|
|
    |
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 4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act and the implementing State CEQA Guidelines require that alternatives to the proposed project be discussed in the EIR. The value of such discussion is to inform public decision-makers of the differential environmental impacts which may be associated with each potential alternative, and to enable a reasoned judgment to be made as to which alternative to the proposed project may be environmentally superior. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following description of what should be included in the alternatives discussion of an EIR: (a) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasiblely attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (b) Purpose. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. (c) Selection of a range of reasonable alternatives. The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasiblely accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (d) Evaluation of Alternatives. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. (e) "No Project" alternative. (1) The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline (see Section 15125). (2) The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (3) A discussion of the "no project" alternative will usually proceed along one of two lines: (A) When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the plan, policy or operation into the future. Typically this is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan. (B) If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the "no project" alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no project" consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means "no build" wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment. (c) After defining the no project alternative using one of these approaches, the lead agency should proceed to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. (f) Rule of reason. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasiblely attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. (A) Feasibility. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. (B) Alternative locations. 1. Key question. The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. 2. None feasible. If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location. 3. Limited new analysis required. Where a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for projects with the same basic purpose, the lead agency should review the previous document. The EIR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent the circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the alternative. (C) An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The California General Plan Guidelines (Chapter 4, page 107) state as follows: Several alternative draft plans are typically considered en route to adopting a general plan. Similarly, the EIR for the plan must describe a reasonable range of alternatives and analyze each of their effects. Consistent with CEQA, the alternative plans should share most of the same objectives. Each of the alternatives should avoid or lessen one or more of the significant effects identified as resulting from the proposed plan (in a situation where the proposal is yet to be selected from among the alternatives, the competing alternatives should not all have the same level of impacts). The sections that follow present a description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the alternatives in the context of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the State General Plan Guidelines. This EIR includes an evaluation of the no project alternative (which is required to be addressed) and two alternative growth direction scenarios. Finally, this Section presents an analysis of the comparative environmental superiority of the various alternatives, as required by CEQA. The two alternative growth direction scenarios (Alternative #2, Northerly Emphasis and Alternative #3, Southerly Emphasis) were considered and rejected by the General Plan Steering Committee; however, the Planning Commission and City Council will consider these scenarios as part of the decision making process. Circulation alternatives were also considered and evaluated for the two alternative growth direction scenarios as the proposed 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 standards may be exceeded in the future, or the need for additional circulation system improvements may become evident. The original evaluation of General Plan alternatives addressed the ramifications of both land use and circulation systems. Analysis of circulation plans addressed alternatives for major facilities linking the community with Highways 20 and 49, as well as the location of new Wolf Creek crossings. The key issue reviewed as part of this investigation was the location of a new Wolf Creek crossing linking the North Star Annexation area with Highway 49. Alternatives addressed included the southerly extension of Freeman Lane (per the current General Plan), a westerly extension of McKnight Way, and the creation of a new route extending westerly from Highway 49 near Crestview Drive to North Star. For this EIR, the traffic volume forecasts for the Northerly Emphasis and Southerly Emphasis alternatives assume implementation of the Freeman Lane Extension to North Star. 4.1.1 Alternative #1 No Project Alternative Description and Rationale Given the nature of a general plan update, there is more than one way to characterize the "no project" alternative. For a simple development project, such as a residential subdivision, the "no project" alternative simply assumes that the development will not be constructed. The potential environmental effects of not constructing such a project can then easily be compared to the potential effects of construction and occupation of the project. However, with regard to a general plan update, the situation is somewhat less straightforward. California planning law requires each local (i.e., county or incorporated city) government to maintain a general