1-COSI 9-COSO 2-COSI 10-COSO 3-COSI 5-COSG 4-COSI

Implementation of these goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies along with the additional mitigation measures discussed below will ensure that any impacts to biological resources resulting from the 2020 General Plan Amendment will result in a less than significant impact Mitigation Measure #3.3-1: No net loss of habitat functions or values shall be caused by development where significant environmental features or significant habitat exist. No net loss shall be achieved through avoidance of the resource, or through creation or restoration of habitat of superior or comparably quality, in accordance with guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (Applies to Impacts #3.3-1 and #3.3-2). Effectiveness of Measure: Implementation of this additional mitigation measure will ensure that any impacts to biological resources resulting from the 2020 General Plan Amendment will result in a less than significant impact Mitigation Measure #3.3-2: Review the City of Grass Valley's Grading Ordinance in order to incorporate measures designed to assure that downstream wetland and riparian areas are adequately protected from sedimentation, deposition and other adverse impacts resulting from upstream ground disturbance (Applies to Impact #3.3-2). Effectiveness of Measure: Regulations designed to assure that the effects of development do not impact downstream wetland and riparian areas will avoid loss of protected wetlands. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact. 3.4 AIR QUALITY The following information is taken from The City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf and the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District Annual Air Monitoring Report 1997, prepared by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District. 3.4.1 Setting Physical Setting The Grass Valley Planning Area lies within the Mountain Counties Air Basin, which includes Plumas County on the north and Mariposa County on the south. The Central Valley forms the western boundary and the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range forms the eastern boundary (refer to Figure 3.4-1). Air quality in the Planning Area is influenced not only by emissions from the Planning Area itself, but by emissions from upwind locations and regional climatic factors. Generally, the Planning Area has cool, wet winters and warm to hot summers. Winter storm systems from the Gulf of Alaska bring clean, cooler air and moisture. Due to its elevation of over 2,000 feet, the area is high above the winter fog that forms in the Central Valley, providing warmer sunny days between winter storm systems. Annual precipitation for Grass Valley is approximately 40 inches. January temperatures average between 40 and 45 degrees F. In the summer, the Planning Area is often affected by a dome of high pressure, and summer temperatures can exceed 100F. However, the "delta breeze," which frequently brings cooler ocean air in through the Carquinez Straits, can moderate these high temperatures. Predominant surface wind flow patterns for spring, summer, fall and winter are shown on Figures 3.4-2, 3.4-3, 3.4-4, and 3.4-5, respectively. Figure 3.4-3 illustrates the flow of air through the Carquinez Straits into the interior of the state during summer conditions. Air stagnation due to formation of surface and/or elevated inversions is common in the late summer and fall. Surface inversions are formed when cool air is trapped close to the surface by a layer of warm air above it. Elevated inversions occur when a layer of cool air is suspended between warm air layers above and below. Stagnation allows the concentration of air contaminants, subjecting persons in the region to elevated levels of pollution and consequential increased health risks. PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter) and ozone are the primary pollutants of concern in the Planning Area. Residential open burning is the main contributor to PM10. The greatest ozone contributor is transported ozone from the Sacramento region and the Bay Area. However, motor vehicles are also a main local contributor to ozone. Carbon monoxide levels in the Planning Area have not been monitored since 1996. However, in the past years, levels of CO have not been significant. Regulatory Setting Both the federal and state governments establish air quality regulations. State standards, set through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), are generally more stringent than federal standards (Table 3.4-1). At the local government level, the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) is responsible for planning and the maintenance/attainment of these standards. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), passed in 1988 as AB 2595, requires local air pollution control districts to achieve and maintain both the federal and state ambient standards at the earliest practical date. For jurisdictions that have been classified as non-attainment for one or more pollutants, air quality attainment plans are to be prepared that either demonstrate attainment of the State ambient standards or provide a strategy for a five percent annual reduction in emissions of non-attainment pollutants in a given district. Although Nevada County is designated as attainment and/or unclassified by federal standards for PM10 and carbon monoxide (CO), it is classified according to California standards as a non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and PM10 and was designated as a federal nonattainment area for ozone in July, 1999. The attainment status of Nevada County for criteria pollutants under both state and federal standards as reported by the NSAQMD is shown in Table 3.4-2. A summary of air quality data (O3 and PM10) from the NSAQMD monitoring stations in Grass Valley from 1989 to 1997 is presented in Tables 3.4-3 and 3.4-4. The two Grass Valley monitoring stations are located at Litton Drive and Henderson Street. TABLE 3.4-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards2 Concen-tration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg./m3) Ultraviolet Photometry 0.12 gpm (235 µg./m3)8 Same as Primary Standard Ethylene Chemilumin-escence 8 Hour - 0.08 gpm (157 µg./m3) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Geometric Mean 30 µg./m3 Size Selective Inlet Sampler ARB Method P (8/22/85) - Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetic Analysis 24 Hour 50 µg./m3 150 µg./m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean - 50 µg./m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 65 µg./m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetic Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 µg./m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 gpm (10 mg/m3) Non-dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 9 gpm (10 mg/m3) None Non-dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 1 Hour 20 gpm (23 mg/m3) 35 gpm (40 mg/m3) 8 Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 gpm (7 mg/m3) - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Average - Gas Phase Chemilumin-escence 0.053 gpm (100 µg./m3) Same as Primary Standard Gas Phase Chemilumin-escence 1 Hour 0.25 gpm (470 µg./m3) - Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 µg./m3 AIHL Method 54 (12/74) Atomic Absorption - - High Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption Calendar Quarter - 1.5 µg./m3 Same as Primary Standard Sulfur Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean - Fluorescence 0.030 gpm (80 µg./m3) - Pararosoaniline 24 Hour 0.04 gpm (105 µg./m3) 0.14 gpm (365 µg./m3) - 3 Hour - - 0.5 gpm (1300 µg./m3) 1 Hour 0.25 gpm (665 µg./m3) - - Visibility Reducing Particles 8 Hour (10 am to 6 pm, PST) In sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - visibility of ten miles or more (0.07-30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Method: ARB Method V (8/18/89). No Federal Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg./m3 Turbidimetric Barium Sulfate-AIHL Method 61 (2/76) Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 gpm (42 µg./m3) Cadmium Hydroxide STRactan 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM2,5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units n which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); gpm in this table refers to gpm by volume, or micro moles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6. National Secondary Standards: the levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA. 8. New federal 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards were promulgated by U.S. EPA on July 18, 1997. The federal 1-hour ozone standard continues to apply in areas that violated the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. Source: State of California, Air Resources Board, April 9, 1998. TABLE 3.4-2 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF NEVADA COUNTY Pollutant Federal State Ozone Unclassified/Attainment* Non-Attainment Carbon Monoxide Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Unclassified Attainment Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Unclassified Non-attainment * Nevada County will be designated as a federal nonattainment area in July 1999. Source: Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, 1997. TABLE 3.4-3 AIR QUALITY DATA FOR GRASS VALLEY MONITORING SITES, 1990 - 1997 Pollutant Standard Site Days Above Standard in: 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Ozone State 1-Hour Litton Dr. -- -- -- 6 8 23 27 17 Ozone Federal 1-Hour Litton Dr. -- -- -- 0 0 2 0 0 PM10 State 24-Hour Henderson St. Litton Dr. 2 -- 0 -- 1 0 0 0 1 5 1 10 0 1 0 1 PM10 Federal 24-Hour Henderson St. Litton Dr. 0 -- 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- pollutant not monitored at this station Note: Both the Henderson St. and Litton Dr. monitoring stations are located in Grass Valley. Source: NSAQMD, Annual Air Monitoring Report, 1997. TABLE 3.4-4 HIGHEST RECORDED 24-HOUR PM10 AND 1-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS Pollutant Site Highest Concentrations: 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Ozone (1-Hour) Litton Dr. -- -- -- -- 11.2 11.1 13.7 11.1 10.8 PM10 (24-Hour) Henderson St. Litton Dr. 61 -- 52 -- 43 -- 52 39 42 42 54 67 63 70 35 51 35 51 -- pollutant not monitored at this station Note: Both the Henderson St. and Litton Dr. monitoring stations are located in Grass Valley. Source: NSAQMD, Annual Air Monitoring Report, 1997.

3.4.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Non-attainment of a federal or state emission standard for any pollutant is a significant impact. Because the state standards set forth under the Clean Air Act of 1988, and shown in Table 3.4-1, are generally more restrictive than federal standards, the state standards will be used for comparison of impacts. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted new national air quality standards for ground-level O3 and PM10. The 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) has been phased out and replaced by an 8-hour standard of 0.08 ppm. National standards for fine particulate matter (2.5 microns in diameter or less) have also been established for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. Although these standards are now in effect, the EPA is still in the process of developing implementations plans. In 2003, the EPA will require the Air Quality Management District to submit an air quality attainment plan to meet the new national standards. It is unlikely that an individual project will, in itself, exceed a standard. However, if a project results in a noticeable (greater than de minimus) contribution to a condition where standards are exceeded, a significant cumulative impact may result. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it would: conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan violate 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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Impact #3.4-1: An increase in regional emissions of non-attainment pollutants from mobile and stationary sources will result from implementation of the 2020 General Plan. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Mobile emissions (those generated by vehicles) that would result from implementation of the proposed General Plan were determined using the URBEMIS7G model developed by the State Air Resources Board (ARB). New vehicle emissions that would be generated by various land uses (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) were calculated using this model. The results of this model (refer to Table 3.4-5) demonstrates the change in mobile emissions in 2020 and at buildout of the proposed General Plan. TABLE 3.4-5 ESTIMATED PLANNING AREA EMISSIONS EXISTING, 2020 PLAN AND BUILDOUT

Pollutant/Parameter Existing 2020 Plan Buildout Percent Change 2020 Plan Percent Change Buildout ROG 4,687 2,060 2,379 56% decrease 49% decrease CO 30,340 19,536 22,720 36% decrease 25% decrease Nox 8,330 6,609 7,689 21% decrease 8% decrease PM10 2,801 3,666 4,267 31% increase 52% increase

The results of the URBEMIS7G modeling indicate that plan-related traffic would generate the following pollutant levels: Reactive Organic Gases (ROG): 2,060 lb/day, Carbon Monoxide (CO): 19,536 lb/day, Nitrogen Oxides (Nox): 6,609 lb/day and Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10): 3,666 lb/day. The decrease in emissions for ROG, CO, and Nox are related to assumptions in the model regarding improving emission rates for vehicles due to state emission control programs. PM10 will increase over the plan period. As development continues, the use of woodstoves, fireplaces, and prescribed burning could also increase. Additionally, construction of structures and road improvements would also generate dust. However, construction typically occurs during the warm season (late spring through early fall) when little residential burning occurs. Therefore, it is not expected to contribute to further exceedences of the State PM10 standard during the winter months when the contribution of woodsmoke from future residences is significant. In a non-attainment air basin, any emissions above the thresholds established by the NSAQMD for new developments would be considered to represent significant air quality effects, either directly or cumulatively. Many developments that would be consistent with the General Plan would result in emissions of O3 or O3 precursors (usually associated with vehicular emissions) and PM10, which can be emitted by construction activities, wood-burning appliances, yard burning, driving on paved and unpaved roads, and incineration. The General Plan addresses City responsibilities for accommodating growth through 2020 while reducing the amount of air pollutants through promoting a jobs/housing balance within the Grass Valley Region (6-LUG) to reduce commuting, encouraging mixed use developments (23-LUP), improving public transportation to better link residential areas with high traffic commercial/industrial nodes (3-CP), providing park and ride facilities to encourage carpooling (7-CP), and taking air quality into consideration in all land use decisions (16-COSO). Provisions of the General Plan and Mitigation Measure #3.4-1 described below will reduce emissions; however, cumulative impacts related to PM10 cannot be reduced to a less than significant level and will remain a significant cumulative impact. Impact #3.4-2: In addition to potential emissions of criteria pollutants and other potentially harmful pollutants, development in accordance with the 2020 General Plan could potentially result in exposure of sensitive land uses to nuisance emissions of odors, particularly surrounding the Grass Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant. However, this is a less than significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The Grass Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant is situated north of an existing residential area and east of undeveloped land which is designated for residential development by the General Plan. It is unlikely that the area designated for residential development will be affected by the plant, since odors are generally carried in a north-south direction. However, as a result of this wind pattern, the existing residences located to the south may be affected, but to a less than significant level. Since various odor management measures have been undertaken as a result of the 1992 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Plan, the City has not received any complaints from the public regarding odor. No additional mitigation is required. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures Air quality impacts identified above will be mitigated by the following General Plan goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies, however, not to a level that is less than significant. In addition, the General Plan should incorporate mitigation measures specified in the Indirect Source Review Guidelines of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, 1996-1997 as described in Mitigation Measure #3.4-1 below.

1-LUG 15-LUO 2-CG 2-LUO 8-LUP 4-CO 2-LUP 23-LUP 5-CO 2-LUG 1-CG 6-CO 4-LUO 1-CO 7-CO 5-LUP 2-CO 6-CP 6-LUP 3-CO 7-CP 7-LUP 1-CP 8-CP 9-LUP 2-CP 6-COSO 3-LUG 3-CP 16-COSO 6-LUO 4-CP 22-COSP 6-LUG 5-CP 23-COSP

