|
LETTER 1 Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
LETTER 2 Andrew R. Cassano, Land Use Planner, Nevada City Engineering, Inc.
LETTER 3 Rodney A. Hill, Air Pollution Control Officer, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
LETTER 4 Overton Caperton, President, Carriage House Property Owners Association
LETTER 5 Kenneth J. Absher
LETTER 6 Sharon M. Boivin
LETTER 7 Thomas A. Miller, Interim County Administrator, Nevada County
LETTER 8 Stephanie Snyder, Administrative Analyst, County Administrator's Office, Nevada County
LETTER 9 John W. Rumsey, Senior Civil Engineer, Department of Transportation and Sanitation, Nevada
County
LETTER 10 Mark Tomich, Planning Director, Nevada County
LETTER 11 Laurie Oberholtzer, Board Member, Rural Quality Coalition
LETTER 12 Jean L. Baker, Chief, Office of Environmental Management, Caltrans District 3, Marysville,
CA
LETTER 13 Jason Marshall, Assistant Director, CA Department of Conservation, Office of Governmental
and Environmental Relations
LETTER 14 S R Jones, Executive Officer, Nevada LAFCo
LETTER 15 Dan Landon, Executive Director, Nevada County Transportation Commission
LETTER 16 James P. Chatigny, General Manager, Nevada Irrigation District
LETTER 17 Jeff Wagner, Fire Chief, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District
LETTER 18 Tim Fike, Chief, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District
Oral Comment Paul Schwartz
LETTER 1 Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
Comment 1A: The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed draft environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Notice of Completion you will note that the Clearinghouse
had checked the agencies that have reviewed the project. The review period is now closed and the comments from
the responding agencies are enclosed. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code requires
that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities
involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out
or approved by the agency." Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments
with specific documentation. This letter acknowledges that the City has complied with the State Clearinghouse review
requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Response: Comment noted. No response is required.
LETTER 2 Andrew R. Cassano, Land Use Planner, Nevada City Engineering, Inc.
Comment 2A: The writer suggests that the list of documents incorporated by reference include
past EIRs done for the City's sewer collection and treatment system master plans and the Nevada County General
Plan.
Response: Although the described EIRs contain useful background, both were written prior to
the development of the current Grass Valley General Plan Update and do not directly address the project. Incorporation
by reference is usually reserved for documents that address or describe the current project, but are lengthy or
highly technical in nature.
Comment 2B: Overall buildout impacts in the City are profoundly affected by growth in the County.
The County made a decision upon adoption of its General Plan to accept a number of significant and unavoidable
impacts. The County's decision to accept these impacts probably makes it more difficult for the City to have control
in fully mitigating the same impacts. Further the County's General Plan requires growth to be directed to existing
urban regions at maximum densities.
Response: Comment noted. The City recognizes that past and future County actions will have
an impact on environmental quality within the City of Grass Valley. Although the County accepted several significant
and unavoidable impacts with adoption of its General Plan, it is the intention of Grass Valley decision-makers
to minimize those impacts on Grass Valley through adoption of the current General Plan.
Comment 2C: The planning area map (Figure 2-2) does not reflect the latest version in the draft
General Plan Update. The writer notes that the Meddler property is not fully contained within the Planning Area.
Response: The maps in the EIR were prepared prior to the start of public hearings before the
City Planning Commission. During those hearings, some minor drafting errors in the map were discovered. Chapter
Five of this Final EIR contains a corrected and updated map based on City Council direction.
Comment 2D: The residential unit counts (Table 2-1) don't agree with the annexation agreements.
They should be 180 units for Loma Rica Ranch, 363 units for North Star and 100 units for Kenny Ranch.
Response: The figures referred to by the writer area actually in acres, not units. Table 2-1
is reprinted at the end of this Chapter with the following revised heading: "Land Use Acreage and Housing
Unit Allocations Per Annexation Agreements." Housing units are displayed on page 2-4 at the bottom of the
Table.
Comment 2E: On Page 2-4, the older term "Planned Employment Center" should be replaced
with annexation agreement terminology "Business Park" and the term "Park and Recreation" should
be replaced with "Recreation Zoning."
Response: The General Plan Update does replace the term "Planned Employment Center"
with "Business Park." However, in the context of Table 2-1, the term "Planned Employment Center"
should be retained. The annexation agreements specifically allocate acreage to the "Planned Employment Center"
land use designation. It is assumed that, following adoption of the General Plan Update, the term "Business
Park" will replace "Planned Employment Center" in future annexation agreements, as well as other
City plans and regulations.
The term "Parks and Recreation" as used in Table 2-1 could be construed as implying annexation agreements
which commit the respective parties to dedications of public park acreage. This is neither the intent of the annexation
agreements, nor of references to "Parks and Recreation" allocations within the EIR. Therefore, the term
"Parks and Recreation" in Table 2-1 is changed to "Recreation," signifying an acreage commitment
to recreation, but not necessarily public park land. Table 2-1 is reprinted at the end of this Chapter.
Comment 2F: It is the writer's understanding that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which
listed significant impacts is no longer a part of CEQA, but is referenced numerous times in the Draft EIR.
Response: References to Appendix G are to the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, which is
titled "Environmental Checklist Form." The Checklist contains thresholds of significance that are very
useful in the preparation of EIRs. The Appendix G referenced by the writer was removed from the Guidelines in 1998.
Comment 2G: Figure 3.5-4 is difficult to read in black and white.
Response: Figure 3.5-4 is reprinted at the end of this Chapter.
Comment 2H: The third paragraph on page 3-56 implies that the General Plan may mandate phasing
or the timing of annexations. The statement should be supplemented to make it clear that phasing is expected to
be a function of market demand and cost of infrastructure. This discussion and all similar discussions should make
it clear that the percent of buildout in each region of the City is a planning projection, not a City mandate.
The EIR should state clearly that the actual buildout may vary over the 20 year period.
Response: The General Plan Update commits the City to a land use plan designed in part to reduce
sprawl and leap-frog (non-contiguous) development. As reflected in the EIR, the concept of identifying differing
anticipated development "buildout" levels during the 20-year plan period in three areas (core, fringe,
and periphery) is the principle tool for directing future growth and planning public service and infrastructure
expansion. Although the General Plan Update does not indicate which specific parcels are anticipated to develop
or not develop over the 20-year period, it does state the anticipated buildout levels within the three areas. The
implication is that the City does not anticipate full buildout of the core, fringe, or periphery during the 20-year
plan period.
Comment 2I: In Table 3.9-1 "Labor Meadows Road" should be corrected to read "LaBarr
Meadows Road."
Response: Comment noted. Table 3.9-1 should be corrected to read: "LaBarr Meadows Road"
under the column headed "ARTERIALS."
Comment 2J: It would be advisable for the EIR to elaborate further on the traffic impacts created
by the County. The notion has been raised that the City could avoid street and intersection operational problems
by simply altering the land use map. In reality a significant portion of the daily traffic on City streets originates
in the County. The City and County continue to update a regional capital improvement program, which should soon
be adopted by the three western County jurisdictions. Meanwhile, each jurisdiction maintains its own capital improvements
program and mitigation fee. A more detailed discussion of these individual and cooperative efforts could be helpful
in assuring the public that there is a plan in place to alleviate traffic congestion.
Response: The General Plan Update process included considerable coordination between the City
of Grass Valley and the Nevada County Transportation Commission. In fact, the Commission intentionally delayed
consideration of the Regional Transportation Plan/Program in early 1999, pending results of traffic modeling and
an initial draft plan being prepared by the General Plan Update Circulation Element consultant.
It is true that a significant portion of daily traffic on City streets originates in the County. This phenomenon
was taken into account by traffic modeling performed during the General Plan Update. Also, because the General
Plan Update included a broad Planning Area roughly four times the land area of the current City limits, much of
the unincorporated area affecting (and affected by) the City was fully a part of land use and transportation planning
from the outset.
