3.0 C OMMENTS AND RESPONSES · 3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES City of Elk Grove General Plan City of Elk Grove Final Environmental Impact Report October 2003 3.0-44 Letter F: Peter Christensen,

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

City of Elk Grove General Plan City of Elk Grove Final Environmental Impact Report October 2003

3.0-42


City of Elk Grove City of Elk Grove General Plan October 2003 Final Environmental Impact Report

3.0-43



3.0-44

Letter F: Peter Christensen, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Response F-1

The commenter described the importance of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to determine the ability for the Sacramento region to achieve federal ozone standards. This comment is only informative in nature, and does not address the adequacy of the DEIR. Additionally, the DEIR identifies that the proposed General Plan would be consistent with assumptions associated with the 1994 Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan and improved growth conditions associated with and improved jobs/housing ratio as compared to the previous General Plan (DEIR, page 4.7-20). No further discussion is necessary.

Response F-2

The commenter is concerned about the areas depicted on Figure 3.0-7, outside the City boundaries, which are designated for potential future development. The following policy and action item have been added to the General Plan since release of the Draft EIR.

CAQ-32 As part of the environmental review of projects, the City shall identify the air quality impacts of development proposals to avoid significant adverse im-pacts and require appropriate mitigation measures, potentially including-in the case of projects which may conflict with applicable air quality plans-emission reductions in addition to those required by Policy CAQ-30.

CAQ-32-Action 1 Coordinate with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District on the review of proposed development projects, specifically including projects that could conflict with any applicable air quality plans and/or the State Implementation Plan.

Response F-3

The commenter states that Figure 4.5-8 was obtained from a former SMAQMD brochure and suggested using a different source for the map.

The map was obtained from: http://www.onlinecycling.com/ridemaps/map3.htm, which provides current maps for bike trail facilities in Sacramento County. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR; therefore, no additional response is necessary.

Response F-4

The commenter requested a change to Mitigation Measure MM 4.7.1 (see Section 2.0 Executive Summary, Table 2.0-1, page 2.0-13).

The change to MM 4.7.1 will be implemented as follows:

MM 4.7.1 The City shall require that private and public development projects utilize low emission vehicles and equipment as part of project construction and operation, unless determined to be infeasible.



3.0-45

Response F-5

The commenter requested a change to General Plan action item CAQ-24-Action 1. The former policy CAQ-24 has been changed to CAQ-31. The language in action item 1 has been changed to read as follows:

CAQ-31-Action 1 The City shall ensure that all City vehicles conform with applicable emission standards and the time of purchase and continuing throughout their use by the City. The City shall consider pollutant emissions as one criterion for vehicle purchasing decisions, seeking to purchase lower-emitting vehicles.

Response F-6

The commenter recommends the addition of CAQ-24-Action 4 under General Plan policy CAQ-24. The former policy CAQ-24 has been changed to CAQ-31. The recommended addition has been made and the action item reads as follows:

CAQ-31-Action 4 The City shall consider the adoption of an ordinance to discourage excessive idling of diesel-powered and other heavy vehicles to reduce air pollutant emissions.

Response F-7

The commenter states that the air districts in the Sacramento region are encouraging the adoption of model ordinance language that can immediately have a significant effect on reducing emissions. This comment has been noted, however, does not address the adequacy of the DEIR. Therefore, no further discussion is necessary.



3.0-46



3.0-47



3.0-48



3.0-49

Letter G: Marnie Rosenstein, Elk Grove Unified School District

Response G-1

The commenter requested a change on page 4.12-18, paragraph 1. The change will be implemented as follows:

“The EGUSD boundaries encompass the entire City of Elk Grove, portions of the City of Sacramento, portions of the City of Rancho Cordova, and most of southern Sacramento County.”

Response G-2


“Due to constant increases in population, the Elk Grove Unified School District must change its school attendance area boundaries on a regular basis.”

Response G-3


“For the 2002 - 2003 2003-2004 school year, the District will serve more than 52,500 55,000 students and expects to reach 80,000 students by 2010.”

Response G-4


“More than sixty fifty percent of the District's students are on a four-track year-round schedule and attend school for three months and are off for a month.”