Mitigation Measures #3.4.1: Add Implementation action 17-COSI to the Final General Plan as follows: Incorporate applicable mitigation measures specified in the Indirect Source Review Guidelines of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, 1996-1997 in all future discretionary land use approvals (Applies to Impact #3.4-1). Effectiveness of Measure: Although the impact will remain cumulatively significant, adoption of this mitigation measure will assist in reducing the impact to the greatest extent feasible. 3.5 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.5.1 Setting The following information is taken from The City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf, the City of Grass Valley Capital Improvement Program 1995 - 2015, and the City of Grass Valley 1997 Sphere of Influence Update. The City of Grass Valley provides the following: Fire Protection Police/Animal Control Wastewater Collection and Treatment Storm Drainage Collection and Disposal Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution Parks and Recreation Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution The City's water system serves approximately sixty percent (60%) of the incorporated City of Grass Valley. The service area is 1,357 acres, approximately 2.1 square miles, with a service area population of approximately 5,855. The remainder of the City and portions of the Planning Area with public water service are served by the Nevada Irrigation District (NID). Raw water purchased by the City from NID is treated at the City's water treatment plant, which incorporates flocculation, sedimentation, chlorination and pH control. Four full-time City employees staff the treatment plant. The plant processes approximately 904,400 million gallons per day (mgd), with treated water distributed to approximately 2,120 connections. The plant has a maximum capacity to treat 4,522,000 mgd, or approximately five times the current volume. The distribution system has grown incrementally since the late 19th century, and portions of the system suffer from age and obsolescence. Significant line replacement is required to maintain or enhance existing levels of quality water service to residents, and accommodate increased water service needs of new development. Figure 3.5-1 shows the location of City water storage and treatment facilities, and the extent of the City potable water service area. The NID service area encompasses the entire area between the City service area boundary and the Planning Area boundary. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal The City provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal service to an area of 2,884 acres, approximately 4.5 square miles. This area includes a 450-acre area outside city boundaries in the Glenbrook Basin, for which a sewer district was established by agreement with Nevada County in 1960. The 450-acre service area includes half of the Glenbrook Basin. The City's wastewater treatment plant was built in 1950. The plant is located on a 29-acre site at 556 Freeman Lane. The plant has since been improved to a secondary treatment plant providing preliminary treatment, primary clarification, trickling filter/solids contact process for secondary treatment, filtration for effluent polishing, disinfection with chlorine, and dechlorination with sulfur dioxide. The treatment plant has a rated capacity of 1.72 million gallons per day (mgd) average dry-weather flow conditions. The wastewater treatment plant services approximately 3,500 connections, an estimated population of 12,145. The collection system consists of 54.4 miles of sewer pipe ranging in size from 4-inch to 30-inch diameters. The system includes 1,157 manholes, 156 cleanouts, 32 lampholes, and 7 flush tanks. The City has rehabilitated and/or replaced about 11,700 feet of sewer pipeline. The City regularly maintains the collection system by periodic cleaning with a variety of equipment. Nine full-time employees operate the treatment plant. The City has approved increasing capacity of the plant from 1.72 mgd to 2.78 mgd, completion of which is expected in late 2000. This expansion will increase capacity to accommodate a service population of 21,000 persons. Computer modeling and hydrologic analysis indicate various sewer line repairs, enhancements, and extension in certain areas will be required to accommodate anticipated growth in the Planning Area. Currently, Grass Valley limits new sanitary sewer service connections to 100 "Equivalent Dwelling Units" (EDUs) per year, on a first come, first served basis until the treatment plant capacity is expanded to 2.78 mgd. Figure 3.5-2 shows the existing wastewater treatment service area, including Sanitation District No. 1 which provides service to 450 acres in the Glenbrook Basin. Storm Drainage The majority of the City lies within the Wolf Creek drainage basin, a watershed covering approximately twenty (20) square miles. Wolf Creek bisects the City traveling from the northeast to the southwest. Wolf Creek is a tributary of the Bear and Sacramento Rivers. Grass Valley maintains a storm drainage system within the portion of the City lying within the Wolf Creek watershed. A Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP) completed in 1999 is the basis for drainage evaluation, planning, and facility programming. The system consists of storm drains, modified channels, and natural channels. The City provides storm drainage facilities that prevent ponding of local stormwater and carry flood waters to downstream areas. According to the 1997 Sphere of Influence Plan Update (Master Service Element) future improvements will include maintenance of the existing system, up-sizing storm drains, construction of new storm drains and channel improvements (concrete lining) to accommodate new development within the City boundaries and Sphere of Influence. The northwesterly portion of the Planning Area lies within the Deer Creek drainage basin. The City is contemplating joint development of a coordinated regional master drainage plan with Nevada County within the next five years, to include both the Wolf Creek and Deer Creek basins. Figure 3.5-3 shows the area served by Grass Valley's storm drainage system. Fire Protection Fire protection agencies in the City of Grass Valley General Plan Planning Area include the City of Grass Valley Fire Department (GVFD), which provides service within the city; the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, which serves the area generally north, west and south of the existing city limits; and the Ophir Hill Fire District, which serves lands east of the city limits (refer to Figure 3.5-4). In 1998, an Automatic Aid agreement was reached among these agencies, which provides for a response by a minimum of two pieces of equipment anywhere in the City within four minutes, 24 hours a day (Burke 1998). Otherwise, mutual aid from agencies statewide is provided pursuant to the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid System via its Mutual Aid Plan (OES 1988). The GVFD has approximately thirty volunteer firefighters and employs ten full-time positions consisting of a Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, Administrative Clerk and six Engineers and Firefighters. The GVFD maintains the following stations: Brighton Street Fire House, Station No. 1 - 472 Brighton Street Eagle Fire House, Station No. 2 - 139 E. Main Street Reliance Fire House, Station No. 3 - 108 Race Street Satellite Fire House, Station No. 4 - 1445 E. Main Street The GVFD equipment inventory includes five engines, one aerial ladder truck, and one rescue vehicle. Station No. 1 houses the aerial ladder truck (75' ladder) and three engines (1,000 gallon pumpers, minimum). Funding is available to replace the 75' ladder truck with a new 100' aerial ladder truck by 2000. As a rule, engines are replaced on a 20-year basis (Burke 1998). Stations 2, 3, and 4 have one engine each. Fire Station No. 4 is a temporary facility located on private property. The City's current average response time is 4.0 minutes with an ISO rating of 4 (City of Grass Valley 1997). The City's five-year plan is to consolidate the four fire facilities to two locations: Fire Station No. 1 at its existing location to serve the western portion of the city and Fire Station No. 2, a new station to be located near the Sierra College campus, to serve the eastern portion of the city. Station No. 2 is projected to be in operation on February 1, 2000, and will be capable of holding six pieces of fire equipment, which initially will be comprised of a truck, engine and a support unit (Burke 1998). This station will provide access to the Glenbrook Basin, Morgan Ranch and Alta Sunset areas. A third station may be proposed in the southern portion of the Planning Area near North Star Drive to be co-located with the Watt Park Station No. 91. A fourth station could be located within the Nevada County Airpark Industrial Area if or when this area is annexed (City of Grass Valley 1997). The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) provides fire protection for wildland areas, and is legally responsible only for wildland fires, not structural fires, during the fire season. Thus, structures in areas outside the service areas of urban fire protection agencies have no year-round fire protection. Additional information regarding hazards associated with wildland fires is provided in Section 3.9 of this Draft EIR. Police/Animal Control The Grass Valley Police Department (GVPD) provides police and animal control services within the incorporated boundaries of the city. The GVPD headquarters is located at 129 S. Auburn Street. The Department maintains an animal control facility at the Public Works yard on Freeman Lane. A new police station was constructed in 1996 to serve the existing needs of the city as well as to serve the anticipated service needs to provide growth within the sphere of influence for a projected community population in excess of 30,000 residents. The facility includes 12,600 square feet of floor space with 9,700 square feet currently occupied and 2,900 square feet available for expansion. The GVPD provides 24-hour service with personnel consisting of twenty sworn officers (approximately 2.08 sworn officer per 1,000 residents), a Chief, a Captain, a Lieutenant, four Sergeants, thirteen Patrol Officers and eight non-sworn support personnel. The Police Department also has six reserve police officers and twenty-five senior citizen patrol volunteers. Parks and Recreation Facilities The City owns and maintains six park/recreation facilities. These include two community parks (Memorial Park and Condon Park) and four neighborhood parks, ranging in size from 0.3 to 1.7 acres. Memorial Park is fully developed as a recreation facility, although plans call for a complete remodel of the existing Scout Lodge. The Park includes a Video History Museum. Condon Park is only partially developed. The LOVE Building (Community Center) occupies a portion of Condon Park near Minnie Street. Two lighted ballfields, a "disk golf" course and planned skateboard park represent active recreational facilities. The majority of the park remains in wooded open space. Brighton (Minnie Street Park), Elizabeth Daniels Park in downtown Grass Valley, and Dow Alexander Park are designated neighborhood parks, serving nearby areas. An inventory of City owned or leased and operated park and recreation facilities includes: Memorial Park, 8.4 acres Condon Park, 80 acres Pelton Wheel Museum/Glen Jones Park, 1.7 acres Brighton Park (Minnie Street), 1.6 acres Dow Alexander Park, 0.5 acres Elizabeth Daniels Park, 0.3 acres Two notable park/recreation facilities owned and operated by entities other than the City of Grass Valley are the Nevada County Country Club and Sierra College Park. The Nevada County Country Club is a nine-hole public golf course located on East Main Street. Sierra College Park, developed in 1998-1999, is a baseball and soccer facility located on the Sierra College campus. Acreages of the two existing, non-city owned facilities are: Nevada County Country Club, 58 acres Sierra College Park, 8 acres (approximate) The following park/recreation facilities are proposed for development: Mulcahy Field, 12.5 acres Morgan Ranch Park, 4.1 acres (approximate) The Morgan Ranch Park has been offered for dedication to the City, and the dedication has been accepted. However, the proposed parkland currently remains undeveloped open space. A proposed community park is planned for Mulcahy Field, a 12+ acre area at the City water reservoir/water treatment plant. Mulcahy Field and the water treatment grounds are within the city limits but surrounded by Nevada County unincorporated area. The Wolf Creek Parkway, a streamside linear park of approximately 25 acres, is proposed to run along Wolf Creek within the city limits. Intended as an "urban trail," the Wolf Creek Parkway was first mentioned in the 1972 Grass Valley General Plan. Two open space easement dedications have been offered to the City to date, but neither has been accepted. Exact boundaries and dimensions of the Wolf Creek Parkway have not been determined. Using the standard employed by Nevada County in the 1995 County General Plan Update, urban areas should have a minimum of 9.5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents (This exceeds the Quimby Act maximum). As Table 3.5-1 shows, the City of Grass Valley has slightly more parkland per capita than the County standard, with 9.76 acres per 1,000 population. As with all standards, however, per capita park acreage must be evaluated based upon local needs and preferences. It should be noted that Condon Park, alone, accounts for over 86% of City park acreage, compared to 14% for the City's other five parks. TABLE 3.5-1 ACREAGE & PER 1,000 PERSONS ACREAGE PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES

Acreage Acreage/1,000 Pop Existing Park/Recreation Facilities 158.5 16.73 City-Owned 92.5 9.76 Other Entities-Owned 66.0 6.97 Proposed/Planned Facilities 41.6 4.39 City 41.6 4.39 Other Entities -0- -0- Source: Quad Knopf, 1998. 1 Figures are based on the California Department of Finance January 1, 1998 population estimate of 9,475 for the City of Grass Valley.