Comment 2K: The EIR should review the possibility of a conventional at-grade intersection at
the Crestview Drive/Smith Road and Highway 49 intersection. A separated grade interchange is probably not affordable,
and the physical environmental impacts of constructing it would be much greater.
Response: Neither the General Plan Update nor the EIR intend to preclude an at-grade intersection
at the Crestview Drive/Smith Road and State Highway 49 intersection. Please refer also to Letter 15, response to
comment 15C, later in this Chapter.
Comment 2L: It is disappointing that there is no mention on page 3-133 of Fred Knoop's contribution
to the horse business at Loma Rica Ranch. Mr. Knoop took the limited horse facilities that MacBoyle started and,
beginning in the 1950s, improved and operated Loma Rica Ranch as an internationally recognized thoroughbred farm.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2M: Since the Northerly Emphasis alternative, discussed on Page 4-6, is selected as
the environmentally superior alternative, the discussion should recognize that this option is not currently feasible
due to the existence of the North Star annexation agreement, unless the agreement is renegotiated.
Response: Comment noted. A sixth assumption is added to the list appearing on pages 4-7 and
4-8 as follows: "The North Star Annexation Agreement will be renegotiated to recognize the redistribution
of land uses as proposed."
Comment 2N: The fifth paragraph on page 4-11 is not accurate. The densities set forth in the
annexation agreements would apply under either the old or updated General Plan. However, the current General Plan
allows for much greater development intensity than is contemplated by the annexation agreements.
Response: The comment and the 5th paragraph on page 4-11 actually agree. The EIR is stating,
correctly, that the current (1982) General Plan and the annexation agreements provide for different land use designations.
In that sense, the current General Plan and the annexation agreements are incompatible. This incompatibility is
reconciled under the General Plan Update, which embraces the land use allocations of the annexation agreements.
LETTER 3 Rodney A. Hill, Air Pollution Control Officer, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
Comment 3A: The input variables and full [air quality] monitoring report should be included
as an appendix to the final EIR or the final General Plan.
Response: Comment noted. Input variables and the full monitoring report are included as a 15
page attachment at the end of this Chapter.
Comment 3B: Mitigations or alternatives should be contained in the EIR addressing "unavoidable
significant impacts" predicted to occur on three collector streets whose level of service (LOS) may drop to
LOS F, causing localized air quality violations. Mitigations might include priority treatment in future transportation
planning/programming and a strategy for avoiding congestion on the three collectors (Freeman Lane, Hughes Road,
Ridge Road).
Response: Comment noted. Impact #3.4-1 on page 3-32 of the DEIR states: "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." As suggested, an additional mitigation
measure, Mitigation Measure #3.4.2, is hereby added to specifically address the air quality impacts associated
with traffic congestion on street segments and at intersections which drop to LOS "F":
Mitigation Measure #3.4.2: Priority treatment in future transportation planning/programming,
and a strategy for avoiding congestion shall be developed for arterial and collector roadway segments and intersections
whose level of service drop to LOS "F". (Applies to Impact #3.4-1)
Effectiveness of Measure: Although the impact will remain cumulatively significant, adoption
of this mitigation measure in conjunction with Mitigation Measure #3.4-1, will further reduce the level of impact.
This mitigation measure is being added to the revised Table of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Chapter
6.0 of this document.
Comment 3C: Western Nevada County has not yet been declared an [ozone standard] non-attainment
area by the Environmental Protection Agency. The DEIR should be corrected to reflect this (pages 3-28 and 3-31).
Response: It had been anticipated by the State Air Resources Board that Western Nevada County
was to be declared a non-attainment area by the U.S. EPA in July, 1999. This declaration has not yet occurred.
However, the process for the State ARB Board to recommend to EPA that a declaration of non-attainment be made has
begun. If the California portion of the process continues as scheduled, it is a relative certainty that EPA will
declare western Nevada County a non-attainment area in violation of the 8-hour ozone standard before the end of
the Year 2000. The last paragraph on page 3-28 (DEIR) is changed to read " ... and will likely be designated
as a federal non-attainment area for ozone before the end of the Year 2000." On page 3-31, the footnote to
Table 3.4-2 is changed to read, "Western Nevada County will be designated as a federal non-attainment area
by the end of the Year 2000", and "Source: Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, 1997 and
1999."
Comment 3D: A new PM2.5 monitoring station has been added at Litton Drive in Grass Valley.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 3E: Grass Valley has taken a significant step by addressing and providing strategies
for mitigating area and mobile source emissions, for reducing ozone precursors, and for reducing particulate matter
air pollution. It is apparent that air quality was a prime consideration in development of the [General] Plan.
Response: Comment noted and appreciated. NSAQMD's constructive assistance in helping the City
to address air quality in the General Plan Update was a model for intergovernmental cooperation.
LETTER 4 Overton Caperton, President, Carriage House Property Owners Association
Comment 4A: If Freeman Lane is extended, average daily traffic will exceed 10,000 at buildout
and peak traffic would approach 15,000, making Freeman an arterial, not a collector street.
Response: By the Year 2020, the average daily traffic on Freeman Lane is projected to be 4,800
vehicles. At build out, Freeman Lane is predicted to carry 10,100 vehicles per day. This volume is 200 vehicles
higher than the acceptable LOS "D" threshold of 9,900 ADT.
By definition, the average daily traffic (ADT) is the average of the number of vehicles that travel on a roadway
over the course of a typical weekday. While traffic volumes do vary from day to day, it is highly unlikely, even
in rural areas that experience high recreational peaking, that a peak day would be 50% higher than the average
day. Therefore, the statement that the peak traffic would approach 15,000 vehicles per day is without basis.
Comment 4B: Extension of Freeman Lane across Wolf Creek, and subsequent traffic volumes combined
with driveways on Freeman and absence of sidewalks on both sides will pose unjustified safety issues.
Response: Specific safety issues potentially resulting from a combination of 1) street design,
2) traffic volumes, and 3) vehicular speed as they pertain to a specific street merit further evaluation at a project
level, if, in fact, a project is submitted for consideration at a future date. Such site-specific issues are beyond
the scope of the General Plan EIR, which is a program EIR as defined by CEQA.
Comment 4C: Much of Carriage House is in a valley that experiences temperature inversions.
Added vehicular traffic and congestion will create unhealthy [air quality] conditions, particularly for the very
young and elderly.
Response: Specific air quality issues potentially resulting from increased traffic and congestion
as they pertain to a specific street merit further evaluation on a project level if, in fact, a project is submitted
for consideration at a future date. Site-specific air quality issues are beyond the scope of the General Plan EIR,
which is a program EIR as defined by CEQA.
Comment 4D: The noise level of a truck passing within 50' will create noise levels of 85dB.
The noise level at homes with 20' setbacks would be exposed to levels of 91+ dB. Noise levels would be even higher
given the steep slope of Freeman Lane. Noise levels of this magnitude cannot be mitigated, even with sound walls
which are inappropriate in residential areas.
Response: The Noise Element of the General Plan and noise impact analyses in the DEIR utilize
commonly accepted methodologies for projecting known noise levels based upon future conditions. The two noise "descriptors"
used in the DEIR are Ldn and CNEL, as described on page 3-98 of the DEIR. Resulting noise contours (Existing Noise
Contours, Figure 3.10-2 and Projected Year 2020 Noise Contours, Figure 3.10-3) employ these concepts. Specific
noise issues potentially resulting from increased traffic levels and, potentially, traffic speed, as they pertain
to a specific street merit further evaluation and mitigation on a project level if, in fact, a project is submitted
for consideration at a future date.