Response G-5


“Students who are off-loaded are placed on a waiting list to return to their home school based on the date and time of when the student was registered.”

Response G-6


“The EGUSCD adopted an amended Facilities Master Plan in February 2002, which identified major issues and detailed information on the District’s future school needs, funding options, and cost estimates.”



3.0-50

Response G-7


“The 2002 Master Plan Amendment updated and amended the 1995-2010 Master Plan.”

Response G-8

The commenter requested changes on page 4.12-19, paragraph 4. The changes will be implemented as follows:

“The following is the funding formula for new school facilities that is planned to be used has been adopted by the EGUSD for use from 2002 through 2010. It and is based on a mixture of state school bonds, developer fees and local Mello-Roos bonds.”

Response G-9

The commenter requested a change on page 4.12-19, 2nd bullet item. The change will be implemented as follows:

“Developer fees established by state law as well as additional developer fees negotiated by the District via county and city ordinances.”

Response G-10


“Additionally, the EGUSD Master Plan proposes discusses alternative funding mechanisms if state funds are unavailable to cover construction and modernization costs within the District. The proposed mechanisms include increased developer fees and local taxes fees, a local general obligation bond, creation of a Benefit Assessment District, institute asset management, sale of surplus property and the raising of funds through Certificates of Participation.”

Response G-11

The commenter requested another change on page 4.12-19, paragraph 5. The change will be implemented as follows:

“The local CFD bonds have helped build twenty-twoeight new schools operating today and an additional seven are under construction or currently funded. In addition, the bonds have also enabled major improvements at twenty-two of the existing school facilities.”

Response G-12

The commenter requested another change on page 4.12-19, paragraph 6. The change will be implemented as follows:



3.0-51

“The EGUSD Master Plan describes existing facilities in relation to future K-12 student enrollment. based on the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) population projections.”

Response G-13

The commenter requested a change on page 4.12-20, Table 4.12.3-1, to the source in the notes section. The change will be implemented as follows:

“Source: EGUCD School Facilities Needs Analysis, February, 2003 Master Plan, 2002-2010”

Response G-14

The commenter requested changes to page 4.12-20, regarding Table 4.12.3-2. The changes will be implemented as follow s:

“Table 4.12.3-2 describes the maximum number of students that may be accommodated within each type of school under both multi-track year-round and traditional nine-month enrollment periods. The EGUSD uses year-round programs in some elementary and middle schools in order to increase efficiency. Year-round schools provide for a twenty percent increase in student enrollment.

TABLE 4.12.3-2 MAXIMUM SCHOOL CAPACITIES

School Type Traditional 9-month Multi -track/Year-round

Elementary (K-6) 1,000 1,060

Middle (7-8) 1,200 1,440

High (9-12) 2,200 N/A

Source: EGUCD School Facilities Master Plan, 2002-2010

The EGUSD Board of Education enrollment goals for elementary schools is 850 students on campus at any one time. Most elementary schools will operate on a year-round calendar to achieve this goal. The Board’s goal for middle schools is 1,200 students and for high schools is 2,200 students.”

Response G-15

The commenter requested changes to page 4.12-20, paragraph 3. The changes will be implemented as follow s:

“The following facility need projections are based on the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) population estimates for Sacramento County and the City of Elk Grove and on current Census 2000 data:

• 24 20 new elementary schools • 4 5 new middle schools • 5 new high schools • 2 alternative schools



3.0-52

Source: EGUSD School Facilities Master Plan, 2002-2010.” Response G-16 The commenter requested changes to pages 4.12-20 and 4.12-21. The changes will be implemented as follows:

“The above needs are estimated for the entire EGUSD Master Plan time frame, which is between 2002 and 2010. The Master Plan has also outlined a fifteen-year plan to meet the District’s more immediate need through 2005 and include, but are not limited to, the following recommendations:

• 15 new elementary schools

• Where educationally justifiable, increase all elementary schools to ultimate capacity, including year-round schedules.

• 5 to 6 new 6th, 7th, 8th middle/high school complexes.

• One alternative school in the East Franklin development area.

• Complete all improvement projects at 30 of the existing school sites.