Substantial acreage is devoted to park and recreation facilities outside the Grass Valley city limits but within the Planning Area. Notable facilities are the Empire Mine State Park and the Nevada County Fairgrounds. Empire Mine State Park is a part of the California Park system. The park, over 800 acres, includes the old mine, historic and interpretive buildings and exhibits, and over one square mile of forested open space, natural areas, and several miles of foot trails. The Nevada County Fairgrounds is a 100 acre facility owned and maintained by the State Fairgrounds Authority. The Fairgrounds is classified as a regional park. The annual Nevada County Fair and other cultural and recreational activities take place at the Fairgrounds, which are used year-round. The Fairgrounds house several community facilities, including the Senior Citizens Building. The Grass Valley Subdivision Ordinance provides for land dedication for parks and recreation, and for in lieu fees through which residential developments facilitate park land acquisition. The standard for park and recreation dedications or in lieu fees, established under provisions of the "Quimby Act" (Section 66477 of the State Government Code), is a maximum of 5 acres per 1,000 population. Schools The following school districts provide educational services for the City of Grass Valley: Grass Valley Elementary School District Nevada Joint Union High School District Sierra Community College District The Grass Valley Elementary School District consists of the following schools with a total 1998 enrollment of 2,080 students: Bell Hill Elementary, 342 South School Street Gilmore Intermediate, 10837 Rough and Ready Highway Hennessy Elementary, 225 South Auburn Street Scotten Elementary, 10821 Squirrel Creek Road The Nevada Joint Union High School District includes Nevada Union High School located at 11761 Ridge Road which serves the entire Planning Area. The Sierra Community College District maintains a campus in Grass Valley in addition to its main campus in Rocklin. Sierra College is located on Sierra College Drive adjacent to Nevada Union High School. Over the past three years, enrollments for these districts have leveled out. The Grass Valley Elementary School District has actually experienced a slight decline. The schools continue to collect development impact fees authorized by State Law since new construction creates additional classroom demand. The K-8 schools have benefitted in recent years from additional funding that has been approved by the State legislature to reduce elementary school class sizes. However, this funding is subject to annual budgeting by the State legislature. Solid Waste The collection and disposal of solid waste in the City of Grass Valley is provided by a private firm, Waste Management, Inc., which is under a franchise agreement with the City of Grass Valley. Solid waste collected by the disposal company is transported to the McCourtney Road Transfer Station. It is then hauled outside the County to the prevailing landfill under contract with Nevada County. Since there is an ability to change solid waste destinations, there is no capacity problem, however, there is a general need for reduction in solid waste generation. 3.5.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it would: result in a substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: - fire protection - police protection - schools - parks - other public facilities exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste Impact #3.5-1: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain local water supplies. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: New development under the General Plan will result in increased demand for development of new and expanded water supply systems. It is a policy of the city to extend city water services to new development and areas annexed to the city where extension of water facilities is feasible and cost effective. However, new development within the city's water service area is limited to build-out within the service area and limited annexation development adjoining the water service area due to topography and plant proximity. Raw water supply appears to be sufficient to meet present and future urban water demands. According to the NID Urban Water Management Plan 1995 Update, approximately six percent of NID's total available water supply is allocated to urban water demands, and it is anticipated that this supply will increase to nine percent over the next twenty years. Of the 330,000 acre feet of water the district has available, approximately 170,000 acre feet per year provides for total demand (urban and non-urban). The General Plan contains goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions and strategies specifically developed to ensure that adequate public services are provided to meet future development demand. Land Use goals and objectives require avoidance of future adverse environmental, public facilities and services impacts (2-LUO), the reduction of environmental impacts associated with peripheral growth (4-LUO), adequately funded local government and services (23-LUO), and the ability to respond to new service demands and the needs of a changing population (24-LUO). Specific policies and implementation action strategies include, assuring that new development pays its fair share of the cost of municipal services (37-LUP), referring all development proposals to potentially affected governmental entities for review and comment (40-LUP), and the establishment of neighborhood-level planning/improvement program to be the basis for neighborhood-level decision making (7-LUI). With the implementation of the General Plan goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies, both the Year 2020 and buildout development projections of the General Plan will have a less than significant impact. Impact #3.5-2: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain local water treatment facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Water treatment capacity at the City treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 4.522 million gallons per day (mgd), approximately five times the current treatment/distribution level of 0.904 mgd. The current population served by the City water system is approximately 5,855. At current water usage rates, 155 gallons per person day, the City treatment facility could accommodate a population of 29,275, or approximately 3,000 more that the buildout population projection of 26,300 and five times the current population served. In addition to Grass Valley's treatment facility, NID's Loma Rica and Elizabeth George treatment plants have the ability of delivering over 16 mgd of treated water and serving approximately 8,006 connections in the Grass Valley area (NID 1995). In addition, the General Plan contains goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions and strategies specifically development to ensure that adequate public services are provided to meet future development needs. Land Use goals and objectives require avoidance of future adverse environmental, public facilities and services impacts (2-LUO), the reduction of environmental impacts associated with peripheral growth (4-LUO), adequately funded local government and services (23-LUO), and the ability to respond to new service demands and the needs of a changing population (24-LUO). Specific policies and implementation action strategies include, assuring that new development pays its fair share of the cost of municipal services (37-LUP), referring all development proposals to potentially affected governmental entities for review and comment (40-LUP), and the establishment of neighborhood-level planning/improvement program to be the basis for neighborhood-level decision making (7-LUI). Therefore, the proposed General Plan will have less than significant impact on water treatment capacity. Impact #3.5-3: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain local water distribution systems and create a demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Water service/distribution within the City of Grass Valley is shared between the City of Grass Valley and NID. It is the City's policy to extend City water service to new development and areas annexed to the City, where extension of water facilities is feasible and cost effective. However, current agreements provide for a combination of City and NID service to future developments within the Planning Area. The Loma Rica/Glenbrook areas are located in NID's service area, and treated water is expected to be provided to all newly developed areas, including Loma Rica Ranch, by NID. Kenny Ranch would be served by treated water from NID, with the possible exception of lots over three acres in size. The annexation agreement between Northstar owners and the City provides for owners to pay for necessary extensions from the City system into the North Star property. NID is planning to provide treated water service to a portion of the property currently within the NID service area but outside the NID District boundary. It is currently uncertain how water service will be arranged in other portions of the Planning Area, if and when the City annexes territories presently within NID's jurisdiction. Development patterns in the proposed General Plan, encourage infill and close-in development, discourage sprawl, and enlarge the peripheral areas designated Urban Estate Density (at least one acre lot size). However, proposed development patterns, including but not limited to Loma Rica Ranch, Kenny Ranch, and North Star, will require infrastructure extensions and expansions. The General Plan does address, in specific goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies, various ways of reducing the impact of these extensions including assuring that new development pays its fair share of the cost of municipal services (37-LUP), considering the use of special assessments to pay for unique service demands (38-LUP), and by coordinating peripheral development with appropriate entities currently providing services (9-LUG). The City's Capital Improvement Program also identifies several water distribution improvements for the City. However, these improvements are only designed to accommodate growth through 2015. Adoption of General Plan goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies in addition to Mitigation Measure #3.2-1 will reduce this impact, however, not to a level that is less than significant. The critical water distribution issue is: which portions of the Planning Area will be served by the City and which will be served by NID. Once resolved, impacts related to the future water distribution patterns will be eliminated. Until that time, however, this impact remains potentially significant. Impact #3.5-4: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain local wastewater systems and create demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: New development under the General Plan will result in increased demand for development of new and expanded wastewater treatment systems. The Grass Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant has a current capacity 1.72 mgd, but its capacity will be expanded to 2.78 mgd in 2000. This expansion will enable the Plant to accommodate a projected service population of 21,000. However, the 2020 General Plan population is projected to be 23,395 and the buildout population approximately 26,300. Thus the current expansion will not provide the capacity to serve the Planning Area population in 2020 or at buildout. The General Plan's overall land use pattern and pattern of residential densities will require extensions of the existing collection system. At a minimum, extensions will be necessary to provide services to the following areas: Special Development Areas - Loma Rica Ranch, North Star, and Kenny Ranch Loma Rica Industrial Park and the Nevada County Airpark area East Bennett area proposed for residential designation Bear River Mill site proposed for commercial designation In addition to extensions noted above, the following may also be required: Various extensions to provide service to existing developed areas presently utilizing on-site septic systems Improvements to provide service to existing developed areas proposed for intensified land use patterns and infill The Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP) provides for systematic expansion of the City's sewer service area and systematic extension of the collection system. The SSMP is based upon the current 1982 General Plan, and must be amended to reflect the proposed 2020 General Plan. The SSMP provides for geographic coverage and wastewater collection facilities which appear to support the 2020 General Plan, although this assumption must be verified in the process of amending the SSMP. It also appears likely that some of the wastewater collection facilities contained in the SSMP may not be required, or may be found infeasible, based upon the land use pattern and densities in the proposed 2020 General Plan. This possibility must be verified in the process of amending the SSMP. The following are possible areas that are subject to reexamination: West of the City between Rough and Ready Highway and Highway 20, where acreage designated residential is proposed for UED designation, as opposed to ULD in the 1982 General Plan South of the City, including the Mother Lode area, east of LaBarr Meadows Road, a portion of which is proposed for UED designation and may not require wastewater service Various locations lying outside the gravity flow range of the Grass Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant, service to which would require pumping and force mains The General Plan addresses City responsibilities for accommodating growth through 2020 while preventing a strain on local sewer and septic services through specific goals, policies, and implementation actions and strategies including promoting infill as an alternative to peripheral expansion (2-LUG). This implementation action would reduce the demand for lengthy sewer extensions. Other methods of reducing the demand for large sewer extensions include encouraging clustering of residential units on the most developable portions of the site for large parcels (24-LUP), and containing new development in higher densities (10-CDO). Adoption of these General Plan goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions and strategies in addition to Mitigation Measure #3.5-2 will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impact #3.5-5: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain stormwater drainage systems and create demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: New development under the General Plan will result in increased demand for development of new and expanded stormwater drainage systems. These systems may result in impacts related to land use conflicts, water quality, biological and cultural resources. This impact is of greatest relevance to the three special development areas (Loma Rica Ranch, North Star, and Kenny Ranch) where there is currently a lack of an adequate stormwater drainage system. However, goals, policies, objectives, and implementation actions and strategies have been incorporated into the General Plan and mitigation measures identified in Section 3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality would reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Refer to Section 3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality for a more detailed discussion of this impact. Impact #3.5-6: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain existing fire protection services and facilities and create demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: This impact could be directly and cumulatively significant. In the absence of adequate planning for this impact, there would soon be a shortfall of service capacity related to fire protection. The Grass Valley Fire Department will have to increase its number of full-time firefighters from the current 10 firefighters to 28 firefighters to maintain its current level of service ratio of 1.2 full-time firefighters per 1,000 persons under the 2020 General Plan population figure (23,395). Furthermore, additional fire protection services will be required for new development areas such as the Loma Rica Ranch, North Star, and Kenny Ranch Special Development Areas. The Capital Improvement Program identifies several facility improvements for the City's fire stations. However, these improvements are only designed to accommodate growth through 2015. The General Plan addresses City responsibilities for accommodating growth through 2020 while preventing a strain on fire protection services including incorporating fire hazard reduction considerations into land use plans/patterns (6-SP), maintaining a compact development pattern that facilitates quick emergency response times (1-SI), implementing fire-safe community design and landscaping standards (9-SP), and appropriate standards for emergency water supply (11-SP), maintaining automatic aid agreements with fire protection/suppression agencies in Western Nevada County (12-SP), and providing public awareness of fire safety measures (8-SP). Adoption of these General Plan goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions and strategies in addition to Mitigation Measure #3.5-3 will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impact #3.5-7: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain existing police protection services and facilities and create demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: This impact could be directly and cumulatively significant. In the absence of adequate planning for this impact, there would soon be a shortfall of service capacity related to police protection. The Grass Valley Police Department will have to increase its number of officers from the current 20 sworn officers to 47 officers to maintain its current service ratio of 2.08 officers per 1,000 persons under the 2020 General Plan population figure (23,395). New police protection services will be required in new development areas such as the Loma Rica Ranch, North Star, and Kenny Ranch Special Development Areas. Furthermore, expanded services will be necessary for existing developed areas proposed for intensified land use patterns and infill. However, as discussed earlier in this section, the new police station constructed in 1996 will be able to serve an anticipated projected community population in excess of 30,000 residents. The Capital Improvement Program identifies several facility improvements for City's police stations. However, these improvements are only designed to accommodate growth through 2015. If the Capital Improvements Program is updated according to the specifications discussed in Mitigation Measure 3.5-3, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact #3.5-8: Growth and development under the General Plan may create demand for new and expanded recreational facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Refer to Section 3.13 - Parks and Recreation for a discussion of this impact. Impact #3.5-9: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain existing school services and facilities and create demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: This impact could be directly and cumulatively significant. In the absence of adequate planning for this impact, there would soon be a shortfall of service capacity related to schools. Student enrollment will increase in existing schools as a result of development under the General Plan. New schools will need to be constructed to avoid overcrowding in existing schools and to accommodate the new student population in newly developed areas. However, adoption of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Impact #3.5-10: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain solid waste disposal systems and create demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a less than significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: New development under the General Plan will result in increased demand for development of new and expanded solid waste disposal systems. However, since there is an ability for the City's disposal company to change solid waste destinations, there is no capacity problem, beyond the general need for reduction in solid waste generation in accordance with State mandates. Landfills where solid waste is transported are located outside the Planning Area boundaries. Impact #3.5-11: Growth and development under the General Plan may strain existing communication systems and create demand for expanded services and facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Although communications systems are readily available to serve any new development, the physical impacts of trenching or other development could impact the natural environment or present potential aesthetic impacts. Methodologies for evaluating these impacts on a project-specific basis have been included in the General Plan goals, policies, objectives, and implementation actions and strategies would reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures The following General Plan Goals, Policies, Objectives and Implementation Actions and Strategies along with Mitigation Measures discussed below will ensure that any impacts to public service and utilities resulting from the 2020 General Plan Amendment will result in a less-than-significant impact:

1-LUG 18-LUP 1-SG 2-LUO 24-LUP 4-SO 2-LUG 37-LUP 6-SP 3-LUG 38-LUP 7-SP 3-LUO 39-LUP 8-SP 8-LUG 9-LUI 10-COSI 22-LUO 3-CDG 9-SP 23-LUO 10-CDG 10-SP 24-LUO 14-CDP 11-SP 9-LUG 22-CDP 12-SP 25-LUO 8-CDI 1-SI 2-LUP 6-COSG 4-SI 5-LUP 15-COSO 5-SI 9-LUP 16-COSO 8-SI 17-LUP 21-COSP 11-LUI 23-COSP

Mitigation Measure #3.5-1: The school districts will continue to collect development impact fees authorized by State law to meet the demand for expanded services and facilities. In addition to these fees, the districts may select among the following mitigation options: levying of additional fees in accordance with SB 50 if the criteria are met; general obligation bonds, limited obligation bonds, certificates of participation, Mello-Roos bonds, private bank loans, treasury anticipation notes, LeRoy Greene new construction funds, bus transportation fees, and/or year-round school. This will reduce potential impacts to schools to a less than significant level (Applies to Impact #3.5-9). Effectiveness of Measure: The various financing options described above will assure maximum flexibility to deal with school facility financing and effectiveness of action. Mitigation Measure #3.5-2: The following implementation actions and strategies shall be incorporated into the General Plan: Amend SSMP to reflect provisions of the 2020 General Plan Reexamine fiscal basis upon which the SSMP is constructed, including development fees and other sources Coordinate the timing and phasing of planned wastewater facility extensions/improvements with planned extension of other services, expansion of City sewer service areas, annexations, sphere of influence amendments, and other extraterritorial activities, as appropriate Assure adequate provision for extending sewer service to areas experiencing inadequate on-site disposal systems, should the need arise Monitor development trends and on-site disposal system inadequacies to ensure that the City's current plans reflect actual conditions and needs (Applies to Impact #3.5-4). Effectiveness of Measure: Implementation of the above strategies will assure adequacy of wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Mitigation Measure #3.5-3: The Capital Improvement Program currently addresses services and improvements through 2015, as developed under the 1982 General Plan. The CIP shall be updated in the future in order to meet public service and facility demands through 2020, reflecting the needs of the 2020 General Plan. (Applies to Impact #3.5-6 and Impact 3.5-7). Effectiveness of Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure #3.5-3 will assure that a CIP is in place that will reflect City needs through the life of the General Plan. 3.6 LAND USE AND PLANNING The following information is taken from The City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf. 3.6.1 Setting Grass Valley's current land use patterns are rooted in 150 years of settlement, building, and rebuilding. The original Townsite (settled in 1850, surveyed and recorded in 1872), a 361-acre square area centered on what is now downtown, encompassed the area of early development. Two areas were added to the town in the 19th century: South Grass Valley, 117 acres added in 1876 West Grass Valley, 96 acres added in 1893 The first City charter, incorporating the Townsite area, was adopted in January, 1893. In May of the same year, South and West Grass Valley were jointly made part of the new City by virtue of an annexation election. This 574 acre area contained residential, commercial, and cultural land uses needed to sustain the town well into the 20th century. In fact, the next annexation following the 1893 addition of South and West Grass Valley was not until 1940, 47 years later (the Memorial Park annexation). City records document a total of 83 "additions" or annexations to the City of Grass Valley, including and starting with the Grass Valley Townsite. Annexations have occurred in all directions from the very symmetrical original Townsite, creating an unusually irregular city limit line. The majority of annexation activity over the years has been to the north and northeast, extending upstream in the direction of the "valleyhead" of the Wolf Creek watershed (which is east of the Nevada County Airpark). Of the 81 twentieth century annexations, the largest have been the nearly 258 acres in 1973 (the Litton property); a nearly 191-acre annexation in 1967 (Hills Flat, northeast of the Townsite); nearly 172 acres in 1966 (Taylorville, southeast of the City); and 163 acres in 1986 (Whispering Pines). Altogether, five of the 81 20th century annexations have exceeded 100 acres. Conversely, the smallest annexation in City history was a mere 0.098 acre acquisition on Glasson Way in 1981. Thirty four annexations have each comprised two acres or less. The numerous mines in the area were the primary employment centers until the 1930s, complemented by commercial and service functions, most of which were concentrated in downtown Grass Valley. Annexations beginning in the World War II and post-war era facilitated residential development outside the 19th century town boundaries. Small scale neighborhood commercial developments sprouted, especially along major transportation routes, as residential areas became somewhat more attenuated from downtown and the automobile became the common mode for shopping ventures, largely supplanting foot travel. Commercial dispersion was fostered by three additional, related factors: residential development in unincorporated portions of western Nevada County; Grass Valley's ascendancy as a regional trade and employment hub for an expanding "hinterland"; and the expansion and diversification of the economic base of Grass Valley and vicinity. The latter factor gave rise to land uses and users of a new type in the area: manufacturing; distribution; research and development; finance and real estate; retirement-oriented services, including medical; and a plethora of small, office-based enterprises. Some have been accommodated in planned complexes specifically designed to meet their needs (Whispering Pines Business Park, Loma Rica Industrial Park in the unincorporated area, etc.), while others have located in buildings or developments designed for single corporations. In any case, the result has been a distribution of employment "nodes" outward from central Grass Valley to locations both within and outside the City boundaries. Conversely, the need for urban services and public infrastructure has been a centripetal force, or magnet, pulling development inward. As the sole supplier of a full range of services required by business and industry, particularly sewer service, Grass Valley has adhered to a policy of requiring annexation prior to service provision (an exception being the Glenbrook basin). This policy appears to have assured incremental land use change/development as annexation occurred, simultaneously assuring a more compact overall development pattern in the Planning Area than might otherwise have emerged. Existing Land Use The City's Planning Area contains approximately 9,894 acres. The City of Grass Valley currently occupies approximately 25 percent of the total Planning Area. Table 3.6-1 shows the existing land use in the Planning Area. Figure 3.6-1 shows existing land use. TABLE 3.6-1 EXISTING PLANNING AREA LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES PERCENTAGE Single Family 3,076 31% Duplex 21 0% Multi Family 157 2% Mobile/Mfg. Housing 68 1% Commercial 307 3% Office 101 1% Industrial 302 3% AG/Open Space 122 1% Public/Quasi Public 446 5% Institutional 372 4% Parks & Recreation 735 7% Streets/ROW 912 9% Vacant 3,274 33% TOTAL 9,894 Phasing of Development Projections of various land uses in the year 2020 were derived by 1) calculating total acreage for each land use based upon the Land Use Plan Map, 2) subtracting existing development in each land use category. The difference is the total increase for each land use from present to buildout. To project the amount of development expected to occur from present to year 2020, percentages of the difference were calculated, using the percentages shown in Table 3.6-2 (Assumed Percentage of Buildout by year 2020). The core, fringe, and periphery areas are depicted in the General Plan (Figure 3-3, 20 Year Development Level). TABLE 3.6-2 ASSUMED PERCENTAGE OF BUILDOUT BY YEAR 2020 BY AREA