Comment 4E: The scenic vista at the confluence of Wolf Creek and Allison Ranch Canal at the
end of Freeman Lane would be destroyed by a highway bridge or box culvert. A park and trailhead would be more beneficial.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 4F: The 1982 General Plan does not identify Freeman Lane as a collector, only as an
alternative access road. Poor planning occurred in the past.
Response: The 1982 General Plan presented the Freeman Lane extension as one of the alternatives
to improved circulation. It was selected during the current General Plan Update process and designated a collector
as one element of the preferred circulation system, supportive of the preferred land use alternative.
Comment 4G: The most suitable link to North Star is a Taylorville Road extension, in lieu of
a Freeman Lane extension.
Response: The elimination of Freeman Lane and its replacement with the Crestview-Smith to Taylorville
Road connection would relocate additional traffic to the west side of the McKnight Way interchange at Taylorville
Road. While its is likely that this change would not alter the overall conclusions of the DEIR analysis, if these
changes are combined with additional traffic generated by the inevitable changes to Berriman Ranch land uses, the
overall impact at the SR 49/McKnight Way interchange may be significant and require further evaluation.
Information submitted with Letter 4 contrasts physical features and travel characteristics for the two alternative
routes. The grade on the new Taylorville Extension would have to be confirmed but could be less than that existing
today on Freeman Lane. The speed limit on the Taylorville Extension would need to be established but could be greater
than the 25 mph limit on Freeman Lane. The comparison of travel distances and travel times indicates that trips
to some locations would be longer, and others would be shorter. As noted earlier, the key traffic issue is the
impact to the McKnight Way interchange if additional traffic was to pass through the McKnight/Taylorville roundabout.
LETTER 5 Kenneth J. Absher
Comment 5A: The EIR assumes the use of Freeman Lane, has provided no alternative, and has not
evaluated the proposed alternatives of record.
Response: An alternatives analysis was performed. Alternatives considered within the General
Plan Update and evaluated in the DEIR are described on page 5-3 of the DEIR. As a Program EIR, the range of alternatives
and level of specificity therein are appropriate. The alternatives analyzed both a north and south land use alternative
with a variety of circulation alternatives. The circulation system alternatives that were analyzed included: 1)
the Freeman Lane connection, 2) a connection to Crestview, 3) an extension of McKnight Way, and 4) a no connection
alternative. The preferred land use alternatives were subsequently analyzed with the preferred circulation system
which included the Freeman Lane connection as well as the Smith-Crestview connection.
Comment 5B: The EIR understates the noise level on Freeman Lane, based on the projected traffic
volume.
Response: Please refer to response to comments 4A and 4D related to traffic volumes and noise,
and to the methodological description in the DEIR (pages 3-98 through 3-122, DEIR).
LETTER 6 Sharon M. Boivin
Comment 6A: Traffic analysis fails to look at West Main Street, which appears to approach low
service levels during peak hours now, and will be exacerbated by development of Kenny Ranch.
Response: The initial DEIR scoping identified the intersection of Main Street with Auburn Street
for analysis during the p.m. peak hour. Currently, this intersection operates at LOS "B" with an average
delay per vehicle of 12.9 seconds. No other intersections along West Main Street were identified to be analyzed
under existing conditions. However, under future conditions, the intersection of Main Street with Alta Street was
added (Table 3.9-7). The Year 2020 forecast for West Main Street is presented in Table 3.9-5C. Please refer also
to the response to comment 9D.
The Regional traffic model reports that in the year 2020 the volume of traffic on West Main Street will be 9,450
ADT west of Auburn Street. This is less than the volume reported in the comment based on 1994 traffic counts. It
may be that the traffic model understates the volume of traffic in this area and that West Main Street west of
Auburn Street should be added to DEIR Table 3.9-6 as a location which is likely to exceed LOS "D" in
the year 2020. As widening to four lanes in this area is impractical, the impact to this location should be added
to the list of significant and unmitigable impacts. Please note the addition of this impact to the revised Table
of Potential Impacts, Chapter 6.0 of this document.
Comment 6B: The EIR's conclusion that [enumerated] significant, adverse effects [of increased
traffic congestion and acceptance of a LOS lower that "D"] will occur "even with the most feasible
attempts at mitigation" are specious.
Response: The fundamental reason that the DEIR states that significant, adverse effects will
occur even with the most feasible attempts at mitigation is that a substantial amount of the traffic which impacts
Grass Valley initiates or is generated outside of the City limits in western Nevada County. Grass Valley accommodates
outside traffic, but has little practical control over key variables related to external traffic generation, namely
land uses and land use densities/intensities.
The City of Grass Valley's threshold for Level of Service is "D", beyond which, mitigations are required
with the exceptions noted. Table 3.9-4 of the DEIR describes the difference between LOS "D" and conditions
at other Levels of Service. In other words, the draft General Plan acknowledges the locations where LOS "D"
may be exceeded in the future. The DEIR acknowledges the General Plan Update policies under which the City will
strive to maintain LOS "D", but allow the City Council sufficient flexibility to accept LOS "E"
in situations in which the Council determines that the costs (including environmental, neighborhood, "quality
of life") of maintaining LOS "D" might outweigh the benefits. The DEIR (Circulation Implementation
Actions and Strategies 7-CI) states as follows:
"Continue to update a Capital Improvement Program .... which strives to maintain LOS "D" at all
locations during weekday P.M. peak hours. Define "normally accepted maximum" improvements that are consistent
with the character and terrain of Grass Valley. If forecast traffic volumes cannot maintain LOS "D",
the City Council may consider additional "extraordinary" improvements. The City Council may determine
on a case by case basis, that "extraordinary" improvements are not feasible or desirable and may relax
the LOS "D" standard for a particular intersection or roadway segment".
Implementation Action/Strategy 7-CI continues by spelling out the criteria which the City Council shall use
in considering exceptions to the LOS "D" standard:
- The number of hours per day that a road segment or intersection would operate at conditions worse than LOS
"D"
- The ability of the improvement to reduce peak hour delay and improve traffic operations
- The impact on accessibility to surrounding properties
- The right-of-way needs and physical impact on surrounding properties
- The visual aesthetics of the required improvements and the impact on community identity and character
- Environmental impacts including air quality and noise impacts
- Construction and right-of-way acquisition costs
- Impacts on pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety
- The impacts of the required construction phasing and traffic maintenance
7-CI ends with the following statement: "In no case should the City plan for worse than LOS "E"
at any intersection or roadway segment during the afternoon peak hour.
Acceptance of a lower level of service does, admittedly, have certain adverse transportation impacts which would
be averted if measures to adhere to LOS "D" were implemented. However, flexibility to impose a lower
standard in selected circumstances is regarded an important safeguard, designed to protect environmental and community
values against the doctrinaire imposition of single purpose standards. In some cases, the "cure is worse than
the disease". The City Council must have the right to exercise judgement in such cases, even if it means a
greater degree of traffic congestion.
The DEIR does not encourage the City to embrace the lower standard easily. Rather, as evidenced in the above
excerpts from Implementation Action/Strategy 7-CI, it approaches any reduction in standard with caution and provides
guidelines for decision-making.
Comment 6C: The EIR says that traffic congestion will lead to degraded air quality, impediments
to emergency response vehicles, and movements of goods and services. This is not what the public wants, based on
public workshops, and is inconsistent with the underlying draft General Plan goal that the City's circulation system
promote the safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people and goods".
Response: The Circulation Element of the draft General Plan, including the Circulation Plan
contained therein, does strive to meet the goals and objectives enumerated within the Element, as well as incorporating
infrastructure improvements designed to achieve stated level of service (LOS) standards. The DEIR candidly evaluates
the draft General Plan's environmental impacts, identifies impact mitigation measures, and notes impacts which
may remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of the stated mitigation measures. Circulation
impacts adjudged to be significant and unavoidable are clearly identified in Chapter 3 of the DEIR.