• Expand Support Services for Food Services, Grounds, Maintenance and Warehouse facilities.

Should development in the EGUSD occur at maximum projected levels and the year-round schedule is not feasible for all elementary schools in the District, the Master Plan recommends that four additional elementary schools be added in the East Franklin Specific Plan area and one in the Kiefer/Sunrise vicinity between 2005 and 2010.

New Facilities Needs and Costs

Table 4.12.3-3, provides a fifteen-year cost estimate for projected needs of the EGUSD.

TABLE 4.12.3-3 FIFTEEN-YEAR NEED COST ESTIMATE

2005 Need Cost Estimate (In Millions)

15 New Elementary Schools $167

3 New Middle Schools $61

3 New High Schools $133

Modernization $47.9

Additions $12.4

Portable Replacement $20



3.0-53


Adaptations $16

Subtotal $457.3


5 New Elementary Schools $56

Subtotal $56

Support Facilities Need Cost Estimate (In Millions)

Support Services $4.3

Subtotal $4.3

Grand Total $517.6

Source: EGUCD School Facilities Master Plan, 2002-2010”

Response G-17 The commenter suggests adding the following passage on page 4.12-21 that was attached to the comment letter, and deleting the existing text. The comment will be implemented as follows:

“Additional support facilities will also be required to accommodate the projected growth expected within the EGUSD. The estimated costs associated with the proposed support facility improvements totals approximately $4,253,000. According to the EGUSD’s Facilities Master Plan the Education Center will need 10,000 to 20,000 additional square feet of office area to accommodate new training centers for teachers, and the Food Services Department will need a small 500 square foot conference/administration room. New shops, equipment storage areas, and additional warehouse space will be needed at Maintenance and Grounds to keep pace with continued growth. The warehouse will need 20,000 square feet of expansion space to store increased supplies and equipment. The Grounds Department will require a 35,000 square foot building for the new shops, storage and administration and an additional 75,000 square foot of paved surface area for equipment parking, staging and storing. The Transportation Center will also require modifications and the purchasing of additional busses to adequately serve the expected growth projections. The modifications will require up to 12,000 additional square feet and forty more parking spaces to support new staff. Child-care will continue to be provided by private vendors; however, space and utility hookups shall be planned and provided at each elementary school site.

Allow for additions to the Education Center, which will need 20,000 to 60,000 square feet of office area to accommodate growth and new training centers for teachers. As an alternative, some district office functions may be housed at existing schools.



3.0-54

Allow for new shops and equipment storage at Maintenance and Operations to accommodate future growth. As an alternative, some functions will be housed at the old transportation center.

Allow for a Warehouse addition to compensate for growth.

Allow for food service expansion.

Allow the transportation Department to modify the facility for compressed natural gas. New buses also need to be purchased to accommodate growth.”

Response G-18

The commenter requested changes to page 4.12.22, under the description of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act. The changes will be implemented as follows:

“In the case of new residential construction, three one dollars and fortyninety-three cents ($3.43)($1.93 per square foot of assessable space ... ”

“In the case of any commercial or industrial construction, thirty-threeone cents ($0.34)($0.31) per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space ... “ (Gov. Code Section 65995, subd. (b)).”

“These amounts will be adjusted for inflation in the year 2000, and every two years thereafter (Id., subd. (b)(3)). As clarification, Level 1 fees will be adjusted every two years, and Level 2 fees annually. ”

Response G-19 The commenter requested a change on page 4.12-28, paragraph 1. The change will be implemented as follows:

“The EGUSD would need to add 24 20 new elementary, 4 5 new middle, 5 new high, and two alternative schools and supporting facilities to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected growth associated with the proposed General Plan.”

Response G-20

The commenter indicated that the EGUSD’s Master Plan and Amendments apply to the entire 320 miles of the district and not just the 39 miles that comprise the City of Elk Grove. Additionally, the commenter indicated that using the District’s Master Plan and Amendments is not appropriate for the City’s General Plan, which is planned through year 2023. Comment is noted. The changes to the text on page 4.12-18, paragraph 1 will be implemented as follows:

“As the District opens new schools, school boundaries will also change. It is important to note that the EGUSD serves an area of 320 square miles; therefore, the Facilities Master Plan reflects the needs for the entire District not just the needs of the City of Elk Grove.”