AREA RESIDENTIAL LAND USES NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Core Area 95% 50% Fringe Area 75% 25% Periphery Area 55% 10%

3.6.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it would: physically divide an established community conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan The General Plan Land Use Map assigns a land use designation to all properties within the Planning Area. If the entire Planning Area were to be developed as depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, the Planning Area would be considered "built out." This is shown on Table 3.6-3 which compares development projections in the year 2020 with the potential plan build out. The basic projections developed during the General Plan process for the 20-year planning period (to the Year 2020) - population, housing units, employment, and demands for land - clearly indicate that less than full "build-out" will occur by the Year 2020. Therefore, the EIR addressed the 20-year planning period as the project, and assumes the Plan build-out as the Cumulative Impact. TABLE 3.6-3 COMPARISON OF 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND PLAN BUILDOUT (IN ACRES)   YEAR 2020 PROJECTED BUILDOUT RESIDENTIAL Urban Estate Density 1,889 2,348 Urban Low Density 1,306 1,379 Urban Medium Density 308 314 Urban High Density 269 273 COMMERCIAL Commercial 394 466 Office-Professional 122 162 INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing-Industrial 183 528 MIXED USE Business Park 351 437 Special Development Area OTHER     Public 333 333 Institutional Non-governmental 103 123 Schools 228 228 Utilities 34 43 Parks and Recreation 752 752 Open Space 175 192 Right-of-Way 913 913 Vacant 2,534 0 TOTAL 9,894 9,894 Comparison of Existing Development with 2020 General Plan Impact #3.6-1: In comparison to existing residential land use in Grass Valley, the 2020 General Plan anticipates an increase in the amount of residential development in the Planning Area by 450 acres and by 2,820 units. This is a change in existing land use and is therefore a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The existing Planning Area land use (Figure 3.6-1) includes 3,322 acres presently utilized for residential development. The 2020 General Plan designates 4,314 acres for residential development, not including residentially committed allocations within the Specific Development areas (SDAs). The Special Development Areas are projected to include: Loma Rica Ranch, 121 acres of residential development; Kenny Ranch, 150 acres of residential development; and North Star, 312 acres of residential. The current number of residential units is estimated to be 7,383, compared to the 2020 General Plan which projects 10,203 residential units in 2020, an increase of 2,820 residential units. Specific Land Use goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies are contained in the General Plan to address the potential impacts of changing existing land use. General Plan goals and objectives include promoting balanced growth in the community and development in a planned and orderly way (1-LUG), reduction in the amount of land necessary to accommodate future growth (3-LUO), and the designation of residential building sites sufficient in number and variety to meet projected demand (12-LUO). Specific Land Use policies include a provision to maintain a General Plan that reflects the needs of the total community, including residents, business and industry (1-LUP). Individual projects developed under the 2020 General Plan will be evaluated on a project specific level to address potential compatibility of land uses (2-LUP). Therefore, although the proposed General Plan does change existing land use patterns, implementing the General Plan Update will result in a less than significant impact. Impact #3.6-2: In comparison to existing development patterns, the 2020 General Plan anticipates an increase in the amount of commercial and office/professional development in the Planning Area by 150 acres over the 20 year planning period. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The existing land use in the Planning Area includes 408 acres commercial and office development. This includes Commercial (307 acres) and Office (101 acres). The land use classifications included in the 2020 General Plan includes 628 acres designated commercial and 162 designated office professional acres of commercial. Also to be considered is additional future commercial development in the Special Development Areas: Kenny Ranch, 22 acres of commercial; and North Star, 20 acres of commercial. Land Use goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies contained in the General Plan have been developed to minimize potential environmental impacts associated with changes in land use. Specific Land Use policies include a provision to maintain a General Plan that reflects the needs of the total community, including residents, business and industry (1-LUP). Individual projects developed under the 2020 General Plan will be evaluated on a project specific level to address potential compatibility of land uses (2-LUP). Therefore, although the proposed 2020 General Plan is changing existing land use patterns, implementing the General Plan will result in a less than significant impact. Impact #3.6-3: In comparison to existing land use patterns, the 2020 General Plan anticipates an increase in the amount of industrial and business park development in the Planning Area from 302 acres to 534 acres during the 20-year planning period for total increase of 232 acres. This is a significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The existing Planning Area includes 302 acres developed industrially. The land use classifications projected by 2020 in the General Plan slightly expand potential industrial development to 534 acres which includes business parks, plus the Special Development Areas (Loma Rica Ranch, 115 acres of industrial development; Kenny Ranch, 88 acres of industrial development; and North Star, 240 acres of industrial development). Land Use policies include a provision to maintain a General Plan that reflects the needs of the total community, including residents, business and industry (1-LUP). Individual projects developed under the 2020 General Plan will be evaluated on a project specific level to address potential compatibility of land uses (2-LUP). Therefore, although the proposed 2020 General Plan is changing existing land use patterns, implementing the General Plan will result in a less than significant impact. Impact #3.6-4: Changes in the phasing of future development (core, fringe, periphery) and the consideration of future infrastructure expansions (Urban Limit Line) will direct future development toward the core earlier than similar levels of development occur on the fringe or periphery of the Planning Area. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The 2020 General Plan proposes to conceptually phase future development in three categories: the core area, the fringe and the periphery (Table 3.6-2). Policies in the General Plan direct growth to the core area before large scale development occurs in the fringe or periphery. The principal tool for directing future growth will be the limitations placed by the timing for extending urban infrastructure such as water and sewer lines. The General Plan projects that by the year 2020 the Core Area will reach a 95 percent of residential buildout capacity and a 50 percent of non-residential buildout capacity, that the Fringe Area will reach a 75 percent residential , 25 percent non-residential, the periphery a 55 percent and a 10 percent respectively. This will have a less than significant impact. Land Use Impacts Infrastructure Improvements Impact #3.6-5: Once constructed and in operation, new and expanded infrastructure improvements, including roadways, can affect adjacent and nearby developments adversely. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Public infrastructure extensions and expansions are necessary to support planned future development. Planning for and environmental review of such projects must consider fully both the impacts resulting from construction and those likely to continue during operational. As a policy document, the General Plan is unable to assess in detail either the construction or operational impacts of specific infrastructure improvements. Likewise, a "program-level" Environmental Impact Report (such as the Grass Valley Draft EIR) assesses impacts at a broader level than is appropriate for specific infrastructure projects. In the absence of such project level planning and review, operations of infrastructure improvements identified or implicitly required by the General Plan remain potentially significant impacts. Cumulative Land Use Impacts Impact #3.6-6: The 2020 General Plan will have a cumulative impact on land use and development in Grass Valley. This is a potentially significant cumulative impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The General Plan Land Use Map assigns a land use designation to all properties within the Planning Area. If the entire Planning Area were to be developed as depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, the Planning Area would be considered "built out." The basic projections developed during the General Plan process for the 20-year planning period (to the year 2020) - population, housing units, employment, and demands for land clearly indicate that less than full "build-out" will occur by the Year 2020. Therefore, the EIR addresses the 20-year planning period as the project, and assumes the Plan buildout as the cumulative impact. These impacts are mitigated by the Plan's goals, policies, objectives, and implementation actions and strategies identified below. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures The following General Plan Goals, Policies, Objectives and Implementation Actions and Strategies will ensure that any change to existing land uses resulting from the 2020 General Plan Amendment will result in a less than significant impact:

1-LUG 10-LUO 20-LUO 1-LUO 11-LUO 21-LUO 2-LUO 5-LUG 8-LUG 2-LUG 12-LUO 22-LUO 3-LUO 13-LUO 23-LUO 4-LUO 14-LUO 24-LUO 5-LUO 6-LUG 9-LUG 3-LUG 15-LUO 25-LUO 6-LUO 16-LUO 26-LUO 7-LUO 17-LUO 1 thru 44-LUP 8-LUO 7-LUG 1 thru 11-LUI 4-LUG 18-LUO 9-LUO 19-LUO

Implementation of these goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies will reduce the effects on land use to a less than significant level, and no additional mitigation measures are required. 3.7 POPULATION AND HOUSING The following information is taken from The City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf. 3.7.1 Setting Government Code §65580 and §65589.5 establish the standards for adoption and content of general plan housing elements. Updating the Grass Valley Housing Element, which was adopted in 1993, is not a part of the present project. After the current General Plan Update is adopted, the existing Housing Element will remain in effect. However, because the present General Plan Update includes amendment of the Land Use Element and other elements, the project has the potential to effect housing, directly or indirectly. For example, the Land Use Element designates lands available for residential development and sets development densities. The Conservation/Open Space Element address compatibility between residential uses and other land uses, and the Circulation Element describes the transportation system as it relates to residential districts. Population is discussed in the General Plan Background Report, Chapter Three. This provides information on the current and projected population of the City and the basis for future population projections. According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the population of the City of Grass Valley was 9,457 at the beginning of 1998. Although the number of housing units in the city increased more than eight percent since 1990, the population of the incorporated area increased slightly less than five percent, continuing aging of the population and the continuing influx of retirement households. The DOF projections are generally consistent with the annexation of about 100 existing housing units plus 278 single family and multifamily building permits issued and finaled since 1990. The population in the Planning Area in 1993 was estimated at 15,222 by Menkin/Lucero & Associates. Since then, population growth in the incorporated area has been flat. Thus the 1998 population of the Grass Valley Planning Area was estimated at 16,000 and is probably not more than 17,000. Assuming that the Planning Area currently holds 16,500 residents, the incorporated area accounts for 57 percent of the total residents in the Planning Area. Housing is addressed in Chapter Five of the Background Report. In this Chapter are discussions of the City's existing housing conditions profile, projected housing needs, residential land available to accommodate growth, and development constraints. 3.7.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Regarding population and housing, Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines states that a project will normally have a significant effect on population and housing if it will: 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. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impact #3.7-1: The 2020 General Plan may induce growth in the Grass Valley Area. In comparison to existing conditions, the 2020 General Plan will increase the population by 7,395 people, and will increase housing by 2,820 units. This impact is addressed in Section 3.16, Growth Inducing Impacts. TABLE 3.7-1 COMPONENTS OF CHANGE HOUSING AND POPULATION 1999-2020 BUILDOUT STATUS OR INCREMENT OF CHANGE 1999-2020 HOUSING UNITS POPULATION IN HOUSING UNITS POPULATION IN GROUP QUARTERS TOTAL POPULATION Existing (1999) 7383 15,500 500 16,000 Net change 1999 to 2020 2,820 6,195 2,300 7,395 2020 STATUS 10,203 21,695 1,700 23,395 Net Change 2020 to Buildout 807 2,104 800 2,904 BUILDOUT STATUS 11,010 23,799 2,500 26,299 3.8 AESTHETICS The following information is taken from The City of Grass Valley General Plan Update Background Report, prepared by Quad Knopf. 3.8.1 Setting Community Design is about community building. It concerns the built character and order of the city. It is the interrelationship of various components (buildings, the transportation system, open space, vistas, human interaction between each other and the natural environment, heritage, and economics) that, when put together, make up a total community. Community Design concerns range from how to build neighborhoods to planning pedestrianways safe for children to walk to school or for the elderly to cross the street. Design addresses such key issues as how to maintain the downtown area as a place where locals as well as visitors want to go. Good community design respects the natural environment as well as economic gain, and strives to create places for people to feel comfortable with each other and with the built environment. The relationships between Grass Valley's natural setting and community development are fragile. The Community Design Element addresses such issues of community-wide concern as the preservation of the City's historical heritage while accommodating growth and revitalization. It is a concerted effort of the Community Design Element to realize the positive attributes of the City, to enhance those attributes, and to assure that they influence the new growth and infill areas in a positive way. The Community Design Environment in 2020 Grass Valley's small town, rural character and its sense of community create an invisible bond between its historic past and its vibrant future that is realized in the 2020 General Plan. The current residents of Grass Valley are the caretakers of the future and are creating a bridge connecting the dreams of their parents' generation to the hopes they have for their children and their children's children. Many changes can be anticipated in the next twenty years ­ an increase in population, changing demographics and economics. It is the responsibility of current residents to launch Grass Valley into the 21st century by protecting the environment, strengthening the community structure and nourishing the spirit of its citizens. This will be accomplished, as stated in the goals of the 2020 General Plan, through infill development, neighborhood integrity, sensitive community design, the creation of community and neighborhood gathering places, and the fostering of economic development. The natural setting of Grass Valley provide a perfect backdrop as well as the foundation for the City's vision of the future. The Community Design Element recognizes that the fragile environment is the basis of the superior quality of life in the area and must be protected through wise land use planning. To achieve this, one of the key elements in Grass Valley's 2020 General Plan focuses on infill development and the construction of higher-density housing. By increasing density, open space will be maximized and the cost of new infrastructure minimized. To accommodate an increasing population, a variety of new housing types and designs will be encouraged. Forty-five percent of new housing will be affordable, multifamily units. These multifamily developments will be scattered throughout the city, not concentrated in areas or neighborhoods. Infill development will respond to the higher percentage of seniors in the population. Senior housing and care facilities will multiply. Residential areas of historic character north, east, and west of the Downtown will have design standards to maintain the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. Ongoing renovation and the implementation of code enforcement will keep these residential areas vital and attractive. New infill development within established areas will be consistent with historical patterns in terms of scale, design and materials and follow a terrain-driven street grid pattern. North Star, Loma Rica Ranch and Kenny Ranch will be annexed. Higher density housing will create vibrant villages which foster a community ambiance and enhance quality of life. Infill development and new planning principles will create a higher percentage of open space which will be complemented by high quality streetscape and building design. As part of the infill process, mixed-use development will become more common. This will allow neighborhoods easier access to civic facilities, parks, schools, shopping and services. Neighborhoods will not be isolated residential islands, but will be connected to commercial areas by a network of streets, lanes, trails, sidewalks and paths. Alternative transportation will increase in popularity. Travelways will conform to the terrain. Traffic will be slower, calmer and less dangerous to pedestrians. Residents and visitors can walk, ride a bike or drive a car in safety and comfort. Sidewalks, trails and paths are frequent, well shaded and provide areas for rest and relaxation. A primary destination for residents will be the Downtown. The heart of Grass Valley, the Downtown continues to be the community's principal gathering place where people can mingle and socialize. Entertainment and new retail facilities as well as cultural attractions will be found here. The entire area will be designated as a historic district giving the area a unique urban feeling and sense of history. Interesting turn of the century buildings will provide the aesthetic foundation and combine commercial, civic and residential uses. All City and public facilities will be located here. The entrances to the Downtown via South Auburn and Colfax Streets will be attractive to visitors as well as residents through façade improvement programs and design review and redevelopment. Streetscapes will visually enhance the area and improve pedestrian access. The comfort of citizens will be the highest priority, and public gathering places will be accented by wide sidewalks, benches, shaded areas, pedestrian controlled crosswalks, eye level signs and human scaled street lighting. All public and private development projects will have areas for public gatherings and interaction. There will be a full range of usable open spaces and recreational choices ranging from neighborhood and regional parks to trails and creeks. The City parks will be expanded to include more natural areas, open space and passive parks as well as active parks and playing fields. Natural features will be maintained and enhanced for aesthetics and to protect property values. Views, open spaces, hillsides, valleys, ridgelines, forested views, and notable buildings will have their views protected. Land that is not buildable will be preserved in its natural state. The natural environment will be protected by setting aside environmentally sensitive areas, preserving open spaces, developing parks and nature trails, and reclaiming blighted areas. Public and private support will assist in the creation of the protected riparian corridors. The Trails-Sidewalks Network will connect outlying areas with Downtown Grass Valley, providing both recreation and transportation while assuring protection of wildlife habitats. Grass Valley's beautiful natural environment and quality of life will be supported by its vibrant economy. The City will continue to be a regional economic and cultural hub for Western Nevada County, and its influence will reach far beyond its physical boundaries. The growth of technology and high-tech business will make Grass Valley a preferred choice for companies wanting a higher quality of life for their employees. Small offices and in-home businesses have increased and provide important services both locally and throughout the area. Sierra College, the medical/health care sector, tourism and a growing senior population have sparked commercial growth in the area. With the aging of the population, the demand for medical and support services will be stimulated and many new medical related offices will be developed in the vicinity of the hospital. In addition to increased commercial activity in established commercial areas, older commercial areas of the city will undergo redevelopment. Excellent opportunities for infill development will conserve precious land. By linking Grass Valley's tradition-rich past with its vibrant future, the 2020 General Plan will provide residents with an incomparable quality of life that maintains its small town rural character and sense of community while also fulfilling its destiny as a the cultural and economic hub of western Nevada County. 3.8.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project will have a significant impact on aesthetics if it would: 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. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impact #3.8-1: The 2020 General Plan will have the potential to affect a scenic vista or scenic highway through future development. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: New development in accordance with the General Plan, if not carefully designed, can result in adverse impacts on existing vistas and the creation of aesthetically offensive sites open to public view. However, the General Plan includes policies in the Community Design Element designed to preserve the desirable physical and design features in Grass Valley and carry them over into new development so that old and new development appear compatible. This includes broad goals, such as preserving and enhancing the existing community (1-CDG), and recognition and protection of major views in the planning area, with particular attention to notable buildings, open space, hillsides, valleys, ridgelines, and forested views (3-CDO). The Community Design policies and implementation actions and strategies include provisions to establish a program ro identify and protect viewsheds/view corridors, open space, including hillsides, valleys, ridgelines, forest views and notable buildings (2-CDP), and to systematically inventory and map forest views (3-CDI).The Open Space/Conservation Element also provide for preservation of natural open space whenever feasible to preserve the aesthetic benefits of vegetation and wildlife. Therefore, the goals, policies, objectives and implementation action strategies ensure that the project will have a less than significant impact on scenic vista or scenic highway through future development. Impact #3.8-2: Future development associated with implementing the 2020 General Plan could substantially damage scenic resources , including , but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within view of a state scenic highway. This is potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: New development in accordance with the General Plan, if not carefully designed, can result in adverse impacts on existing scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway However, the General Plan includes goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies in the Community Design Element designed to preserve the desirable physical and design features in Grass Valley (see discussion above). The Open Space/Conservation Element also provides for preservation of natural open space whenever feasible to preserve the aesthetic benefits of vegetation and wildlife. Therefore, the goals, policies, objectives and implementation action strategies ensure that the project will have a less than significant impact on future development. Impact #3.8-3: The 2020 General Plan could have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the community through future development. This is potentially significant impact. Discussion: New development in accordance with the General Plan, if not carefully designed, can result in negative aesthetic effects on the community However, the General Plan includes policies in the Community Design Element designed to preserve, protect and promote the aesthetic features of Grass Valley and carry them over into new development. This includes goal to preserve and enhance the existing community (1-CDG), objectives to preserve notable landmarks, streetscapes and other areas of architectural or aesthetic value providing continuity with the past (2-CDO), and policies to implement programs such as facade improvements and design review to maintain and enhance Downtown's historic character (1-CDP). Therefore, the goals, policies, objectives and implementation action strategies ensure that the project will have a less than significant impact on the community's aesthetics. Impact #3.8-4: New development in accordance with the 2020 General Plan could create new sources of light or glare and cumulatively increase night lighting in the area. This is a significant cumulative impact. Discussion/Conclusion: New development in accordance with the General Plan may result in new sources of light and glare (e.g. certain types of commercial and industrial development and public facilities), and new residential development may be exposed to existing sources of light and glare. Strong sources of light and glare can create a significant nuisance effect on sensitive receptors, particularly residences and stationary populations such as rest homes. "Light pollution," caused by the spilling over of night lighting from its intended use and the cumulative illumination of the night sky is increasingly becoming a concern in communities. The General Plan does not provide goals, policies, objectives and implementation actions and strategies that would allow analysis and mitigation of light and glare impacts associated with specific developments. Although this impact can be mitigated, illumination of the night sky remains a significant cumulative impact. 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures The following General Plan Goals, Policies, Objectives and Implementation Actions and Strategies, with the inclusion of Mitigation Measure #3.8-1 will mitigate impacts to aesthetics resulting from the 2020 General Plan to the greatest extent feasible. 1-CDG 15-CDO 15-CDP 1-CDO 16-CDO 16-CDP 2-CDO 17-CDO 17-CDP 3-CDO 18-CDO 18-CDP 4-CDO 1-CDP 19-CDP 5-CDO 2-CDP 20-CDP 6-CDO 3-CDP 21-CDP 2-CDG 4-CDP 22-CDP 7-CDO 5-CDP 1-CDI 8-CDO 6-CDP 2-CDI 3-CDG 7-CDP 3-CDI 9-CDO 8-CDP 4-CDI 10-CDO 9-CDP 5-CDI 11-CDO 10-CDP 6-CDI 12-CDO 11-CDP 7-CDI 13-CDO 12-CDP 8-CDI 14-CDO 13-CDP 9-CDI 4-CDG 14-CDP Mitigation Measure #3.8-1: Include an implementation action in the Community Design Element to require shielding or downward direction of lighting in the Planning Area and require that illumination be so arranged to reflect away from adjoining properties (Applies to Impact #3.8-4). Effectiveness of Measure: Shielding and directing light to serve a specific need will reduce the potential for light and glare impacts.