Comment 6D: It is inappropriate to include the interchange at Dorsey Drive and Highway 20/49
since no environmental document has been prepared to address the impacts of such an interchange and CALTRANS is
just beginning to prepare the EIR.
Response: The Dorsey Drive interchange is included in the General Plan Circulation Element.
The interchange is identified as a project in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Comment 6E: Commentor believes that the DEIR inadequately addresses the impacts of Plan buildout
and road improvements, which could result in incompatible land uses in proximity to one another and in significant
adverse impacts on sensitive environmental resources.
Response: Comment noted. It is not possible to respond to the issue of incompatible land uses
in proximity to one another without benefit of specific examples. No known incompatibilities are apparent in the
draft General Plan.
Comment 6F: Effective mitigation would require the City to adopt site development standards
to be used during "project site review process" to provide a consistent approach for addressing sensitive
environmental features and natural constraints, clustering and provision of open space, potential for land use
conflicts, and potential for public health hazards including excessive noise.
Response: Numerous policies and implementation actions/strategies found in the DEIR (Appendix
C) address these issues. Examples:
Protection of sensitive features/natural constraints: 1-COSI; 4-COSI; 7-COSI; 16-COSP
Clustering and open space provision: 6-COSI
Land use compatibility: 7-LUI; 2-LUI; 8-LUI
Public health and noise: 1 through 17-SI; 1 through 10 NI
In addition, please refer to the response to comment 10C, below.
Comment 6G: EIR inadequately addresses noise impacts associated with traffic increases and
proposed road improvements. Commentor identifies particular concerns: Freeman Lane, south of McKnight and Dorsey
Drive between East Main and Sutton.
Response: Please refer to response to Comment 4D, above, and to methodological description
in DEIR (pages 3-98 through 3-122, DEIR).
LETTER 7 Thomas A. Miller, Interim County Administrator, Nevada County
Comment 7A: Letter 7 is a transmittal letter accompanying County comments (see Letter 8).
Response: No response necessary.
LETTER 8 Stephanie Snyder, Administrative Analyst, County Administrator's Office, Nevada County
Comment 8A: The EIR needs to address the potential consequences of future annexations on County
services in both incorporated and unincorporated regions.
Response: The City of Grass Valley is currently revising and updating its Sphere of Influence
Plan/Master Services Element. This effort will address issues of County service levels. The current revision/update
implements the following Implementation Actions and Strategies in the General Plan and EIR:
8-LUI Coordinate with LAFCo, Nevada County, and other agencies and special districts regarding provisions of
this General Plan, application of General Plan provisions in unincorporated portions of the Planning Area, and
the timing and directions of future annexations.
9-LUI Establish standard processes and procedures for planning, annexation, and service provision in the unincorporated
Planning Area.
11-LUI Review service provision/extension plans, policies, and procedures to assure compatibility with the General
Plan.
It is further noted that the General Plan Update process involved coordination between Grass Valley and County/Regional
agencies, notably in the areas of Planning/Community Development and Transportation.
Comment 8B: The EIR should include analysis of service issues, mitigation measures (including
impact fees and tax sharing agreements) and a phasing plan for annexation.
Response: The aforementioned Sphere of Influence Plan/Master Services Element will provide
meaningful analysis of the issues identified. The General Plan does address the timing of future development (Figure
3-3, 20 Year Development Level Map and descriptive text on page 3-16). The DEIR's evaluation of Plan impacts is
based substantially upon 20-year development projections contained in Figure 3-3 and accompanying text.
LETTER 9 John W. Rumsey, Senior Civil Engineer, Department of Transportation and Sanitation, Nevada
County
Comment 9A: The EIR lists four road segments as having existing LOS "E". However,
all are three lane roads, not two lane, and consequently are not deficient.
Response: The number of travel lanes and associated capacities of these roads used for this
analysis are as presented were presented in the Nevada County General Plan Update. Thus, the projected Levels of
Service are consistent with available methodologies and standards.
Comment 9B: Mitigation measure 3.9.5 calling for signalization at Whispering Pines and Brunswick
Road is inadvisable, due to the steep grade combined with winter icing problems.
Response: Comment noted. The feasibility of signalizing this location or of installing alternative
traffic controls should be assessed as traffic volumes approach warrants for signalization in the future. Further
engineering evaluation will be needed to determine an applicable location for the easterly extension of Whispering
Pines Road.
Comment 9C: Mitigation measure 3.9.3 lists several policies as mitigations, including reference
to a Transportation Services Management (TSM) Ordinance. State legislation severely restricts local government
ability to pass TSM ordinances.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 9D: The EIR contains no analysis of West Main Street in the downtown area.
Response: Please refer to the response to comment 6A. West Main Street in the Downtown Core
area was analyzed under future conditions and daily traffic projections are listed in Table 3.9-10B. These locations
include Main Street west of Auburn, south of Squirrel Creek Road and east of Bennett Street. Under existing conditions,
Main Street east of Bennett Street currently carries 12,172 ADT. At the time that the setting document was being
prepared a current traffic count west of Auburn Street was not available from the County nor the City. The consultant
was unable to have this location counted as the several attempts coincided with the Main Street widening project
and SR 49 ramp closures. Please refer also to the response to comment 6A, above.
Comment 9E: The process used to forecast land use, traffic impacts and mitigations leaves a
potential for either inadequate treatment of latecomers outside the Core Area or less than full mitigation.
Response: Comment noted. Please refer to the response to comment 15F.
Comment 9F: The Plan and EIR lay out a mechanism for updating traffic mitigations, but the
process has not proven the ability to react to change. Necessary fees to support the 1994 Grass Valley/Nevada City
Sub-Area Study are still not in place.
Response: Comment noted. Please refer to the response to comment 15F.
Comment 9G: Timing policies in the plan do not preclude development in the outlying areas.
A large outlying project may trigger mitigations that earlier projects escape, thus relieving the developer from
shouldering the whole burden.
Response: Comment noted.
LETTER 10 Mark Tomich, Planning Director, Nevada County
Comment 10A: Expand discussion of growth inducing impacts (3.16, DEIR) to address direct and
indirect impacts resulting from proposed General Plan options. Proposed annexation areas appear to have include
a large amount of commercial zoned land located outside of existing, core commercial areas.
Response: As a matter of policy, the General Plan acknowledges and incorporates land use allocations
previously approved for the three large annexation areas: North Star, Loma Rica Ranch, and Kenny Ranch. These allocations
include commercial designations, which are described and discussed in the General Plan and DEIR. The General Plan
provides for the continuation of a strong downtown core commercial area, but acknowledges the existence of other
commercial land uses outside of the City core, both within the City limits and in unincorporated portions of the
Planning Area.
Comment 10B: Specific, detailed analysis of the following issues identified as requiring resolution
should be provided in the General Plan and EIR: conversion of open space land to urban uses, impacts to biological
resources, drainage and increase in downstream flows due to new development, and impacts to air quality.
Response: The DEIR, a Program EIR, addresses these issues at an appropriate level of analysis.
Please refer to DEIR sections 3.3 (Biological Resources); 3.4 (Air Quality); 3.6 (Land Use and Planning); and 3.14
(Conservation and Open Space).
Comment 10C: DEIR and General Plan should include specific policies and mitigation measures
to preserve open space and environmental resources. Plan alternatives should consider increased clustering and
open space.