The changes to the text on page 4.12-26, Impact 4.12.3.1, will be implemented as follows:



3.0-55

“The Amendment indicated that the District would need to add twenty-one new elementary schools, ten new secondary schools, two new alternative schools, and improve some existing schools to accommodate the estimated 80,000 students the District will have by 2010. It is important to note, the EGUSD Amendment reflects the District’s need through 2010 and not the General Plan’s planning period, which runs through 2023. Additionally, Impact 4.12.3.1 identifies the projected needs of the District, as well as the needs for the City of Elk Grove under buildout conditions. The EGUSD updates its School Facilities Master Plan every ten years to reflect the needs of the entire District, not just the portions located within the city limits of Elk Grove.”

Response G-21 The commenter noted that the Land Use Policy Map does not show the school site locations for Roy Herburger Elementary and the Machado Dairy Elementary. Additionally, the Land Use Policy Map incorrectly depicts the East Franklin continuation school site and the Quail Ridge Elementary site. The General Plan Land Use Policy Map depicts the general location of land uses within the East Franklin Policy Area. The implementing land use planning document is the East Franklin Specific Plan which has been amended to correctly indicate these sites as well as to reflect other policy language of the General Plan.



3.0-56



3.0-57



3.0-58



3.0-59

Letter H: Erik Vink, Department of Conservation

Response H-1

The commenter provides a general description of the project as it pertains to agricultural lands and states their concerns regarding: 1) the Draft EIR determination that no feasible mitigation is available for the loss of agricultural land, and 2) inconsistency between Policy PRO-5 and the determination that there is no feasible mitigation for farmland impacts. The commenter indicates that use of agricultural conservation easements to mitigate the loss of farmland is well established and references Sacramento and Yolo Counties, the Cities of Sacramento and Woodland, and the East Franklin Specific Plan programs as examples. The commenter recommends that the FEIR reconsider mitigation for the General Plan’s impacts on agricultural land.

Draft EIR pages 4.1-17 through 4.1-18 provide a detailed analysis of why the program established by East Franklin Specific Plan is not mitigation as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15370. This same analysis would apply to similar preservation programs established by Sacramento and Yolo Counties as well as the Cities of Sacramento and Woodland. The analysis and conclusion of the Draft EIR that no feasible mitigation measures are available for the loss of agricultural resources is supported by the recent case law (Friends of the Kangaroo Rat v. the California Department of Corrections). The Draft EIR does identify General Plan Policy PRO-5, which supports the establishment of open space areas to address needs that include maintaining agricultural uses, wildlife habitat, recreational open space, aesthetic benefits, and flood control, and PRO-5 Actions 1 through 3, which would implement Policy PRO-5. However, while these actions include consideration of a program to fund open space, working with other agencies to develop a regional open space plan, and consideration of funds available to fund the open space program, these actions are not considered mitigation under CEQA for the loss of agricultural lands as they would not replace lands developed under implementation of the General Plan and, thus, are not counter to the conclusion in the Draft EIR that there is no feasible mitigation for the loss of agricultural land. As discussed in the Draft EIR, preservation of existing farmland would not replace or avoid the loss of farmland that would occur with the development considered under General Plan. The commenter provides no substantial evidence to counter the conclusion of the Draft EIR.



3.0-60



3.0-61



3.0-62



3.0-63

Letter I: Ken Trott, California Department of Food and Agriculture

Response I-1

The commenter provides a summary of information provided in the Draft EIR regarding the amount of Important Farmland in Elk Grove and recommends that additional information be provided regarding the historic loss of Important Farmland and increase in acreage of Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. The commenter indicates their disagreement with the conclusion that there are no feasible mitigation measures for the impacts on agricultural land and recommends that the Farmland Preservation and Increased Density of Development alternatives be considered as the preferred alternative in the Final EIR and that an overall development density of eight units per acre be considered as the minimum standard. The commenter further recommends that mitigation occur through development of an agricultural land mitigation program to protect existing farmland within the City or in the region associated with land and/or easement purchases and also recommends that a larger agricultural land protection strategy in cooperation with other governments in the region be incorporated into the measure. The commenter also references jurisdictions that currently have agricultural land protection programs.

