3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Transcription

1 General Plan

2 October General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report

3 General Plan

4 October General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report

5 General Plan

6 October General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report

7 General Plan

8 October General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report

9 General Plan

10 October General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report

11 Letter 40: Public Meeting comments on DEIR Response 40-1 The commenter stated concern about the lack of mitigation for the loss of oak trees between Calvine Road and Stockton Blvd. along Grant Line Road. The commenter is referred to Section 4.10 (Biological Resources) that evaluates impacts associated with tree loss and provides adequate mitigation for the loss of oak trees throughout the entire City through proposed General Plan policies and actions that provide performance standards for mitigating tree loss impacts. The use of performance standard mitigation is allowed under CEQA Guidelines (a) and is supported by case law (Sacramento Old City Association v. City of Sacramento [3d. Dist. 1991] 229 Cal App.3d 1011, 1028 [280 Cal. Rptr. 478]). The commenter also expresses concern about the locations of proposed grade separations for the railroads, as well as the proposed 200-mile an hour bullet train that could pass through the City. The California High Speed Rail Commission has been working on a proposal for a highspeed rail line to run between northern and southern California, with a few different routes. One of the proposals is to use existing rail corridors. However, this is not an approved project and the proposed General Plan does not propose or promote the potential for high-speed rail through the City. The Commission, rather than the, would deal with the environmental effects of that project. The Draft EIR does identify Mitigation Measure MM that requires the City to improve existing railroad at-grade crossings to improve public safety. However, this measure is not intended to provide for or promote high-speed rail. Response 40-2 The commenter states that the DEIR is inadequate because it fails to consider all of the alternatives for mitigating environmental effects of noise, hydrology and water quality, and public services and utilities. The commenter did not provide specifics or eviden ce regarding the inadequacies of these topics to counter the conclusions of the Draft EIR. The City considers the Draft EIR adequate for the consideration of environmental effects associated with the General Plan and in compliance with CEQA. The City will be required to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR associated with the implementation of the General Plan. The commenter is also referred to Master Response Response 40-3 The commenter has submitted written comments addressing these specific concerns. The commenter is referred to responses to Comment Letter 7. Response 40-4 The commenter has expressed support for the Traffic Calming Plan that was discussed in Comment Letter 2. The commenter is referred to Master Response and responses to Comment Letter 2. The commenter also discusses concern with the roadway widening in the Sheldon area having an impact on agricultural and cultural resources. The commenter is referred to Sections 4.1 (Agriculture) and 4.11 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) for further impact discussions pertaining to these topics. Additionally, the commenter may refer to Master Response General Plan

12 Response 40-5 The commenter submitted written comments addressing these specific concerns. See responses to Comment Letter 14. The commenter is also referred to Master Response The environmental effects of these roadway improvements are considered as part of the General Plan and are addressed in Draft EIR. Draft EIR Table notes anticipated impacts from specific roadway widenings. Response 40-6 The commenter discusses changes to Wilton Road and Grant Line Road, and believes they should remain the current width. The commenter also provided a handout, which is attached to the back of this section. Wilton Road has been planned to be widened to a 4-lane roadway for at least ten years, and the proposed General Plan includes maintaining the planned 4-lane width. The City agrees with the commenter that Wilton Road would operate at approximately LOS D under 2025 conditions at 2 lanes wide; this would be an acceptable level of service. However, the City has included Wilton Road as a planned 4-lane roadway because of its potential future importance. This roadway is the only crossing of the Cosumnes River between State Route 99 and State Route 16, a distance of more than 10 miles. While widening Wilton Road to 4 lanes may not be needed because of traffic operations for some period of time, the City believes planning for a 4-lane width, and retaining the right-of-way needed for a 4-lane width, is consistent with responsible long-range planning. The commenter is referred to Master Response for a description about the planned width of Grant Line Road. It should be noted that utilization of the entire capacity of roadway would result in a traffic level of service (LOS) of F. The provision of LOS D or better conditions does result in traffic conditions that do not utilize the full capacity of a roadway. Response 40-7 The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 40-6 and Master Response Response 40-8 The commenter submitted written comments addressing these specific concerns. commenter is referred to responses to Comment Letters 2 and 13 and Master Response The Response 40-9 The commenter stated concerns for the loss of farmland and the inadequacy of the mitigation. The commenter submitted written comments. The commenter is referred to responses to Comment Letter 31 and Master Response Response The commenter submitted written comments addressing these specific concerns. commenter is referred to responses to Comment Letter 10. The October General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report

13 Response The commenter raised concerns with the review time of the Draft EIR, but notes that the 45-day review period is allowed under CEQA. The commenter also raises concerns about the Urban Study Areas and that it would increase the urban services boundary, and states there is no discussion regarding the standards that would have to be met before that occurs. Additionally, the commenter is concerned about the missing mitigation for wetlands. The commenter is referred to Section 4.0 (Introduction of the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used) for a discussion of the Urban Study Areas, as well as to General Plan policy LU- 15. Draft EIR pages specifically identifies that development of the Urban Study Areas in addition to buildout of the City would significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts could delay air quality attainment efforts. It is acknowledged that failure of the region to reach attainment would result sanctions for the region, include the loss of federal highway funds. Potential wetland impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan is addressed on Draft EIR pages through 51, which specifically notes General Plan Policy CAQ-9 and CAQ-9-Action 1 that specifically requires no net loss of wetland areas. Response The commenter submitted written comments addressing these specific concerns. commenter is referred to responses to Comment Letter 22. The Response The commenter expressed concerns over the widening of Grant Line Road. The commenter is referred to Master Response Response The commenter expresses concern over the widening of Grant Line Road and asks that the City look at other alternatives for that area. The commenter is referred to Master Response Response The commenter supports the traffic calming plan submitted by the Sheldon Community Association. The commenter also expresses the concern over the loss of oak trees that would result from the roadway widening. Oak trees are native species of Elk Grove, which are considered sensitive habitats, which are covered under Impact Oak trees are not considered a special-status species, therefore, are not mitigated as such. The commenter is referred to the discussion on Draft EIR page on trees. Additionally, General Plan policy CAQ-8-Action 4 states that the City shall implement the City s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance and implementation of proposed General Plan policies and actions identified on Draft EIR pages through 51 provide appropriate performance standards to mitigate for the loss of oak trees in the City. The use of performance standard mitigation is allowed under CEQA Guidelines (a) and is supported by case law (Sacramento Old City Association v. City of Sacramento [3d. Dist. 1991] 229 Cal App.3d 1011, 1028 [280 Cal. Rptr. 478]). The commenter has also submitted written comments addressing these specific concerns. The commenter is referred to responses to Comment Letter 37 and Master Response General Plan