Response: Both the General Plan and EIR address open space, environmental resources, and clustering
in substantial detail and specificity. The General Plan includes numerous policies and implementation actions/strategies
(i.e., mitigation measures) to preserve open space and environmental resources, and to promote clustering. Regarding
open space and associated environmental resources, the DEIR addresses the issue, in part, on page 3-149 as follows:
This impact could be directly and cumulatively significant. In the absence of adequate planning for this impact,
there would soon be a significant loss of open space in Grass Valley. The General Plan contains several goals,
objectives, policies, and implementation strategies that specifically address the impact of new development on
open space including establishing a City-sponsored open space district to operate and manage existing and future
open space resources (4-RP), establishing and assigning responsibility for land/development rights acquisition
for open space purposes (5-COSI), and enlisting the interests and efforts of appropriate state and federal agencies
and private foundations regarding open space protection (19-COSP). Furthermore, the General Plan recommends that
a development review process be maintained which documents compliance with the goals, objectives, policies, and
implementation strategies of the General Plan (6-COSI). Lastly, an agreement with the County of Nevada should be
reached for a strategy to protect open space in the Planning Area (18-COSP) which would include establishing an
urban limit line beyond which urban land uses, densities, facilities and services will not extend (20-COSP). These
goals, policies, objectives, and implementation actions and strategies would reduce the effect, however it will
remain a cumulative, significant unavoidable and irreversible impact.
Specific goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures/strategies follow, thereafter, on page 3-149.
Please refer to the response to comment 6F, above, in reference to clustering and natural features.
Comment 10D: Plan and EIR do not include sources for traffic data provided. Please complete
studies to provide data sufficient for a comprehensive traffic analysis for areas currently identified as data
"not available".
Response: Existing daily traffic volumes on study area roadways within the Grass Valley Sphere
of Influence were obtained CALTRANS and Nevada County's ongoing traffic count program. Of the total of 30 existing
intersections which were identified for study by City of Grass Valley staff, and new intersection turning movement
counts were made in October through November 1998 at 24 locations. Available data from the 1994 Subregional Transportation
Study was re-used at 6 locations. All of these aforementioned references are included in the existing setting document
for the Grass Valley General Plan Update. For Year 2020 conditions, it was appropriate to analyze additional locations
beyond those that had been selected for the existing conditions analysis. Therefore, while traffic projections
exist for the future were made, existing data was not available, thus the N/A identification.
Comment 10E: Traffic mitigation measures have not been analyzed under cumulative conditions
to determine effectiveness of these measures. Significant and unavoidable impacts should include alternatives and
obtainable mitigation measures which avoid elevating impacts to significant levels.
Response: Table 3.9-8 on page 3-86 of the DEIR identifies the impacted intersections with implementation
of the General Plan, the applicable mitigation measures and the resulting Levels of Service for year 2020 conditions.
Intersection level analysis was not conducted for General Plan buildout conditions.
Comment 10F: The draft General Plan does not include a Housing Element. The Housing Element
should be updated.
Response: A Housing Element update was not part of the General Plan Update. The Housing Element
will be updated in a timely fashion in keeping with State HCD schedule and requirements.
LETTER 11 Laurie Oberholtzer, Board Member, Rural Quality Coalition
Comment 11A: The EIR does not address a full range of alternatives, particularly a scale-down
alternative which reduces traffic impacts below the significant level with no roads falling below LOS "D",
mitigates unmitigated wildland fire hazard, strain on local water distribution and public services/facilities,
and increased pressure to develop open space.
Response: State guidelines for consideration of project alternatives are found in Chapter 4.0
of the DEIR (page 4-1+). As stated in Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, "An EIR shall describe a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly 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".
It is essential to recognize that fundamental planning assumptions stemming from the basic objectives of the
General Plan Update include acceptance of specific 20-year population and housing unit projections, and acceptance
of the role of Grass Valley as a the commercial/business hub of western Nevada County throughout the planning period.
These fundamental planning assumptions were given credence in the selection of project alternatives, both during
the General Plan Update and DEIR preparation.
Regarding traffic impacts, the City of Grass Valley's threshold for level of service is "D", beyond
which mitigations are required with the exceptions noted. Table 3.9-4 of the DEIR describes the difference between
LOS"D" and conditions at other levels of service. The DEIR acknowledges the locations at which LOS "D"
may be exceeded in the future.
Four General Plan alternatives were evaluated: 1) no project alternative, 2) northerly emphasis, 3) southerly
emphasis, and 4) draft General Plan. The draft General Plan is a hybrid of the northerly and southerly emphasis
alternatives.
The DEIR concludes that the northerly emphasis alternative is the environmentally superior alternative (page
4-33).
Comment 11B: The Plan will result in roadway levels of service below "D" in many
locations. Quality of life impacts of the proposed traffic levels must be explored, and neighborhood street thresholds
established. Lower traffic levels of service may affect the economy of downtown and quality of life of downtown
neighborhoods.
Response: Insofar as level of service reductions are concerned, please refer to the response
to c comment 6B. Note particularly, that giving the City Council discretion to lower the level of service standard
in selected circumstances actually allows quality of life factors to be taken into consideration.
Comment 11C: Quality of life impacts of traffic levels on local streets must be explored and
a local traffic threshold is needed.
Response: A General Plan-level analysis focuses on freeways, arterials and collector street
but not local streets which are not included in the regional traffic model. The thresholds for each of these classifications
is presented in Table 3.9-2. Currently, there is not a uniform standard for traffic volume threshold relating to
quality of life. However, as a rule of thumb, traffic engineers often intend for local residential streets to carry
no more than about 2,000 to 2,500 ADT. When traffic volumes reach or exceed that level, many residents find that
normal non-automobile activities which would occur are impacted (i.e., children playing in streets) and that noise
and air pollution levels are unacceptable. General Plan implementation measure 17-CI directs the City to identify
an applicable threshold and consider that threshold during review of entitlements.
Comment 11D: How to update traffic mitigations and fees needs to be discussed.
Response: General Plan implementation action/strategy 15-CI notes that the Capital Improvement
Program and the fee program will need to be updated.
Comment 11E: Must we give up on West Main Street? How will downtown be affected as the LOS
drops to "F"?
Response: Please refer to the responses to comments 6A and 9D.
Comment 11F: EIR needs to seriously address traffic rather than just allow the City to throw
up its hands. Scaling down land uses, traffic diversions, prohibiting through traffic in some neighborhoods must
be explored. Eliminate sprawl inducing commercial land uses in outlying areas.
Response: Traffic concerns and conflicts occupied much of the agenda of the Steering Committee,
which worked for 15 months to produce the draft General Plan. The concerns voiced in this comment, and many others,
were discussed at length. It is important to note that traffic and circulation problems in Grass Valley and vicinity
pose some difficult problems, due to a combination of factors including: terrain, a less than ideal existing road
network lacking an efficient street "hierarchy", presence and influence of the freeway, cross town movements
and through-traffic in downtown and residential neighborhoods, and presence of substantial non-resident traffic.
The General Plan update did not create these problems, but must deal with them in the context of overall City goals,
objectives, and policies (both transportation and other elements). Many citizens and officials who participated
in the General Plan Update's meetings, workshops, and hearings since mid-1998 will attest to the fact that the
planning process (including the DEIR) has addressed the issues identified here and developed an understanding of
the conflicts and compromises inherent in resolving the issues.
Comment 11G: EIR must explore the option of requiring open space on the land use map along
ridgelines, special viewsheds, to form scenic easements along roads, along ditches, at future park sites. Clustering
must be required to avoid resources.
Response: Regarding clustering, the Plan promotes clustering for the very purposes stated in
the comment: 6-COSI in the General Plan and DEIR. Please refer also to responses to comments 6E and 10C.
In addition to an Open Space designation on the Land Use map, the General Plan also employs the concept of Open
Space Opportunity as an overlay to the General Plan Land Use map. The Open Space land use designation is reserved
for land whose use is determined to be permanently restricted to non-developed purposes, by virtue of ownership
or adopted regulation (parks, formally delineated wetlands). The Open Space Opportunity overlay identifies an overall
pattern of targeted open space not all of which yet to be secured by purchase, easement, or specific regulation.