plan and periodically update it with public input. Therefore, it is not realistic to assume that "no project" in this case means a situation in which the City decides to operate from this moment forward with no general plan. The California General Plan Guidelines (Chapter 4, page 107) state as follows: The EIR must also evaluate the "no project" alternative. This would describe what physical changes might reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the general plan update were not adopted, based on the existing general plan and available infrastructure and services. Similarly, Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states: When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Typically this is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan. Therefore, the "no project" alternative is considered a continuation of the existing 1982 Grass Valley General Plan. This alternative compares development in accordance with the 1982 General Plan with the 2020 development scenario of the proposed General Plan Update. However, development is limited by available infrastructure and services. 4.1.2 Alternative #2: General Plan - Northerly Emphasis Development Scenario Description and Rationale The Northerly Emphasis seeks to maintain a tight development pattern, minimizing urban sprawl. The Northerly Emphasis assigns future development to the north and east of downtown as much as possible. By steering growth accordingly, most new development will be 1) within the Wolf Creek watershed (efficient provision and extension of infrastructure, especially wastewater, storm drainage, recreation, and circulation facilities) and 2) convenient to downtown, Glenbrook, the Litton/Sierra College complex, and existing industrial and business parks. Gravity flow of wastewater (from new developments) to the City wastewater treatment plant on Freeman Lane/Wolf Creek is accomplished under this Alternative. The Northerly Emphasis Alternative is depicted in Figure 4-1. Residential infill will account for 900 new housing units within the current city limits, the maximum potential. Residential "outfill" (outside of the City limits but adjacent to or very near existing development) is assumed to account for 842 units, approximately 80% of outfill build out potential. Unlike infill, outfill depends on annexation and extension/expansion of City services, a factor which might inhibit some development. Significant transportation improvements, including non-vehicular facilities (bikeways, sidewalks, trails) as well as street and highways improvements must facilitate circulation, especially within the triangle formed by Brunswick Road, East Bennett, and the Freeway. Vehicular access to downtown from the east, a new interchange at Dorsey or vicinity, and connections between Idaho Maryland Road and East Bennett are all likely transportation improvements resulting in part from the Northerly Emphasis. Housing unit allocations to the three major annexation areas are maintained at annexation agreement levels. However, the agreed-upon 363 housing units at North Star have been moved to the northern portion of that 760 acre property to a 183-acre area. Residential densities are increased, as about 91 acres of residential land will accommodate the 363 units, contrasted with 312 acres in the annexation agreement. In addition, the 20 acre CBD (Central Business District) and scaled down Business Park and Industrial areas are contained within the 183-acre northern sector. By shifting development north, and closer to established neighborhoods of southwestern Grass Valley, the extension of City services and infrastructure is facilitated. This includes gravity flow from North Star residential areas to the wastewater treatment plant. Additional residential and office/industrial development of the North Star property will be deferred in time until warranted by supply-demand factors for such land elsewhere in the Planning Area. A 13 acre school site and 175 acres of open space will be formally designated and "developed" during the 20-year planning period. The Loma Rica Ranch and Kenny Ranch annexation areas will develop per annexation agreements. Commercial development will occur as 1) upgrading and intensification of present commercial areas and 2) expansion to vacant, commercially designated properties. Upgrading and intensification will occur in downtown, Glenbrook, and the Pine Creek complex, as well as commercial strips along East Main, South Auburn, and Highway 174. Some expansion will occur in or near Glenbrook and Pine Creek. New expansion sites include 22 acres at Kenny Ranch (per annexation agreement), the aforementioned North Star CBD, and Railroad Avenue/Idaho Maryland Road (serving in part the East Bennett Valley complex). The main focus of industrial expansion will be 1) the Loma Rica Industrial Park and 2) industrial infill along Idaho Maryland Road. North Star will have a compact industrially-designated area. Business Park development will occur as Whispering Pines "builds out", Litton Business Park develops to its potential, and business parks are established in each of the three SDAs (major annexation areas). It is assumed that substantial areas within the three major annexations will be set aside for conservation and recreational purposes. The Northerly Emphasis emphasizes significant conservation/open space projects to be developed in conjunction with residential growth, particularly within the aforementioned Brunswick/East Bennett/Freeway triangle, and within the city limits as "infill" conservation/recreation projects. More extensive open space set asides will occur within the three major annexation areas. Riparian corridors and recreational trails will be planned in anticipation of new development, and implemented in conjunction with new residential and non-residential projects. Planning Assumptions
Loma Rica Ranch 180 Kenny Ranch 100 North Star 363 Housing in the three major annexation areas is assumed to be single family, with a variety of densities and housing types. Multi-family housing opportunities will be made available primarily as close-in "infill" and "outfill".