3.9 TRANSPORTATION 3.9.1 Setting A more detailed transportation setting can be found in the General Plan Background Report. The General Plan Circulation Element defines transportation facilities, and includes the goals, policies and implementation measures for the City's circulation system. The Circulation Element's provisions are mandated by State law to be correlated with, and thus support, the goals, objectives, and policies of the Land Use Element. It is the underlying goal of the entire Circulation Element that the City's circulation system promote 1. the safe, efficient and reliable movement of the people and goods; 2. transition from the automobile to other modes of transportation; and 3. provide an adequate level of transportation service for all persons traveling in and through Grass Valley. As in most areas, to travel within or through the Grass Valley vicinity, one is very dependent on the automobile. Until recently, this dependence was not viewed as a critical issue. That is no longer the case. Traffic congestion is no longer confined to major urban centers. Some of the worst recurring traffic conditions in the area occur along Highway 49. Some of the City's collectors and arterials, particularly Main Street in Grass Valley and Brunswick Road in the unincorporated area of Nevada County are now experiencing regular peak hour congestion. Travel demand is expected to increase as the city population increases to the levels forecast for the year 2020. This population increase, coupled with increases in employment in the Planning Area, challenge for the City to find solutions that will maintain its roadway Level of Service standard. Over the 20-year life of the General Plan, federal and State air quality regulations will likely require trip reduction measures that promote alternative transportation modes. For these reasons, the City is committed to actively pursuing policies and implementation measures that will promote car-pooling, transit and non-vehicular modes of travel (bicycles and walking) as alternatives to single-occupant automobile use. By doing so, the City will be making a long-term commitment to transition from the automobile to other forms of transportation. Existing Circulation Network The existing street network in the City of Grass Valley is a product of both roadways that have provided access to the older portions of the City for decades, and roadways that were designed to serve the areas of new development. As a result, in the older portions of the City, some roadways function as arterial or collector roadways, but they have not previously been classified as such. The current system of arterial and collector roadways in Grass Valley is shown on Figure 3.9-1. The existing non-vehicular circulation network consists of sidewalks (primarily in downtown and older neighborhoods) plus limited segments of bicycle lanes and pedestrian trails. Freeways / Expressways: Freeways and Expressways are regionally important facilities which link the community of Grass Valley with its Nevada County neighbors and with regional destinations. These facilities are high speed, restricted access facilities providing little direct linkage to adjoining property but providing access via interchanges or, in the interim, major signalized intersections. Freeways and Expressways are designed to the standards of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and improvements to these facilities are planned and implemented through a cooperative effort of Caltrans, the Nevada County Transportation Commission, Nevada County, the City of Grass Valley and Nevada City. State Highways 20 and 49 are the Freeways and Expressways serving Grass Valley. Arterial Streets: The primary function of arterial roadways is to move large volumes of traffic through the community to other sections of the city and beyond. In the new areas, the right-of-way for arterial is 84 or 100 feet, and while most arterial are two lanes, four lane arterial can be developed in response to traffic demands. Some roadways function as arterial due to the current high traffic volumes and their key linkages between one section of the City and another. For these roadways, current right-of-way widths vary, but most contain only two traffic lanes. Collector Streets: Collector streets generally link local residential streets and commercial and office parking areas to the arterial. In new areas, these streets are generally designed with a 54 or 60 foot right-of-way and contain two traffic lanes with bike lanes. In older portions of the community, a number of roadways function as collector roadways due to moderate traffic volumes and their linkage to the arterial roadway system. Right-of-way widths vary, with most containing two traffic lanes. Local Streets: Local streets provide direct access to abutting land and access to the collector street system. The right-of-way for local streets is normally 54 feet, which provides for two traffic lanes and a narrow parking lane that doubles as a Class II bikeway on both sides. Actual pavement widths for local streets vary throughout the City. Truck Routes: Another important component of the City's functional classifications are truck routes. Currently, the City has no designated truck routes within the Grass Valley city limits, although trucks are prohibited on East Maryland Drive. Non-vehicular Circulation Facilities: Sidewalks are found in the Downtown Grass Valley, and extend to nearby, established residential areas. In addition, newer residential developments have included sidewalks, as required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Elsewhere in the City and unincorporated portions of the Planning Area, sidewalks are lacking. Principal areas lacking sidewalks or where sidewalks are not uniformly present are 1) along collector and arterial streets and 2) in the vicinity of potential pedestrian "attractions", such as schools and commercial areas. Many residential areas in the unincorporated Planning Area also lack sidewalks. Bicycle lanes are present only along two limited segments of Ridge Road and East Main Street. No exclusive bikeways or bicycle paths exist in the Planning Area. The only formal trails in the Grass Valley area are an extensive recreational trail network in Empire Mine State Park and the Lipton Trail on Lipton Business Park property. Methodology and Assumptions To assess the impacts of the General Plan, future travel demand was estimated and the impact of resulting traffic operations on the City's future transportation system were evaluated. The analysis focused on year 2020 travel demand and projected needs. Travel forecasts were also made for future conditions, assuming full "build out" of the General Plan, in order that transportation corridors and circulation improvements needed beyond the year 2020 could be identified. A regional travel demand forecasting model was employed to identify daily and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on State highways and arterial / collector streets. In turn, daily traffic forecasts were compared to general Level of Service thresholds to identify those locations where problems may be created in the future or the need for additional circulation system improvements may become evident. Intersection Levels of Service were also calculated to confirm the suitability of the General Plan Circulation system. Methodology: The Travel Demand Forecasting Model employed for the City of Grass Valley General Plan Update was originally created for and is currently maintained by the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC). The Nevada County area travel demand model employs state of the art MINUTP traffic demand modeling procedures and has been employed for many regional and sub-regional studies commissioned by NCTC. The MINUTP model utilized many separate sub-models to generate traffic forecasts. Each of the primary sub-models used in projecting these traffic forecasts is briefly described in the text which follows. Levels of Service: For General Plan-level analysis, the Level of Service on individual roadway segments is determined based on general daily traffic volume thresholds which account for such factors as the level of access control, terrain, traffic control, etc. The thresholds employed in the Nevada County General Plan and by the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) previous regional studies will be used. These daily traffic volume standards are presented in Table 3.9-2. TABLE 3.9-1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CITY OF GRASS VALLEY'S ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAY SYSTEM ARTERIALS COLLECTORS South Auburn Street Brighton Street Extension Brunswick Road Crest view Extension Empire Street Idaho Maryland Road (part) Labor Meadows Road Main Street Mill Street Neal Street Nevada City Highway Sierra College Drive (part) Allison Ranch Road Alta Street East Bennett Road Brighton Street Butler Street Dorsey Drive Empire Street Freeman Lane Hughes Road Idaho Maryland Road (part) McCourtney Road McKnight Way Mill Street Richardson Street Ridge Road Sierra College Drive (part) Sutton Way Taylorville Road Whispering Pines Lane TABLE 3.9-2 DAILY PLANNING SERVICE VOLUME CRITERIA FUNCTIONAL CLASS LANES LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E Interstate and Freeway 4 6 59,400 89,100 69,300 103,950 79,200 118,800 89,100 133,650 99,000 148,500 Arterial 2 4 6 9,300 18,600 27,900 10,850 21,700 32,550 12,400 24,800 37,200 13,950 27,900 41,850 15,500 31,000 46,500 Collector 2 6,600 7,700 8,800 9,900 11,000 Currently there are four roadway segments in the Planning Area which fail to deliver LOS "D" conditions. These are shown in Table 3.9-3, these are: TABLE 3.9-3 EXISTING ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFICIENCIES ROAD LOCATION NUMBER OF LANES ADT LOS Sutton Way W of Brunswick Road 2 13,661 E Brunswick Road S of Idaho Maryland Road 2 14,504 E Brunswick Road NW of Loma Rica Drive 2 14,056 E Nevada City Highway Grass Valley City Limits 2 14,355 E Levels of Service are also determined for intersections using procedures outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 3.9-4 indicates the characteristics of Levels of Service at intersections controlled by stop signs and by traffic signals. Levels of Service are estimated for future travel conditions to ensure that a roadway will provide acceptable operations for its "design life", which is commonly 20 years. For the General Plan, the year 2020 is used for estimating traffic demand and determining Levels of Service on the roadway system. The City has established Level of Service "D" as the goal for both the General Plan and for the development of Citywide and regional traffic impact fees. TABLE 3.9-4 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION "A" Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a single-signal cycle. Delay 5.0 sec Little or no delay. Delay 5 sec/veh "B" Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a single cycle. Delay > 5.0 sec and 15.0 sec Short traffic delays. Delay > 5 sec/veh and 10 sec/veh "C" Light congestion, occasional backups on critical approaches. Delay > 15.0 sec and 25.0 sec Average traffic delays. Delay > 10 sec/veh and 20 sec/veh "D" Significant congestions of critical approaches but intersection functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long queues formed. Delay > 25.0 sec and 40.0 sec Long traffic delays. Delay > 20 sec/veh and 30 sec/veh "E" Severe congestion with some long standing queues on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersection(s) upstream of critical approach(es). Delay > 40.0 sec and 60.0 sec Very long traffic delays, failure, extreme congestion. Delay > 30 sec/veh and 45 sec/veh "F" Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. Delay > 60.0 sec Intersection blocked by external causes. Delay > 45 sec/veh Sources: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Highway Network Model: The roadway network is composed of a combination of links which represent the roadways and nodes which represent intersections. Each link is coded with information relating to the type of facility, number of lanes, current count information, etc. Information relating to capacity and travel speed are also provided. Travel speeds and capacity on roadways are dependent on a number of factors such as signal spacing, number of signals, driveway location, etc. Nevada County and the City of Grass Valley are divided into traffic analysis zones (TAZ's). Each zone is connected to the street and highway network and contains information utilized by the trip generation model. As part of the modeling process, the NCTC model's original TAZ's were disaggregated and adjusted to more closely approximate the access characteristics of the land uses area within the City's Planning Area. Trip Generation Model: The trip generation component of the modeling process comprises of trip productions and trip attractions. Productions are associated with the socioeconomic characteristics of a single or multiple family home. Attractions are associated with complementary non-residential land use and in the NCTC model are compiled in terms of developed acres. The total number of trip ends associated with these productions and attractions are estimated for each transportation analysis zone. Trip Distribution Model: The trip distribution model employed estimates the number of trips that travel from zone to zone. The MINUTP travel demand model employs a gravity model formulation for distributing vehicle trips. This gravity model predicts that the trip interchange between zones is directly proportional to the relative attraction of each zone, and inversely proportional to the partial separation between zones. The distribution model utilizes five distinct trip types which include: home-based work home-based shopping home-based other [other than work or shopping] non-home-based work non-home-based other [other than work] Assumed Roadway Network: For modeling purposes, the General Plan Circulation Plan is assumed to be in place. The Circulation Plan includes development of roads creating internal circulation for the City's Special Development Areas (SDA), widening of selected roads to four lanes and implementation of the current Grass Valley Capital Improvement Program. Widening of Highway 49 to four lanes south of Grass Valley has also been assumed to occur by the year 2020. Land Use/Trip Generation Assumptions: The level of development assumed for the year 2020 is as presented in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The total trip generation associated with new development in accordance with the General Plan has been estimated. Planned Transportation Facilities Improvements in City Capital Improvement Program: The General Plan Circulation Plan assumes that improvements within the current version of the City of Grass Valley Capital Improvement Program for Facilities and Major Equipment (for 1995 - 2015, 1998 Update) will be implemented as scheduled. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) presently includes circulation and related improvements totaling $51,269,000 in valuation, excluding land. Specific projects are listed under five topics: Regional Roads and Bridges (Appendix C of CIP); Regional Traffic Signals (Appendix D of CIP); Local Streets and Bridges (Appendix E of CIP); Local Traffic Signals (Appendix F of CIP); and Parking (Appendix G of CIP). In addition, the CIP contains the Wolf Creek Bike Trail project as a Park Facility. This project is a segment of the Trails-Sidewalks network in the General Plan, in which context it is considered a joint transportation/recreation facility. General Plan Road and Intersection Improvements: Specific road and intersection improvements are listed below. Certain of these improvements are currently listed in Capital Improvement Program, others are not listed at this time. Construction of new interchanges on Highway 20/49 at Dorsey Drive and on Highway 49 in the area of Crestview Drive-Smith Road in southern Grass Valley. Construction of a new arterial road through the North Star area linking the Brighton/McCourtney intersection near Highway 20 with the new Crestview-Smith interchange on Highway 49. This new road would be connected to Freeman Lane. Extension of Dorsey Drive easterly to Brunswick Road. Reconstruction of the McKnight Way Interchange on Highway 49 to create modern roundabout intersections, contingent upon construction of the aforementioned Crestview-Smith Road interchange. Reconstruction of the Highway 174/Highway 20/49 interchange as a modern roundabout. Construction of a new road network in the northeastern portion of the Planning Area, linking existing and planned streets and roads. Closure of Idaho Maryland Road at a point west of the Brunswick Road intersection. New Non-vehicular Transportation Facilities: New non-vehicular transportation infrastructure facilities are depicted in the General Plan as the Trails-Sidewalks Network Concept Plan (Figure 8-2 in the General Plan). The Trails-Sidewalks network is to be a multi-purpose system, serving both utilitarian transportation needs and recreational needs. It is intended for the use of pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians, though not all segments are intended for use by all. The plan provides for a comprehensive system, not just isolated segments, exclusively for non-motorized transportation modes. Public Transit: The General Plan provides for improved public transportation, citing specifically the needs of a growing senior population and demand for tourist-oriented public transportation. The Plan's policies identify park and ride facilities near the freeway and in downtown as infrastructure needed to facilitate future transit operations. The Plan does not identify specific locations for transit-related facilities, however. Parking: The General Plan provides for additional parking facilities, primarily in the Downtown area. The Capital Improvement Program currently includes six parking projects, five of which are in the Downtown area. The General Plan does not identify specific parking facilities or exact locations. Ongoing Transportation Planning, Programming, and Management The General Plan Circulation element establishes a foundation of principles and projects covering the 20-year planning period. However, transportation planning is a continuous process designed to assure up-to-date information and current policy direction at all times. The General Plan directs the City to engage in ongoing transportation planning and programming. Within the ongoing planning processes, the City will have considerable latitude to refine projects, institute appropriate impact mitigation measures, and even recommend alterations to the General Plan (accompanied by formal amendment to the General Plan). The ongoing planning and programming activities which the General Plan directs the City to undertake are described in the following subsections. Transportation System Management (TSM): This is a process to increase the efficiency of the transportation system through low-cost and relatively short-term actions. TSM typically includes traffic controls, improved public transportation, regulatory and pricing measures, and improvements to the management of the existing transportation system (12-CI, Circulation Implementation Action/Strategy). Long-Range Transit Master Plan: In cooperation with NCTC, Nevada County, and transit agencies, a transit master plan will provide a "blueprint" for public transportation in support of the General Plan's goals, objectives, and policies. Capital Improvements Program (CIP): This is a transportation project list, with estimated costs, funding sources), and schedule. The General Plan directs the City to continue to keep the CIP up-to-date (7-CI) condition to base the CIP on a 20-year time horizon (8-CI). "Extraordinary" Improvements and Exceptions to Level of Service Standard: The General Plan provides for circumstances in which the City Council may determine that improvements necessary to maintaining the City's level of service standard (LOS "D") are not feasible and may relax the LOS "D" standard. Nine criteria which the Council shall use to make such a determination are enumerated (7-CI). Bikeways Master Plan: The General Plan directs the City to prepare a Bikeways Master Plan consistent with the Trails-Sidewalks Plan in the General Plan (13-CI). Nevada County Master Bicycle Plan (1996) and Trails Master Plan: The General Plan directs the City to adopt the Nevada County Bicycle and Trails Master Plans, to ensure compatibility of City plans with those in unincorporated portions of the Planning Area, and beyond (13-CI), (1-CP). Regional and Sub-Regional Transportation Planning: The General Plan directs the City to continue to participate in established transportation planning processes of the Nevada County Transportation Commission and CALTRANS (4-CI), (16-CI). 3.9.2 Impacts Impact Evaluation Criteria: Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that transportation/traffic related impacts can be considered significant if a project would: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on the roads, or congestion at intersections) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Result in inadequate emergency access Result in inadequate parking capacity Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) Capacity / Level of Service Standards: The daily traffic volume standards identified in the Grass Valley General Plan are illustrated in Tables 3.9-5 A,B,C,D, and E. The Grass Valley General Plan identifies LOS "D" as the minimum Level of Service standard for the community, with the caveat that the City may opt for a lower level of service if achieving LOS "D" or better would have too severe a negative local/environmental/neighborhood impact as determined by the City Council using nine criteria listed in the General Plan and alluded to above. Impact #3.9-1: Future development in accordance with the General Plan could result in traffic volumes on area streets and roads exceeding LOS "D" This is considered a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Implementation of the General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes on area streets and highways. Tables 3.9-5 A,B,C,D, and E compares current traffic volumes at selected locations on area streets with future projected (year 2020) daily traffic volume forecasts, and presents resulting Levels of Service under the General Plan. It is assumed that certain "programmatic" efforts will continue, serving both as implementation measures and impact mitigation measures. An overall program for implementing the roadway improvements, as described in the subsection entitled "Ongoing Transportation Planning, Programming, and Management," must be maintained as part of impact mitigation. This includes General Plan Implementation Action and Strategy 8-CI, providing periodic updating of the Capital Improvement Program with a 20-year horizon extending at least to the end of the planning period. The City of Grass Valley has already adopted a Development Impact Fee program which is intended to fund identified circulation improvements. This program should be updated to reflect current roadway improvement needs at all times. This mitigation is consistent with 2-CI (regularly update development impact fees). As has been the case in the past, Grass Valley will require infrastructure financing programs as a part of Specific Plan approval, in order to ensure that new development participates in the mitigation of its impacts. This requirement is consistent with General Plan implementation actions and strategies 3-CI and 10-CI (consistency with functional classification system, Specific Plans, development agreements). Grass Valley will continue to pursue other sources to fund circulation system improvements. The City will encourage actions at the State level that support local road improvement programs and shall take advantage of funding available from all agencies. These actions are consistent with 4-CI (inter-jurisdictional coordination). The City will participate in appropriate regional and local planning efforts. As indicated in 16-CI (regional planning), the City will coordinate planning with NCTC, Caftans, and other agencies as appropriate. Review of existing and projected year 2020 roadway traffic volume data (Tables 3.9-5 A,B,C,D, and E) indicates that most of the existing and assumed future roadways presently have the capacity to provide LOS "D" or better conditions. Implementation of the roadway improvements described in the Circulation Element would result in traffic conditions which meet prescribed City standards on nearly all roadways within the Grass Valley Planning Area. For these roadways, no further mitigation measures are necessary and the General Plan will have a less than significant impact. However, implementation of the roadway improvements in the Circulation Element will leave segments of certain arterial and collector roads at a level of service worse than LOS "D" by year 2020. Table 3.9-6 shows road segments projected to exceed LOS "D" by the year 2020. Of the eight road segments shown, only Main Street from the Bennett Street intersection east to Idaho-Maryland Road is classified an arterial street. The other seven segments are classified collectors. As shown in the Daily Service Volume Criteria (Table 3.9-2), arterial streets may be two, four, or six lane facilities. Collector streets are two lane facilities, by definition. The General Plan Circulation Element (General Plan Figure 4-3) identifies future four lane roadways. Twelve road segments are identified as arterial streets which would fail to achieve LOS "D" in the year 2020 unless they were widened to four lanes. If widened to four lanes, each of the twelve will achieve LOS "D" or better, based upon year 2020 traffic projections. Widening as planned will mitigate traffic impacts on these road segments to less than significant levels. A thirteenth arterial segment was identified as projected to exceed the LOS "D" standard by year 2020, but was not identified in the General Plan as a four lane roadway. That segment is the portion of Main Street from Bennett Street to Idaho-Maryland Road. The General Plan does not designate four lanes for this segment, based upon the adverse impacts such an improvement would have on the immediate neighborhood, including the eastern entryway into Downtown. The arterial segment of East Main from Bennett Street to Idaho-Maryland Road is projected to carry an average daily traffic volume of 16,500 by the year 2020. The threshold traffic volume for a two-lane arterial to achieve LOS "D" is 13,950. Thus, East Main would require a reduction of 2,550 vehicles to reach the LOS "D" threshold. This is a potentially significant impact. The General Plan contains several measures which, in addition to the programmatic measures discussed above, would have the combined effects of reducing average daily traffic volume below the projected 16,500 level. With reference to the segment of East Main in question, measures to increase the capacity of intersections (7-CI) are likely the most effective impact mitigation measures available. As 7-CI indicates, the City will work to maximize the capacity of key intersections. This is particularly essential on East Main. While the overall traffic volume may not be reduced by intersection improvement, the overall capacity of traffic flow on the segment will be improved if key intersections remain at LOS "D" or better during the p.m. peak time. Measures designed to reduce automobile dependency through a variety of transportation modes (1-CG, 1-CO, 2-CO, and 3-CO) may also be beneficial. Circulation policies addressing public transportation include 2-CP (plan for multi-purpose transportation), 3-CP (improve public transportation to link residential and commercial/industrial areas), 4-CP (develop plans for low-fare transit serving Downtown and points of interest), 5-CP (coordinated inter-modal transfer facilities), and 6-CP (location and siting of transit stops). Bicycle and pedestrian circulation policies include 1-CP (coordinate bikeway planning with Nevada County), 2-CP (plan for multi-purpose transportation), 8-CP (incorporate bicycle lanes and sidewalks in [new] street designs), and 13-CP (assure continuity of sidewalks by instituting city-wide planning and construction program). In addition, the Trails-Sidewalks Network Plan provides a physical plan for implementing numerous non-vehicular transportation goals, objectives, and policies found in the General Plan. In addition, it is assumed the City will use the TSM program to employ additional traffic reduction methods, as appropriate to the circumstances. While impact mitigation measures available to the City will likely be unable to achieve a reduction of 2,550 vehicles per day on East Main between Idaho Maryland and Bennett (more than 15% ) required to meet the stated impact evaluation criteria (LOS "D"), intersection mitigation measures in the General Plan will improve the overall LOS standard of the road network in the vicinity (including intersections) making this a less than significant impact. The remaining seven road segments in Table 3.9-6 are classified as collector streets projected to exceed LOS "D" by year 2020. As four laneing is not an option for mitigating congestion on collector streets, other measures are required on the seven road segments, if LOS "D" is to be achieved. The seven collectors have projected average traffic volumes ranging from a low of 10,100 (McCourtney Road west of Old Auburn Road) to a high of 13,200 (Hughes Road northwest of East Main). Four of the seven are projected to be at LOS "E" by year 2020, the other three at LOS "F". The