The Open Space Opportunity designation is found in the current General Plan, and is depicted on the Land Use
map. There is no evidence that the open space opportunity land use designation on the 1982 General Plan Land Use
map (current General Plan) facilitated public acquisition or protection of areas so designated. In the absence
of pro-active public policy (the City within the City limits, Nevada County in unincorporated portions of the Planning
Area), private property so designated was placed in a land use "limbo", ostensibly rendered incapable
of productive use by private owners. The OSO designation in the 1982 Plan map is not, coincidentally, matched by
and reflected geographically in an equivalent Zoning District in the Zoning Ordinance. This calls into question
the compatibility between the 1982 General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
The 2020 General Plan Update utilizes the OSO concept as an overlay, rather than a land use designation. This
approach:
- Allows identification, description, and delineation, of various types of open space areas.
- Allows appropriate differences in approach to the various types of open space areas identified, described,
and delineated, rather than establishing a single, regulatory General Plan approach to areas best treated differently
based on their characteristics.
- Allows a greater degree of future flexibility in identifying and delineating potential open space areas based
upon their natural characteristics. Although it would be ideal to have all the scientific information needed to
perform precise natural area delineations during the General Plan, such is not the case. As a policy document,
the General Plan recognizes the need for and desirability of more definitive study prior to including additional
open space areas in the General Plan OSO overlay or as open space designations on the Land Use map.
- Enables private owners to utilize their properties, rather than having to endure de facto "takings"
potentially inherent in unsubstantiated open space designation on the Land Use map.
Comment 11H: The EIR does not discuss the critical impact of sprawl and change in the historic
urban form of the Grass Valley environs. The Plan provides for more commercial and industrial/ business park land
than the City or western Nevada County will need in the next twenty years. Phased annexation must be considered.
Low density interim development districts on fringe and peripheral areas must be considered.
Response: The northerly emphasis alternative, the environmentally superior alternative, was
specifically constructed to maximize infill development and deter "sprawl". Even that alternative, however,
acknowledged that land outside of the current City limits would be necessary to accommodate projected 20-year demand
for residential land. The draft General Plan, based fundamentally on the northerly emphasis but with some modifications,
provides for non-residential development on the Bear River Mill on Highway 49 south of the City (SDA designation,
intended in part to accommodate some commercial development). This is the major difference between the northerly
emphasis (environmentally superior alternative) and draft General Plan. It represents a policy decision to provide
for more commercial land availability than would be required based upon a strict ratio of commercial land needs
to projected population increase in the Planning Area. The reasons for this policy decision are:
- Restricting commercial land availability to the limited amount projected to be needed based on a population
ratio formula allows no margin for error. As with any land use designation, it is both prudent and common practice
to allow for more than the market-projected minimum land area (if sufficient land is available within the Planning
Area) for each land use.
- In Grass Valley and vicinity, irregular terrain and site development constraints combine to render some sites
either undevelopable or marginally developable. Often, more land area is required to locate an otherwise entitled
land use than presumed by sound development practices or implied by City regulations and standards.
- The Highway 49 corridor in the southern portion of the Planning Area is well suited to 1) providing commercial
services for the large and growing population south and west of Grass Valley in unincorporated Nevada County and
2) accommodating types of development whose land area requirements would make them unsuitable in the downtown area
or other, established commercial districts.
Concerning the commentor's request for low density interim development districts in the fringe and peripheral
portions of the Planning Area, the draft General Plan provides for just such uses (Urban Estate Density residential)
on a permanent basis appropriately located in the fringe and periphery.
Comment 11I: The EIR is too general. Some level of neighborhood-specific analysis is needed.
Response: The General Plan's goals, policies, objectives, and implementation actions/strategies
provide both for identification of neighborhoods and for continued, detailed neighborhood-level planning. The DEIR
provides an appropriate level of neighborhood-level analysis in a Program EIR. More detailed analysis is best accomplished
at a later time, when more specific development plans and actions are proposed.
LETTER 12 Jean L. Baker, Chief, Office of Environmental Management, CALTRANS District 3, Marysville,
CA
Comment 12A: EIR underestimates the extent of congestion under the Update Plan. LOS and assumed
capacity for the freeway is most significant. To avoid LOS "F" the freeway would have to be six-laned
(though not in 20 year Plan period). Buildout, as well as 20 year time frame should be estimated
Response: The level of service thresholds identified in the EIR originated in the Nevada County
General Plan. Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) staff have provided information defending the use
of these thresholds. Please refer to Letter 15 and attachments, found in Chapter 3.0, for an explanation of methodologies
employed in transportation planning in Nevada County.
Comment 12B: To avoid LOS "F" through Grass Valley, the freeway would have to be
widened to 6 lanes.
Response: Please refer to NCTC information referenced above (Letter 15, Chapter 3.0). The thresholds
noted above indicate that the LOS "D" standard will not be exceeded at General Plan build out (Table
3.9-10A).
Comment 12C: Alternatives to widening the freeway include parallel roads, additional width
on
East Main from Idaho Maryland to Bennett providing access for Railroad, providing four lanes on East Main all
the way to Brunswick Road.
Response: Comment noted. Please refer to NCTC information (Letter 15, chapter Three). The use
of auxiliary lanes to increase intersection capacity is appropriate. The need to widen Main Street has been identified
in the DEIR.
Comment 12D: Widening of Idaho Maryland Road to 4 lanes will probably require replacement of
the undercrossing structure under the freeway.
Response: Comment noted. The extent of improvements needed to create a four lane section in
this area will need to be evaluated further in subsequent studies required for modifications to the state highway
and city street system.
Comment 12E: The mitigation measure proposed for the Idaho Maryland intersection with East
Main Street (signalization) may not be allowed due to insufficient storage area to accommodate left turn volumes.
Response: The Westbound left turn lane is projected to carry 512 vehicles under 2020 conditions.
Typically, dual left turn lanes are installed when the left turning volumes reaches 300 vehicles. However, providing
a single westbound left turn onto the freeway would also provide LOS "D" conditions (delay = 32.5 seconds
per vehicle). The Nevada County Operations Study identified widening the on ramp to two lanes in conjunction with
ramp metering to provide sufficient storage for waiting motorists.
Comment 12F: The LOS for some intersections is not accurate.
Response: The Bennett/East Main intersection may not function as an isolated intersection under
current conditions, and the existing Level of Service at this location may be poor. The draft General Plan suggests
that Washington Street will be relocated to align with Bennett Street in the future.
The Brunswick Basin Traffic Operations Plan (BBTOP, 6-30-99) utilizes the Syncro software to calculate the Level
of Service for the four closely spaced intersection along the Brunswick corridor in the vicinity of Highway 49/20.
The results of that study state that the Brunswick/Nevada City Highway and the Brunswick/Maltman intersections
currently operate at LOS "D"; the Brunswick/SR 20 intersection operates at LOS "C"; and the
Brunswick/Sutton Way intersection currently operates at LOS "E".
Comparison of the Year 2020 GPU projections with the BBTOP's Year 2010 projections without the Dorsey Drive
interchange revealed that the draft General Plan projections are consistently lower that those in the operations
study. As the BBTOP indicated that Year 2010 projections could be accommodated with all intersections operating
at LOS "D" or better with signal coordination and intersection modifications, it is reasonable that the
projected Year 2020 volumes could also be accommodated with these improvements.
Comment 12G: Some roads should be re-designated as arterials due to the high volumes they will
carry.
Response: Re-designating collector roads as arterials would increase the volume of traffic
accepted at LOS "D". McCourtney Road and Freeman Lane north of McKnight would operate at LOS "D"
or better in Year 2020 with this re-designation.