4.1.3 Alternative #3: General Plan - Southerly Emphasis Development Scenario Description and Rationale The Southerly Emphasis assigns most new residential development to the southern portion of the Planning Area, generally south of McKnight Way. Residential development to the north includes residential annexation agreement allocations to Kenny Ranch and Loma Rica Ranch (100 and 180 dwelling units, respectively), and a maximum potential of 900 infill units. No outfill units are assumed (other than the three major annexation areas of North Star, Loma Rica Ranch and Kenny Ranch). City annexations and service extensions are to the south, whereas most of the potential for outfill development is north of downtown. The Southerly Emphasis Alternative is depicted in Figure 4-2. The Southerly Emphasis includes a major new commercial area at the old Bear River Mill site, between Highway 49 and LaBarr Meadows Road. It also assumes considerable residential development in an arc from Conway Ranch/McCourtney Road east through North Star and Berryman Ranch. Also assumed is substantial residential development on the west side of Osborne Hill, east of LaBarr Meadows (an area presently designated for business park and planned employment center purposes). A characteristic of the Southerly Emphasis could be to develop a "new town" south of present Grass Valley, in which new residents could live, work, and shop without going to and through downtown and other congested areas on a daily basis. It is likely that the Southerly Emphasis would entail a Highway 49 interchange in conjunction with the aforementioned 70 acre commercial development. Residential aspects of the Alternative would require a decision regarding a Wolf Creek crossing and connection with Highway 49, an issue currently unresolved. By making a large commercial area available, the city would stand a better chance of accommodating large commercial establishments unable to locate on small or constrained parcels. Although economic studies do not demonstrate a current potential for many such establishments, much can change in 20 years. To better "fit" smaller markets and local aesthetic preferences, traditional large store retailers have begun to locate scaled-down versions of their large establishments in smaller cities and towns nationwide. In addition, the commercial area (and its extension south out the Planning Area) would have the potential to accommodate warehousing and similar activities, which can be difficult to locate or disruptive elsewhere. Two factors require close examination:
Planning Assumptions
4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 4.2.1 No Project Alternative The following impacts have been identified associated with the No Project alternative: Geology and Soils: 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 to 5.9 in magnitude on the Richter scale, and a maximum intensity of VI or VII on the Modified Mercalli scale. Grass Valley and the surrounding region are located in an area of mountainous upland soil (USDA 1993). The soil associations that occur in the existing Planning Area include the Josephine-Sites-Mariposa association, Secca-Boomer association, Aiken-Cohasset association, and Boomer-Sites-Sobrante association. Under the 1982 General Plan, development will occur that could expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. However, this is not substantially different from the 2020 General Plan. Therefore, both the project and the no project alternative require specific mitigation measures to address potential impacts associated with geology and soils. Hydrology and Water Quality: Development in accordance with the 1982 and the 2020 General Plan will result in an increase in impervious surfaces because of a greater amount of residential, commercial and industrial development, which will impact hydrology and water quality. In comparison to the proposed project, both the 1982 General Plan and the 2020 General Plan require specific mitigation measures to address potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. However, the higher development potential of the 1982 plan could have a greater impact on hydrology and water quality. Biological Resources: Development in accordance with the 1982 General Plan will affect the same types of biological resources as the proposed General Plan. In comparison, both the 1982 General Plan and the 2020 General Plan require specific mitigation measures to address potential impacts to biological resources. However, the higher development potential of the 1982 plan could have a greater impact to biological resources than the 2020 General Plan. Air Quality: Development in accordance with the 1982 General Plan would result in levels of emissions similar to the proposed 2020 General Plan. However, the proposed 2020 General Plan places a greater emphasis on use of transit, bicycles and transportation system management. Stationary source emissions could be higher under the 1982 General Plan because of the greater amount of potential residential, commercial and industrial development. Public Services and Utilities: Development in accordance with the 1982 General Plan would be consistent with the City's existing CIP and the draft Sewer Master Plan. Both the 1982 General Plan and the 2020 General Plan require specific mitigation measures to address potential impacts to public services and utilities; however, the higher development potential of the 1982 plan could have a greater impact to services and utilities than the 2020 General Plan. Land Use and Planning: The General Plan 2020 Land Use Diagram will result in changes to the present Grass Valley General Plan, adopted in 1982. The proposed General Plan will not change the established Sphere of Influence (SOI), but will result in changes to the designated Planning Area (net increase of 544 acres). This generally involves including currently developed areas outside the 1982 Planning Area boundary within the 2020 General Plan Update. Table 4-1 presents acreage and percentages by land use categories for the 1982 General Plan. The substantive differences between the 1982 General Plan and the proposed 2020 General Plan are the percentage of development allocated for residential, commercial and industrial development. The other difference is that the 2020 Plan establishes of policies to direct development and infrastructure initially toward the core area, with the expansion moving out development to the fringe area and periphery later in the planning period. The proposed General Plan will result in a decrease of 5,032 residential units, from 16,061 units in the 1982 General Plan to 11,029 units in the 2020 General Plan. The proposed Plan also decreases commercial and industrial land use designations by 926 acres (total of 2,497 acres in the 1982 Plan and 1,535 acres in the 2020 Plan). This is attributed to the reduction of commercial and industrial land use designations in the Bennett Road, Motherlode and North Star areas. Table 4.2-1 presents acreage and percentages by land use categories for the 1982 General Plan and Table 4.2-2 presents the proposed 2020 General Plan. Under the 1982 General Plan, the three major annexation areas could still be developed; they are within the existing Sphere of Influence and have