threshold for collectors to achieve LOS "D" is 9,900 vehicles per day. The impact mitigation measures listed previously are applicable to the seven collector streets. In addition, 20-CP states: "Redesign intersections on collector streets to improve and smooth traffic." If, in the course of maintaining and updating the functional classification system (12-CO), 3-CI), the City determines that one or more of the seven collectors should be reclassified and potentially re-constructed as an arterial street, thresholds volumes for achieving LOS "D" would be increased, and the failure to meet established standards would be eliminated. At this time, however, it is not possible to determine whether such a functional shift will be warranted, or which road segments might qualify at some time in the future. The four collectors projected at LOS "E" by year 2020 (Table 4-6) range from 10,100 to 10,900 vehicles per day. Thus, even for the highest of the group (Ridge Road north of Hughes), a nine percent reduction would meet the LOS "D" threshold. Even lower percentage reductions would accomplish the LOS "D" threshold for the other three segments. For this group, application of the measures described above will mitigate traffic impacts to a less than significant level. The three collectors projected for LOS "F" range from 11,600 to 13,200 projected average daily traffic. Each would require a reduction of at least 14% to approach the LOS "D" threshold. It is unlikely that a reduction of more than 10% is possible. Consequently, for the three collectors projected at LOS "F" by year 2020, Freeman Lane north of McKnight, Hughes Road northwest of East Main, and Ridge Road east of Rough and Ready Highway, there will be a significant and unavoidable impact. TABLE 3.9-5A ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE FREEWAYS ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES EXISTING 2020 EXISTING YEAR 2020 ADT LOS ADT LOS 1. State Route 49/20 S of N. Auburn St 4 4 29,000 A 59,500 B 2. State Route 49/20 S of Bennett St 4 4 36,000 A 52,500 A 3. State Route 49/20 S of Idaho-Maryland 4 4 37,000 A 64,900 B 73. State Route 49/20 S of Dorsey 4 4 30,500 A 56,600 A 4. State Route 49/20 S of Brunswick Rd 4 4 30,500 A 41,100 A 74. State Route 49/20 N of Brunswick Rd 4 4 30,000 A 40,000 A 75. State Route 49 S of Crestview/Smith Ext 4 4 21,700 A 35,800 A 5. State Route 49 N of Crestview/Smith Ext 4 4 21,700 A 32,700 A 6. State Route 49 S of SR 20 4 4 32,500 A 41,650 A 7. State Route 20 W of Mill St 4 4 14,200 A 25,200 A 8. State Route 20 W of SR 49 4 4 15,000 A 27,500 A 76. State Route 20 W of Brighton 4 4 14,200 A 25,200 A ADT = Average Daily Traffic LOS = Level of Service ( ) = Planned Road TABLE 3.9-5B ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE ARTERIALS ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES EXISTING 2020 EXISTING YEAR 2020 ADT LOS ADT LOS 9. State Route 174 E of SR 20 2 2 6,200 A 12,000 C 10. State Route 174 E of Central St 2 2 4,500 A 7,350 A 11. State Route 174 E of Ophir St 2 2 5,100 A 5,150 A 12. State Route 174 S of Race St 2 2 5,400 A 7,250 A 13. State Route 174 E of Empire Mine 2 2 5,600 A 9,000 A 79. South Auburn St S of Main 2 2 NA NA 5,700 A 14. South Auburn St S of Mohawk St 2 2 7,802 A 7,800 A 15. South Auburn St N of School Alley 2 2 6,852 A 6,950 A 16. South Auburn St N of Whiting St 2 2 7,139 A 10,400 B 17. South Auburn St NW of E. McKnight Way 2 4 8,228 A 14,300 A 90. Bennett Road E of SR 49/20 2 2 NA NA 5,700 A 94. Brighton Extension S of McCourtney (2) 2 NA NA 4,600 A 95. Brighton Extension W of Allison Ranch Rd (2) 2 NA NA 5,600 A 18. Brunswick Road On Overcrossing 49/20 4 4 26,172 D 17,100 A 72. Brunswick Road N of Dorsey Drive 2 4 12,235 C 14,600 A 19. Brunswick Road S of Ranchview Ct 2 4 12,235 C 14,600 A 20. Brunswick Road N of Whispering Pines 2 4 14,504 E 12,600 A 21. Brunswick Road NW of Loma Rica Dr 2 4 14,056 E 18,600 A 22. Brunswick Road NW of E. Bennett 2 2 10,686 B 11,200 C 69. Centennial Drive S of Idaho Maryland 2 2 NA NA 9,600 B 62. Crestview/Smith Ext E of Allison Ranch Rd (2) 2 NA NA 6,050 A 102. Crestview/Smith Ext E of Taylorville (2) 2 NA NA 3,100 A 40. Dorsey Drive SE of Segsworth Way 2 4 5,541 A 15,400 A 67. Dorsey Drive W of Sutton Way (2) 2 NA NA 13,500 D 85. Dorsey Drive E of Sutton (2) 2 NA NA 12,800 D 86. Dorsey/Whispering Pines Loop N of Idaho Maryland (2) 2 NA NA 12,800 D 87. Dorsey/Whispering Pines Loop S of Idaho Maryland (2) 2 NA NA 8,250 A ADT = Average Daily Traffic NA = Not Available LOS = Level of Service (2) = Planned Road TABLE 3.9-5C ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE ARTERIAL ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES EXISTING 2020 EXISTING YEAR 2020 ADT LOS ADT LOS 23. Empire Street E of Le Duc St 2 2 4,923 A 4,900 A 64. Idaho Maryland Rd E of Railroad 2 4 12,111 C 24,700 C 24. La Barr Meadows SE of E. McKnight Way 2 2 10,028 B 10,100 B 80. La Barr Meadows N of Crestview/Smith Ext 2 2 NA NA 7,950 A 82. La Barr Meadows S of Crestview/Smith Ext 2 2 NA NA 11,200 C 74. Main Street S of Squirrel Creek 2 2 5,763 A 10,200 B 63. Main Street W of Auburn 2 2 NA NA 9,450 B 71. Main Street E of Bennett St 2 2 12,172 C 16,500 F 70. Main Street N of Idaho Maryland 2 4 NA NA 21,900 C 73. McCourtney Road W of 20 Ramps 2 2 NA NA 9,900 B 50. W. McKnight Way SW of Taylorville Rd 2 4 8,882 A 16,800 A 25. Mill Street S of Neal St 2 2 5,786 A 12,100 C 26. Mill Street NE of Rhode Island St 2 2 5,750 A 8,600 A 92. Mill Street N of McCourtney 2 2 NA NA 12,100 C 27. Neal Street E of Church St 2 2 5,239 A 3,750 A 77. Nevada City Hwy S of Sierra College 2 4 NA NA 15,400 A 28. Nevada City Hwy Grass Vly City Limits 2 4 14,355 E 15,000 A 83. Nevada City Hwy E of Brunswick 2 2 NA NA 11,800 C 78. Ophir S of Bennett 2 2 NA NA 9,050 A 57. Sierra College Dr E of Main Street 2 4 4,546 A 16,700 A 58. Sutton Way E of Brunswick 2 2 9,040 A 10,800 A 59. Sutton Way W of Brunswick 2 2 13,661 F 6,300 A 68. Sutton Way N of Dorsey Dr 2 2 NA NA 6,150 A 84. Sutton Way S of Dorsey Dr 2 2 NA NA 5,200 A 60. Whispering Pines Ln W of Brunswick Rd 2 2 1,494 A 8,250 A ADT = Average Daily Traffic LOS = Level of Service NA = Not Available TABLE 3.9-5D ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE COLLECTORS ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES EXISTING 2020 EXISTING YEAR 2020 ADT LOS ADT LOS 29. Allison Ranch Rd S of McCourtney 2 2 720 A 600 A 30. Allison Ranch Rd N of North Star Mine Rd 2 2 665 A 600 A 98. Allison Ranch Rd S of Crestview/Smith Ext 2 2 NA NA 50 A 31. Alta Street N of West Main St 2 2 4,203 A 3,000 A 32. Alta Street S of Alta Vista Dr (S) 2 2 3,587 A 1,300 A 33. Alta Street N of Alta Vista Dr (S) 2 2 3,476 A 850 A 34. Alta Street SE of Ridge Road 2 2 3,380 A 1,100 A 96. Old Auburn Rd S of McCourtney 2 2 NA NA 1,450 A 81. Old Auburn Rd S of North Star Connection 2 2 NA NA 1,750 A 66. E. Bennett Road E of Centennial 2 2 NA NA 5,250 A 35. E. Bennett Road E Grass Vly City Limit 2 2 2,142 A 8,150 C 93. Brighton Street N of McCourtney 2 2 NA NA 6,750 B 36. Brighton Street N of McCourtney 2 2 3,830 A 6,750 B 37. Brighton Street S of Chapel 2 2 2,581 A 3,950 A 38. Butler Street W of Minnie 2 2 813 A 3,150 A 39. Butler Street E of Packard Dr 2 2 929 A 3,100 A 65. Centennial Drive N of E. Bennett (2) 2 NA NA 7,350 B 91. North Collector W of Allison Ranch (2) 2 NA NA 600 A 99. South Collector E of Old Auburn (2) 2 NA NA 1,150 A 100. South Collector E of North Star Loop Rd (2) 2 NA NA 1,400 A 97. South Collector W of Allison Ranch (2) 2 NA NA 1,950 A 41. Empire Street E of Kate Hayes St 2 2 4,278 A 3,900 A 42. E. Empire Street E Grass Vly City 2 2 4,178 A 3,900 A 43. Freeman Lane N of McKnight Way 2 2 8,142 C 12,200 F 44. Freeman Lane SW of McKnight 2 2 NA NA 4,800 A 61. Freeman Lane E of Mill 2 2 NA NA 9,250 D LOS = Level of Service NA = Not Available ADT = Average Daily Traffic (2) = Planned Road TABLE 3.9-5E ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE COLLECTORS ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES EXISTING 2020 EXISTING YEAR 2020 ADT LOS ADT LOS 45. Hughes Road NW of E. Main St 2 2 7,852 C 13,200 F 46. Hughes Road S of Ridge Rd 2 2 3,872 A 10,400 E 47. Idaho Maryland Rd W of Brunswick 2 2 3,570 A 3,850 A 48. Idaho Maryland Rd E of Brunswick Rd 2 2 1,918 A 3,050 A 49. McCourtney Road W of Brighton St 2 2 8,650 C 9,300 D 101. McCourtney Road W of Old Auburn Rd 2 2 5,676 A 10,100 E 51. Mill Street N of Bank Street 2 2 5,399 A 5,150 A 52. Richardson Street E of Alta Street 2 2 1,171 A 2,900 A 53. Ridge Road W of Ridge Estates Rd 2 2 5,059 A 8,000 C 54. Ridge Road N of Hughes Rd 2 2 7,815 C 10,900 E 55. Ridge Road S of Hughes Rd 2 2 7,625 B 10,400 E 88. Ridge Road W of Alta 2 2 5,339 A 7,600 B 89. Ridge Road E of Rough & Ready Hwy 2 2 4,253 A 11,600 F 56. Sierra College Dr SE of Ridge Rd 2 2 3,180 A 7,200 B 103. Taylorville S of McKnight 2 2 NA NA 0 A 104. Taylorville S of Crestview/Smith Ext 2 2 NA NA 3,100 A LOS = Level of Service ADT = Average Daily Traffic NA = Not Applicable ( ) = Planned Road TABLE 3.9-6 ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE AT LOCATIONS EXCEEDING LOS "D" ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES EXISTING 2020 EXISTING 2020 ADT LOS ADT LOS 71. Main Street (A) E of Bennett St 2 2 12,172 C 16,500 F 43. Freeman Lane (C) N of McKnight Way 2 2 8,142 C 12,200 F 45. Hughes Road (C) NW of E. Main St 2 2 7,852 C 13,200 F 46. Hughes Road (C) S of Ridge Rd 2 2 3,872 A 10,400 E 101. McCourtney Rd (C) W of Old Auburn Rd 2 2 5,676 A 10,100 E 54. Ridge Road (C) N of Hughes Rd 2 2 7,815 C 10,900 E 55. Ridge Road (C) S of Hughes Rd 2 2 7,625 B 10,400 E 89. Ridge Road (C) E of Rough & Ready Hwy 2 2 4,253 A 11,600 F LOS = Level of Service (C) = Collector (A) = Arterial ADT = Average Daily Traffic TABLE 3.9-7 YEAR 2020 - INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE INTERSECTION EXISTING 2020 LOS DEL/ VEH LOS DEL/ VEH V/C #381 Colfax Hwy/SR 49 Frontage NA B 14.1 0.633 #383 Main/Idaho Maryland/SR 49 SB Ramps C 17.9 F 129.5 1.285 #384 Idaho Maryland/SR 49 EB Ramps A/C 2.4 C 17.4 0.747 #385 Brunswick/SR 49 NB Ramps NA B 11.5 .659 #386 Brunswick/SR 49 SB Ramps NA C 15.2 0.394 #397 Idaho Maryland/Centennial A/C 3.7 C 6.2 #398 Whispering Pines/Centennial NA C 20.3 0.512 #409 Bennett/Centennial NA F 9.6 #413 Freeman/McCourtney/Mill/Allison B 7.8 C 21.5 0.633 #414 Mill/SR 20 WB Ramps C 12.9 C 16.8 0.629 #415 McCourtney/SR 20 EB Ramps A/E 3.5 C 17.0 0.509 #454 Sierra College/Litton/Robert Ross Way F 53.2 D 23.1 1.451 #565 SR 49/Crestview NA C 23.5 0.930 #640 Main/Bennett/Washington NA C 21.5 0.760 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio A/F = Average Intersection Delay/Worst Case Delay LOS = Level of Service 1 = AM Peak Hour Delay presented in seconds per vehicle TABLE 3.9-7 (Cont.) YEAR 2020 - INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE INTERSECTION EXISTING 2020 LOS DEL/ VEH LOS DEL/ VEH V/C #641 Colfax Hwy/Ophir NA C 19.5 0.594 #669 Main/Alta NA C 24.1 0.793 #675 McKnight/SR 49 SB Ramps C 22.6 C 21.0 0.773 #676 McKnight/SR 49 NB Ramps C 19.6 C 19.6 0.729 #677 Empire/SR 20 SB Ramps NA D 36.8 1.030 #678 Empire/SR 20 NB Ramps NA B 13.8 0.513 #750 Nevada City Hwy/Sierra College NA C 24.3 0.691 #751 Nevada City Hwy/Hughes NA C 19.3 0.760 #754 Ridge/Hughes1 B 7.1 B 9.5 0.750 #755 Sierra College/Morgan Ranch/Ridge1 B/F 5.5 C 19.2 0.511 #766 McCourtney/Brighton A/C 1.6 D 27.1 0.752 #770 Auburn/Empire B 9.1 F 79.6 1.061 #797 Brunswick/Nevada City Hwy NA C 15.1 0.350 #799 Auburn/Main B 12.9 C 15.5 0.554 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio A/F = Average Intersection Delay/Worst Case Delay LOS = Level of Service 1 = AM Peak Hour Delay presented in seconds per vehicle TABLE 3.9-7 (Cont.) YEAR 2020 - INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE INTERSECTION EXISTING 2020 LOS DEL/ VEH LOS DEL/ VEH V/C #804 Mill/Neal B 8.7 F 66.1 1.027 #805 Bennett/Ophir NA C 19.9 0.675 #813 Auburn/Neal NA C 23.3 0.621 #817 Brunswick/Sutton NA D 26.3 0.822 #818 Dorsey/Sutton NA C 19.4 0.655 #819 Idaho Maryland/Sutton A 1.5 A 2.9 0.000 #831 Freeman/McKnight C 10.4 F 108 0.788 #1006 Auburn/SR 49 Frontage NA B 10.9 0.352 #1841 Brunswick/Whispering Pines NA F ovrfl #2007 Brunswick/Dorsey NA F ovrfl V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio LOS = Level of Service Delay presented in seconds per vehicle A/F = Average Intersection Delay/Worst Case Delay 1 = AM Peak Hour Impact 3.9-2: Future development in accordance with the General Plan could cause traffic operations at intersections to exceed LOS "D." This is a significant impact. Discussion/Conclusions: The impacts of implementing the General Plan have been assessed based on the operation of major intersections during the p.m. peak hour. Table 3.9-7 identifies current Levels of Service at key intersections and contrasts these conditions with the Levels of Service forecast for year 2020 conditions. These calculations assume implementation of the street and intersection improvements already addressed by the City's current Capital Improvement Program. As shown, under year 2020 conditions most of the intersections in Grass Valley will provide LOS "D" or better conditions during the p.m. peak hour. The Circulation Element identifies modern roundabouts as the preferred solution to capacity constraints in some circumstances (11-CP). Roundabouts are proposed by the Circulation Element at two intersections: the ramp-frontage road intersections at the SR 49/McKnight Way intersection and for the closely spaced system of intersections at the South Auburn Street /Colfax Highway/SR 20/49 Ramps. Each of these locations is projected to deliver LOS "C" under year 2020 conditions, assuming implementation of the design geometrics identified in previous NCTC planning studies. Therefore, these two intersections will be mitigated to a less than significant impact. TABLE 3.9-8 INTERSECTIONS BELOW STANDARD AFTER CIP IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION 2020 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION LOS DEL/ VEH V/C Main/Idaho Maryland/SR 49 SB Ramps F 129.5 1.285 provide dual lefts EB & WB and separate SB left (31.4 / "D") Bennett/Centennial F 9.6 0.000 overall "B" - no mitigation Auburn/Empire F 79.6 1.061 add NB right (36.6 / "D") Mill/Neal F 66.1 1.027 add NB right (29.8 / "D") Freeman/McKnight F 108 0.788 signal (21.1 / "C") Brunswick/Whispering Pines F ovrfl 0.000 signal (19.7 / "C") Brunswick/Dorsey F ovrfl 0.000 signal (18.9 / "C") Impact #3.9-3: Development in accordance with the General Plan will both generate increased demand for public transportation, and make it difficult for the City to maintain prescribed roadway Level of Service standards at every location and to meet air quality goals in the absence of improved public transportation. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The promotion and expansion of transit services, both on an intra- and inter- city level will prove to be important. General Plan Goals 1-CG and 2-CG, ,Objectives 1-CO through 7-CO, Policies 3-CP, 4-CP, 5-CP, 6-CP and Implementation Actions and Strategies 11-CI call for Grass Valley to prepare a Long-Range Transit Master Plan and to facilitate alternatives to single occupancy automobile commuting, including para-transit, public transit and various forms of non-automobile travel, in order to reduce roadway congestion and enhance air quality. Effective inter-city public transportation requires convenient transfer locations if ridership levels are to be maintained. The General Plan directs the City to develop a plan for parking that identifies park and ride lots (18-CI) and location of transit stops and park/ride facilities near freeway interchanges and higher density housing. The General Plan recognizes the high level of inter-agency coordination and cooperation necessary to produce a viable transit system (1-CP), (5-CP), (3-CO)and (14-CI). Through implementation of the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions/strategies contained in the General Plan, this impact will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Impact #3.9-4: Development in accordance with the General Plan will produce an increased demand for bicycle facilities for purposes of personal transportation and recreation. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The proposed bicycle circulation plan provides for the development of bicycle paths and lanes through much of the developing area of the City. Bicycle facilities are also expected to be made part of future Specific Plans. General Plan Goal 1-CG, Objectives 1-CO through 3-CO, Policies 1-CP, 2-CP, 8-CP and Implementation and Action Strategy 13-CI call for the development of a comprehensive bicycle circulation system consistent with the Trails-Sidewalks plan. They also call for the incorporation of bicycle planning into future land use planning as an alternative to the private automobile. With implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies contained in the General Plan, less than significant impacts will occur. Impact #3.9-5: Development in accordance with the General Plan will produce an increased demand for pedestrian facilities for purposes of personal transportation and recreation. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The General Plan both facilitates and encourages increased reliance on walking. The compact development form of the Land Use Plan, planned infill development, planned proximity of residential areas to jobs and schools, and inclusion of a comprehensive Trails-Sidewalks network plan all acknowledge the potential of "pedestrianism" as a viable means of localized transportation. General Plan policies and implementation actions/strategies directing pedestrian facilities include 1-CP (coordinated trail system with Nevada County), 8-CP (incorporate sidewalks in street design. The proposed Trails-Sidewalks network is intended to serve both the transportation and recreational needs of the City through the year 2020. Effective implementation of the Trails-Sidewalks system and pedestrian-related policies will result in less than significant impacts on pedestrian mobility. Impact #3.9-6: As the City of Grass Valley develops in accordance with the General Plan, there will be increasing demand for the movement of goods. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The General Plan recognizes the potential for conflict between competing demands for truck circulation and residential quality of life. General Plan implementation actions and strategies 6-CI (monitor truck traffic and implement a route system as warranted) and 17 CI (identify environmental traffic volume thresholds for residential streets, consider these in development review, and utilize traffic calming techniques). Effective implementation of these measures would result in less than significant impacts. Impact #3.9-7: Development in accordance with the General Plan will place a strain on parking facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: The General Plan provides for additional parking facilities, primarily in the Downtown area (19-CP, add vehicular parking in the Downtown area and 18-CI, develop a plan for parking that identifies park and ride lots). The Capital Improvement Program currently includes six parking projects, five of which are in the Downtown area. The General Plan does not identify specific parking facilities or exact locations, but those facilities currently in the CIP support the broader policies and intent of the General Plan. Assuming the CIP will be updated (see Mitigation Measure #3.2-1) to assure conformance to the General Plan and existing conditions at the time of the update, parking impacts are less than significant. Impact #3.9-8: Development in accordance with the General Plan will place a strain on emergency services logistics in areas where streets are substandard and poorly connected to the overall road network. This is a potentially significant impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Grass Valley has numerous streets which fail to meet modern design standards intended to facilitate emergency vehicles (fire fighting equipment, ambulances, police vehicles). Deficiencies include: narrow streets, often exacerbated by on-street parking; dead ends with insufficient turnaround space; and excessively long dead ends. General Plan goal 5-CG states "Maintain adequate emergency access). Objective 12-CO provides for "improvement and maintenance of adequate emergency access throughout the city." Policy 22-CP states: "remove impediments to emergency access from public streets and rights-of-way. Policy 23-CP directs the City to establish and periodically review emergency access standards in development codes, and 24-CP calls for coordination of circulation and development plans with public safety agencies. In addition, 5-CI directs the City to continue to refine and improve the design standards for its roadway system. There is little question but that newer developments tend to have roadways better suited to emergency access than many older, developed areas. To a large extent, the problem in the Grass Valley area is one of rehabilitating and retrofitting the older street network to modern standards, rather than amending current code standards for subsequent development. This poses a variety of problems of implementation and funding not associated with new developments, in which private developers construct uniformly to City standards. In addition, there is substantial public sentiment for maintaining existing streets as they are, deficiencies included. Despite their substandard nature, inadequate streets may discourage traffic in residential neighborhoods and lend a "small town" feel which the majority of residents favor. Retrofitting such streets to modern standards would, in the opinion of some, directly contradict the "neighborhood protection and enhancement" goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. This will remain a significant and unavoidable impact. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS To assess the cumulative impacts of the Draft General Plan, future travel demand was estimated and the resulting traffic operations on the City's future transportation system were evaluated. The analysis focused on comparing the year 2020 travel demands with buildout of the General Plan. Methodology and Assumptions: Traffic Impacts under General Plan Buildout were evaluated as the General Plan was being developed. The Regional Travel Demand Forecasting model was employed to identify daily traffic volumes on state highways and arterial/collector streets and these daily traffic forecasts were compared to general Level of Service thresholds to identify those locations where problems may be created in the future or the need for additional circulation system improvements may become evident. Trip Generation Assumptions: Buildout of the General Plan would result in additional development beyond that anticipated by the year 2020. Because the vast majority of these additional trips beyond year 2020 will be generated by non-residential uses with minimal corresponding increase in new residential development, these additional trips would likely have destinations outside of the General Plan Planning Area. Assumed Roadway Network: The evaluation of General Plan buildout assumes implementation of the roads identified for the year 2020. No additional new roads have been assumed. Impact #3.9-9: Traffic volumes on area streets will continue to grow from 2020 to buildout, putting a strain on the roadway network. This is a significant cumulative impact. Discussion/Conclusion: Tables 3.9-10A,B,C, D and E compares future (year 2020) and cumulative buildout for daily traffic volume forecasts and Levels of Service on freeways, arterials, and collectors. Table 3.9-11 identifies roadway segments from Table 3.9-10A,B,C,D and E which are forecast to exceed LOS "D" by buildout. In actuality, buildout never occurs, and is a theoretical "worst case" scenario. As directed by the General Plan, ongoing updates to the Capital Improvement Program, Regional Transportation Plan, and other programs will occur, providing amendments and alterations to current documents. Also, the General Plan's goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions/strategies will help to reduce the magnitude of these impacts. However, this will remain a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. TABLE 3.9-10A CUMULATIVE ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE FREEWAYS ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES 2020 BUILDOUT ADT LOS ADT LOS 1. State Route 49/20 S of N. Auburn St 4 59,500 B 88,200 D 2. State Route 49/20 S of Bennett St 4 52,500 A 76,200 C 3. State Route 49/20 S of Idaho-Maryland 4 64,900 B 89,100 D 73. State Route 49/20 S of Dorsey 4 56,600 A 75,200 C 4. State Route 49/20 S of Brunswick Rd 4 41,100 A 47,000 A 74. State Route 49/20 N of Brunswick Rd 4 40,000 A 43,900 A 75. State Route 49 S of Crestview/Smith Ext 4 35,800 A 68,800 B 5. State Route 49 N of Crestview/Smith Ext 4 32,700 A 72,500 C 6. State Route 49 S of SR 20 4 41,650 A 71,700 C 7. State Route 20 W of Mill St 4 25,200 A 34,800 A 8. State Route 20 W of SR 49 4 27,500 A 31,400 A 76. State Route 20 W of Brighton 4 25,200 A 34,800 A ADT = Average Daily Traffic LOS = Level of Service TABLE 3.9-10B CUMULATIVE ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE ARTERIALS ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES 2020 BUILDOUT ADT LOS ADT LOS 10. State Route 174 E of Central St 2 7,350 A 9,800 B 11. State Route 174 E of Ophir St 2 5,150 A 6,850 A 12. State Route 174 S of Race St 2 7,250 A 9,050 A 13. State Route 174 E of Empire Mine 2 9,000 A 14,300 E 79. South Auburn St S of Main 2 5,700 A 11,000 C 14. South Auburn St S of Mohawk St 2 7,800 A 10,300 B 15. South Auburn St N of School Alley 2 6,950 A 11,100 C 16. South Auburn St N of Whiting St 2 10,400 B 14,200 E 17. South Auburn St NW of E. McKnight Way 4 14,300 A 21,900 C 90. Bennett Road E of SR 49/20 2 5,700 A 7,800 A 94. Brighton Extension S of McCourtney 2 4,600 A 10,800 B 95. Brighton Extension W of Allison Ranch Rd 2 5,600 A 19,300 F 18. Brunswick Road On Overcrossing 49/20 4 17,100 A 19,000 B 72. Brunswick Road N of Dorsey Drive 4 14,600 A 21,500 B 19. Brunswick Road S of Ranchview Ct 4 14,600 A 21,500 B 20. Brunswick Road N of Whispering Pines 4 12,600 A 19,300 B 21. Brunswick Road NW of Loma Rica Dr 4 18,600 A 32,200 F 22. Brunswick Road NW of E. Bennett 2 11,200 C 25,500 D 69. Centennial Drive S of Idaho Maryland 2 9,600 B 15,100 E 62. Crestview/Smith Ext E of Allison Ranch Rd 2 6,050 A 21,000 F 102. Crestview/Smith Ext E of Taylorville 2 3,100 A 12,400 C 40. Dorsey Drive SE of Segsworth Way 4 15,400 A 19,600 B 67. Dorsey Drive W of Sutton Way 2 13,500 D 23,800 F 85. Dorsey Drive E of Sutton 2 12,800 D 24,400 F 86. Dorsey/Whispering Pines Loop N of Idaho Maryland 2 12,800 D 19,600 F 87. Dorsey/Whispering Pines Loop S of Idaho Maryland 2 8,250 A 13,900 D ADT = Average Daily Traffic LOS = Level of Service TABLE 3.9-10B CUMULATIVE ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE ARTERIALS ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES 2020 BUILDOUT ADT LOS ADT LOS 64. Idaho Maryland Rd E of Railroad 4 24,700 C 31,800 F 24. La Barr Meadows SE of E. McKnight Way 2 10,100 B 10,900 C 80. La Barr Meadows N of Crestview/Smith Ext 2 7,950 A 8,400 A 82. La Barr Meadows S of Crestview/Smith Ext 2 11,200 C 12,200 C 74. Main Street S of Squirrel Creek 2 10,200 B 18,000 F 63. Main Street W of Auburn 2 9,450 B 11,600 C 71. Main Street E of Bennett St 2 16,500 F 20,000 F 70. Main Street N of Idaho Maryland 4 21,900 C 25,500 D 73. McCourtney Road W of 20 Ramps 2 9,900 B 13,900 D 50. W. McKnight Way SW of Taylorville Rd 4 16,800 A 20,000 B 25. Mill Street S of Neal St 2 12,100 C 15,300 E 26. Mill Street NE of Rhode Island St 2 8,600 A 12,500 D 92. Mill Street N of McCourtney 2 12,100 C 16,200 F 27. Neal Street E of Church St 2 3,750 A 6,350 A 77. Nevada City Hwy S of Sierra College 4 15,400 A 18,400 A 28. Nevada City Hwy Grass Vly City Limits 4 15,000 A 16,800 A 83. Nevada City Hwy E of Brunswick 2 11,800 C 11,900 C 78. Ophir S of Bennett 2 9,050 A 12,900 D 57. Sierra College Dr E of Main Street 4 16,700 A 22,500 C 58. Sutton Way E of Brunswick 2 10,800 A 11,050 C 59. Sutton Way W of Brunswick 2 6,300 A 11,900 C 68. Sutton Way N of Dorsey Dr 2 6,150 A 10,300 B 84. Sutton Way S of Dorsey Dr 2 5,200 A 8,000 A 60. Whispering Pines Ln W of Brunswick Rd 2 8,250 A 11,500 B ADT = Average Daily Traffic LOS = Level of Service TABLE 3.9-10C CUMULATIVE ROADWAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEVELS OF SERVICE COLLECTOR ROAD LOCATION NO. OF LANES 2020 BUILDOUT ADT LOS ADT LOS 29. Allison Ranch Rd S of McCourtney 2 600 A 1,800 A 30. Allison Ranch Rd N of North Star Mine Rd 2 600 A 1,800 A 98. Allison Ranch Rd S of Crestview/Smith Ext 2 50 A 100 A 31. Alta Street N of West Main St 2 3,000 A 4,500 A 32. Alta Street S of Alta Vista Dr (S) 2 1,300 A 1,650 A 33. Alta Street N of Alta Vista Dr (S) 2 850 A 1,050 A 34. Alta Street SE of Ridge Road 2 1,100 A 1,250 A 96. Old Auburn Rd S of McCourtney 2 1,450 A 2,750 A 81. Old Auburn Rd S of North Star Connection 2 1,750 A 2,550 A 66. E. Bennett Road E of Centennial 2 5,250 A 10,200 E 35. E. Bennett Road E Grass Vly City Limit 2 8,150 C 13,500 F 93. Brighton Street N of McCourtney 2 6,750 B 8,650 C 36. Brighton Street N of McCourtney 2 6,750 B 8,650 C 37. Brighton Street S of Chapel 2 3,950 A 5,400 A 38. Butler Street W of Minnie 2 3,150 A 3,450 A 39. Butler Street E of Packard Dr 2 3,100 A 4,250 A 65. Centennial Drive N of E. Bennett 2 7,350 B 9,600 D 91. North Collector W of Allison Ranch 2 600 A 2,150 A 99. South Collector E of Old Auburn 2 1,150 A 1,800 A 100. South Collector E of North Star Loop Rd 2 1,400