Comment 12H: Highway 20 west of Grass Valley is an undivided expressway, not a freeway, and
its capacity should be shown as such. Highway 20 will need to be widened to 4 lanes all the way to Penn Valley
to accommodate projected volumes.
Response: Highway 20 west of Grass Valley is four lanes just west of the City limits with this
facility narrowing to two lanes to the west. As shown in the following Table, the two lane section will operate
at LOS "F" under Year 2020 conditions if no improvements are made and would require widening to four
lanes to achieve LOS "D" or better. This conclusion is consistent with the Nevada County General Plan,
and a four lane Highway 20 is included as a long term project in the current RTP. This information should be added
to Table 3.9-5A of the DEIR.
Year 2020 Addition to Table 3.9-5A
LEVELS OF SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 20 WEST OF HIGHWAY 49
|
FACILITY
|
NO. LANES
|
YEAR 2020
|
LOS
|
V/C
|
Hwy 20
West of SR 49
West of Mill Street Ramps |
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
|
27,500
25,170
|
D
F
|
0.89
1.63
|
As shown in the Table below, at General Plan Build out the forecast traffic volume on Highway 20 would exceed
the capacity of a four lane arterial street. A controlled access facility would be needed to deliver LOS "D"
or better under these conditions.
Buildout Addition to Table 3.9-5A
LEVELS OF SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 20 WEST OF HIGHWAY 49
|
FACILITY
|
NO. LANES
|
Build Out
|
LOS
|
V/C
|
Hwy 20
West of SR 49
West of Mill Street Ramps |
4 lane arterial
4 lane arterial
|
31,400
34,800
|
F
F
|
1.01
1.12
|
Comment 12I: The DEIR understates the number of unmitigable street segments under cumulative
conditions. Many more would operate at LOS "E" or LOS "F".
Response: The comment confuses future traffic conditions for the Year 2020 with "cumulative"
conditions occurring at full buildout of the General Plan. Page 3-96 refers to residual impacts under Year 2020
conditions. Table 3.9-11 indicates that many more segments would be impacted at General Plan buildout. Intersections
were analyzed under Year 2020 conditions (see Table 3.9-7 of the DEIR). The corresponding mitigation measures listed
on page 3-97 are those improvements needed for intersections that fall below standard for the Year 2020 after the
CIP improvements (see Table 3.9-8).
LETTER 13 Jason Marshall, Assistant Director, CA Department of Conservation, Office of Governmental
and Environmental Relations
Comment 13A: Will new development foreclose access to identified mineral deposits? How will
buildout affect the region's future ability to meet projected demand for mineral resources?
Response: The planning process and DEIR development included coordination with the State Department
of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology. The General Plan Update does not entail any changes to the existing
Mineral Management Element, adopted by the City of Grass Valley on August 24, 1993 and by the State Mines and Geology
Board on September 13, 1993. Technical answers to the questions posed would, properly, be addressed in an update
or amendment to the Mineral Management Element. However, nothing inherent in the draft General Plan alters access
to or protection of mineral resources in contrast to the existing Grass Valley General Plan.
Comment 13B: Historic mining operations have resulted in areas of unstable geology. The DEIR
should specifically identify abandoned mines and mitigation measures to prevent hazardous situations in the future.
The Division's Abandoned Mine Lands Program may be able to assist in documenting potential abandoned mine hazards.
Response: The draft General Plan addresses the abandoned mine problem systematically and in
considerable detail (Safety Element). Coordination with the Division's Abandoned Mine Lands Program personnel during
the planning process was helpful to the City in devising an appropriate program for addressing the problem. The
Division's assistance in specifically identifying hazards will be most welcomed by the City. In fact, the City
learned in its coordination efforts with the Division that State technical assistance is imperative in this effort,
and that any project to so identify hazards without the technical expertise and assistance of the Division would
likely result in an incomplete and, in all likelihood, erroneous inventory.
LETTER 14 S R Jones, Executive Officer, Nevada LAFCo
Comment 14A: The DEIR notes that development may strain urban water supply, treatment, and
conveyance systems managed by the City or NID. The DEIR notes that because of several General Plan policies, the
impacts may be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, if water supplies were insufficient to accommodate
a particular development, the only responsible option would be to deny the development.
Response: Comment noted as true. Were water supplies to be determined to be insufficient to
serve a particular development and no alternative source was obtainable, the development would have to be denied.
Water services, including supply, treatment, and distribution, are discussed on pages 3-42 through 3-44 of the
DEIR. Implementation of the draft General Plan, including goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions/strategies
are deemed to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant for water supply and water treatment.
For water distribution, however, potentially significant impacts will continue to exist until the single critical
water distribution issue is resolved: which portions of the Planning Area will be served by the City and which
will be served by NID. Once that issue is resolved, the impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.
LETTER 15 Dan Landon, Executive Director, Nevada County Transportation Commission
Comment 15A: Figure 3.9-1 in the DEIR shows Brunswick Road from Loma Rica Drive to Nevada City
Highway as 4 lanes. However, that stretch is currently either 3 or 4 lanes, providing a higher capacity than analyzed
and perhaps not necessitating 4-laning south and east of Sutton Way by the Year 2020.
Response: Comment noted. Please refer to response to comment 9C regarding the LOS thresholds
and three lane roads.
Comment 15B: Some differences between the Circulation Plan and NCTC analysis exist. Specific
differences: Circulation Plan forecasts need for four lanes on Idaho Maryland Road east of the freeway, the NCTC
analysis does not; NCTC analysis forecasts need for four lanes on East Bennett and on McCourtney, the Circulation
Plan does not. Differences may be attributed to different land use assumptions for Loma Rica and North Star. These
differences can be worked out between the City and NCTC.
Response: Comment noted. Please refer to circulation implementation action/strategy 14-CI directing
the City to coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions and with NCTC to provide acceptable and compatible levels
of service standards.
Comment 15C: Functional classification in DEIR Figure 3.9-1 for arterials and collectors does
not completely correspond with the Regional Transportation Plan. NCTC and City will work together to straighten
out differences, an effort which coincides with the Federal Highway Administration's request (through CALTRANS)
that NCTC update its functional classification system.
Response: Comment noted. Please refer to circulation implementation action/strategy 14-CI directing
the City to coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions and with NCTC to provide acceptable and compatible levels
of service standards.
Comment 15D: Table 3.9-3 shows two segments on Brunswick Road which are apparently the same
stretch of road: south of Idaho Maryland Road and northwest of Loma Rica Ranch.
Response: The two segments are 1) between Whispering Pines and Idaho Maryland Road and 2) between
Loma Rica Road and Whispering Pines, respectively.
Comment 15E: On page 3-71 of the DEIR it is stated that an interchange at Highway 49/Crestview-Smith
may be needed. However, land use in the vicinity will determine whether a grade-separated interchange or at-grade
intersection will be needed.
Response: The first bullet point on page 3-71 of the DEIR should be changed to read as follows:
"Construction of a new interchange on Highway 20/49 at Dorsey Drive and, as warranted by future demand, either
an at-grade intersection of grade-separated interchange in the area of Crestview Drive-Smith Road in southern Grass
Valley.
Comment 15F: Reconstruction and improvements at the McKnight Way Interchange should not be
contingent upon construction of the Crestview-Smith Road interchange, as stated in bullet point 4, page 3-71 of
the DEIR.
Response: Comment noted. Bullet point 4 on page 3-71 of the DEIR should be changed to read,
"Reconstruction of the McKnight Way interchange on Highway 49 to create modern roundabout intersections".
Comment 15G: Alternatives to the automobile are not likely to significantly reduce the demand
for automobile facilities within the 20-year planning period.