designated land uses. However, they could not be developed in accordance with the land use plans and densities contained in the annexation agreements between the property owners/developers and the City. Population and Housing: The population projected for the build out of the 1982 General Plan is greater than the population projected for the 2020 General Plan. Specifically , build out of the 1982 Plan will have a population of 24,599, in comparison to the 2020 General Plan population of 23,395. The proposed 2020 General Plan will also result in a decrease of 5,032 residential units, from 16,061 units in the 1982 General Plan to 11,029 units in the 2020 General Plan. Therefore, the 2020 Plan will have less impact on population and housing than the existing General Plan. Aesthetics: The 1982 General Plan does not include as comprehensive a Community Design Element as the 2020 Plan, and therefore provides less opportunity for the City to influence the architectural and site planning of new development and redevelopment in a positive fashion. Transportation: Most of the roadway system in the Grass Valley area operates acceptably under existing conditions under the 1982 General Plan, as shown in Table 4-3. On a daily basis, no locations of the freeway system currently fall below LOS C. The only arterials that fall below the LOS D threshold is Brunswick Road and the Nevada City Highway in the vicinity of Nevada City. None of the collectors within Grass Valley exceed this threshold. All of the intersections studied for the General Plan Update currently operate at LOS C or better. However, the signalized McKnight Way/Highway 49 ramps intersections, which are closely spaced, can when evaluated as one intersection be interpreted to operate at LOS D. Most of the all-way stop intersections and all of the unsignalized intersections (with the exception of the McKnight Way/La Barr Meadows Road/South Auburn Street intersection) operate acceptably at LOS C or better. However, build out of the 1982 General Plan will result in the Levels of Service of some roadway segments and intersections degrading below LOS C and D, and roadway improvements will be required to maintain acceptable Levels of Service. Public transit in Grass Valley consists of both "fixed route" services and specialized services. Fixed route service is provided by Gold Country Stage, and Durham Transportation provides demand-based paratransit service under contract to a nonprofit agency. Gold Country Telecare is a private, nonprofit organization serving elderly, handicapped and disabled persons. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) are two strategies that increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system. TSM actions maximize transportation system operating efficiency through low cost, physical improvements. TDM actions maximize transportation system utilizations through modification of travel behavior decisions. Specifically, TDM actions attempt to modify travel choices and alter relative transportation prices for different travel decisions. Given the increased demand on public resources and concerns for the environment, Grass Valley can expect demand to increase for the expansion and improvement of existing transportation facilities and programs in lieu of new, capital intensive improvements. The use of TSM/TDM actions under the 2020 General Plan will play an important role in meeting this new demand. The 1982 General Plan does not emphasize TJM/TDM as a means to improve transportation systems. Noise: A community noise survey was conducted to document noise exposure in areas containing noise sensitive land uses. Under existing conditions, the survey results indicate that typical noise levels in noise sensitive areas are in the range of 46.9 dB to 68.9 dB CNEL. Traffic on State and local roadways, industrial activities, aircraft overflights and neighborhood activities are the controlling factors for background noise levels in the majority of the Planning Area. In general, most areas which contain noise sensitive uses are moderately quiet to noisy, and are representative of an urban environment. Some residential areas have outdoor activity areas directly exposed to major noise sources, such as Highway 49 and existing industrial areas. Noise exposure at some of those residences may be considered in excess of generally acceptable noise exposure criteria. Ambient noise levels generally reach a minimum during the hours of 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., increasing during the daytime hours as a function of increased traffic and other human activities. Existing traffic noise contour data and a summary of measures noise levels are included in the General Plan Background Report. In addition to major roadways, existing noise sources which generate complaints to the City include the downtown Chevron car wash, the North Star Quarry, truck delivery and loading dock noise and construction noise. Build out of the 1982 General Plan would result in increases in noise levels on major roadways, but without the protections offered by the policies of the proposed General Plan Noise Element. Because the 1982 General Plan designates more land for residential, commercial and industrial development, it holds the potential for more stationary noise sources to be developed. Public Safety/Hazards: Public safety hazards associated with development in accordance with the 1982 General Plan would be essentially similar to those associated with the proposed 2020 General Plan. Cultural Resources: Development in accordance with both the existing and 2020 General Plans have the potential to result in the disturbance and/or destruction of cultural resources. However, the 2020 General Plan provides greater protections of cultural resources through its goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies. Parks and Recreation: The acreage devoted to parks and recreation under the 1982 General Plan is very high; it exceeds the parks-to-population ratio of most communities. The proposed 2020 General Plan provides for more realistic standards for acquiring, developing and maintaining lands for parks and open space purposes. Conservation and Open Space: In comparison to the 1982 General Plan, the general directive of the 2020 General Plan is for a more compact community, which will allow for greater areas of open space. In addition, the 2020 Plan provides numerous goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions and strategies to promote conservation and protect open space. This will better serve conservation and open space in Grass Valley than the 1982 Plan. 4.2.2 Alternative #2 Impacts: General Plan - Northerly Emphasis Development Scenario The following provides a qualitative analysis of the environmental impacts of the Northerly Emphasis Development Scenario, which was considered while formulating the proposed 2020 General Plan Update. Geology and Soils: The Northerly Emphasis Alternative would result in development that could expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with geology and soils. However, both the Northern Emphasis and the 2020 General Plan will require specific mitigation measures to address potential impacts. Therefore, the project and the alternative are viewed as comparable. |