Response: Although the draft General Plan assumes the automobile to be the primary transportation
conveyance throughout the planning period, it provides for facilities and programs to encourage and accommodate
numerous alternative modes. An extensive trail and sidewalk network is planned to offer both transportation and
recreational opportunity for bicycles, pedestrians, and equestrians. Emphasis on public transportation (which may
well take many forms and employ a variety of types of conveyances) is clearly stated in the General Plan. A tight,
non-sprawling future land use pattern is intended to facilitate reliance on alternative modes for some of the trip
types currently automobile-dependent. Demographics indicate increased need for public transportation, for Grass
Valley has a large and growing senior population likely to welcome an alternative to driving. Although it is not
anticipated that alternative modes will render the automobile obsolete, or alter the need for automobile facilities
during the 20-year planning period, it is the City's intent, manifested in the draft General Plan, to make it possible
for people to have choices in internal transportation not fully available today.
Comment 15H: The NCTC has long been working to implement a regional capital improvement program
and fee schedule. Grass Valley should champion such a program upon completion of the General Plan process.
Response: Comment noted. To this end, attention is called to the following General Plan Implementation
Actions and Strategies, found in Appendix C of the DEIR:
- 14-CI Coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions to provide acceptable and compatible levels of service on roadways
connecting the City. Work with the Nevada County Transportation Commission to implement applicable level of service
standards.....
- 15-CI Ensure adequate funding to meet established level of service policies. Continue to implement and update
traffic impact fees on new development and to obtain gas tax and other revenues to fund the Capital Improvement
Program..... Work with regional planning agencies to explore funding opportunities for all components of its transportation
system that are required to meet its level of service standard.
- 16-CI .......... Maintain a current record of CALTRANS and NCTC activity for major facilities so future right
of way needs can be addressed when reviewing development proposals.
Comment 15I: Table 3.9-5B on page 3-78 of the DEIR shows Dorsey Drive (west of Sutton Way)
as a 2 lane facility in 2020, resulting in an LOS "D" based on traffic projections. The Regional Transportation
Plan provides for this segment to be 4-laned in conjunction with the Dorsey Drive interchange.
Response: The Circulation Element (draft General Plan, following page 4-6) provides for 4-laning
Dorsey Drive west of Highway 20/49 and the interchange to the Nevada City Highway and continuing on Sierra College
Drive to the College entrance. However, the Circulation Plan depicts as 2 lanes through Year 2020 the portion of
Dorsey Drive east of Highway 20/49 to Sutton Way, and beyond.
LETTER 16 James P. Chatigny, General Manager, Nevada Irrigation District
Comment 16A: City has not responded to NID letter of September 4 regarding potential non-compliance
with Master Service Agreement between the City and NID.
Response: The General Plan and EIR are not intended to alter or affect in any way the contents
of the Master Service Agreement between the City and NID.
Comment 16B: Regarding Hydrology Impacts in the DEIR 3.2.2, in certain weather conditions excess
runoff enters the DS Canal which discharges into Wolf Creek. This phenomenon has been occurring for decades.
Response: Comment noted. This phenomenon would seem to re-inforce the need full implementation
of the City's Capital Improvement Program and Drainage System Master Plan, as mitigation measures (see discussion
on pages 3-10 and 3-11 of the DEIR).
Comment 16C: Regarding 3.2-4 On-Site Disposal. On lots contiguous to a water course, NID uses
a standard setback of 200' (uphill) from [septic systems] to the water course.
Response: The DEIR (page 3-12) addresses on-site wastewater disposal systems, noting that such
systems are regulated by the Nevada County Department of Environmental Health. It is assumed that NCDEH enforces
the NID standard for setbacks, or other standard as promulgated by NCDEH.
Comment 16D: Regarding 3.5-1, the effects of growth and development under the General Plan
may strain water supplies. The discussion erroneouly depicts the ability of the City to expand water service to
any area in the City and areas to be annexed.
Response: Please refer to the response to comment 16A. The discussion of new growth and development
as placing a potential strain on local water supplies does not imply the unilateral extension of service by the
City, to the exclusion of NID's territorial prerogatives or in violation of the Master Service Agreement between
the City and NID.
Comment 16E: On page 3-43, the DEIR has a misprint concerning the amount of water available
to the District. The correct amount is 250,000 acre feet, not 330,000 acre feet.
Response: Comment noted. The sentence should be changed to read:
"Of the 250,000 acre feet of water the District has available, approximately 170,000 acre feet provides
for total demand (urban and non-urban)".
Comment 16F: Regarding 3.5-3, there is a serious violoation of the existing Master Service
Agreement concerning water service to the North Star area. NID was not conferred with regarding service of treated
water, and no Board approval has been requested from NID. Figure 3.5-1 clearly identifies the designated service
areas agreed to by the governing boards of the City and NID.
Response: Please refer to response to comment 16A. If the DEIR misstates the current water
supply arrangement for North Star, the error is acknowledged. However, based upon 1998 discussions with NID and
City personnel, the following service description appears in the DEIR (page 3-44): " The annexation agreement
between North Star owners and the City providees for owners to pay for necessary extensions from the City's 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". The City is currently updating its Master
Services Element and Sphere of Influence, an effort likely to contribute to solutions to future water service uncertainties.
Apparently the DEIR is correct, however, is stating (page 3-44): 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, this impact [growth straining
local water distribution systems] remains potentially significant.
LETTER 17 Jeff Wagner, Fire Chief, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District
Comment 17A: It is imperative that the City address the effect of annexations on special districts'
tax revenue base.
Response: Comment noted. The General Plan Update and DEIR do address interjurisdictional coordination
and cooperation, though perhaps not at the level of specificity desired by the commentor. Pertinent General Plan
provisions include:
- Land Use Goal 9: Coordinate peripheral development with the County General Plan and appropriate entities currently
providing services in the Planning Area.
- Land Use Goal 8: Create a sound fiscal environment ......
- Land Use Objective 22: A healthy City government and special districts.
- Land Use Policy 37: Assure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of municipal services.
- Land Use Policy 39: Assure that acceptable inter-agency agreements regrarding future service and facility provision
are in place prior to approval of any major new development.
- Land Use Policy 40: Refer all development proposals to potentially affected governmental entities for review
and comment.
- Land Use Implementation Action/Strategy 8: Coordinate with LAFCo, Nevada County, and other agencies and special
districts regarding provisions of this General Plan, application of General Plan provisions in unincorporated portions
of the Planning Area, and the timing and directions of future growth.
In addition to the above measures/mitigations in the General Plan and DEIR, the City is currently revising its
Sphere of Influence/Master Services Element, which addresses future development, City expansion, and service delivery
in more detail than is found in the General Plan Update.
LETTER 18 Tim Fike, Chief, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District
Comment 18A: The General Plan does not address the effects on the NCCFD of City annexations,
in terms of remaining levels of service, facilities, and financial and community impacts. The District would like
to explore cooperative methods for addressing mutual needs and concerns.
Response: Please refer to the response to comment 17A.
Corrections and Reprinted Materials Identified in Chapter 4.0
Corrected Version -- See Responses to Comments 2D and 2E
TABLE 2-1
LAND USE AND HOUSING UNIT ALLOCATIONS
PER ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS
| Acreage |
Loma Rica Ranch |
North Star |
Kenny Ranch |
| Residential Acreage |
121
|
312
|
150
|
| Commercial Acreage |
|
20
|
22
|
| Planned Employment Center Acreage |
115
|
123
|
88
|
| Mfg./Processing/Distribution Acreage |
|
117
|
|
| Recreation Acreage |
50
|
|
|
| Schools Acreage |
|
13
|
|
| Open Space Opportunity Acreage |
165
|
175
|
96
|
| Total Acreage |
451
|
760
|
356
|
Housing Unit Allocation
(# of units) |
180
|
363
|
100
|
|