Regarding the historic changes to the amounts of Unique Farmlands and Farmlands of Local Importance, the commenter is referred to Draft EIR page 4.1-9 which explains that the increase results from a redistribution of lands within the agricultural categories from 1994 to 1998 and also from the conversion of fallow land to irrigated cropland but also clarifies that the total amount of important agricultural land within the County did decrease by approximately two percent from 1992 to 2000. Additional reasons for the change in amounts of Unique Farmlands and Farmlands of Local Importance include conversion due to land left idle for three or more update cycles, and new vineyards and corn production in the southeastern portion of the County. However, the historic categorizations of farmland within Sacramento County and past conversion of agricultural land does not change the analysis provided in the Draft EIR regarding the impacts of the General Plan on agricultural resources.

Regarding the feasibility of mitigation for impacts on agricultural land, the commenter is referred to Response H-1. The commenter provides no substantial evidence to counter the conclusion of the Draft EIR.



3.0-64



3.0-65



3.0-66



3.0-67



3.0-68



3.0-69



3.0-70



3.0-71

Letter J: “Butch” Hodgkins, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

Response J-1

The commenter describes information contained in the Draft EIR and expresses two main concerns with the Draft EIR. Their first concern is that the City should include an assessment of the floodplains surrounding the City and work with SAFCA and other interested parties regarding the watersheds and run-off patterns in order to evaluate of the potential for urban development outside the City boundaries. This comment is acknowledged and the commenter is referred to Response J-2 regarding development in the Planning Area and to General Plan SA-19 Actions 1 and 3 which include coordination with SAFCA and other federal, state, and local agencies in planning for a flood control project associated with the American and Sacramento Rivers and in planning for flood control improvements to eliminate flooding in Elk Grove. The commenter’s second concern is that the City should reconsider the EIR’s conclusion that there are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate for the loss of agricultural land. This comment is addressed in Response J-3 below.

Response J-2

The commenter indicates that the Draft EIR recognizes that much of the land within the Planning Area is subject to flooding from the Cosumnes, Sacramento, and Mokelumne Rivers as well as a series of local creeks and streams. The commenter further states concern with Draft EIR Figure 4.8-2, stating that it is out of date and is of questionable reliability. The commenter states that additional analysis would be needed if any of the Planning Area were to develop and identifies shortcomings of hydrologic data for the Cosumnes and Sacramento Rivers. The commenter indicates that the analysis in the Draft EIR should acknowledge uncertainties about the data associated with Figure 4.8-2, and that the City should identify actions to take that address these uncertainties before designating the affected floodplains as potential development areas.

Figure 4.8-2 provides the most recent floodplain mapping available for the City and the Planning Area. In terms of the reliability of Figure 4.8-2, the commenter is referred to page 4.8-2, where the City acknowledges that the map did not show the 1997 flood event for the Cosumnes River. However, the City understands that the 1997 flood event along the Cosumnes River was not a 100-year flood event. The map only shows the 100-year and 500-year floodplain delineations. Nevertheless, the City does understand that the 1997 flood caused a shift in the 100-year floodplain around the Cosumnes River. The City has not been able to obtain more current floodplain information. As described below, there is no development currently proposed for this area. The floodplain would be more accurately delineated as part of any planning for the Urban Study Areas.

The commenter is referred to the discussion regarding the Land Use Policy Map for the Planning Area provided on page 3.0-12 of the Draft EIR and Figure 3.0-7, Elk Grove General Plan Land Use Concept Map. The City of Elk Grove currently does not have an active sphere of influence application in with Sacramento County LAFCO for the entire Planning Area identified in the City of Elk Grove General Plan (as suggested by the commenter). As described in the proposed General Plan and the Draft EIR pages 4.0-2 through –11, the proposed General Plan plans and regulates development within the existing City limits. The City’s vision of the Planning Area (land area outside of the current City limits) is specifically noted in the Elk Grove General Plan Land Use Concept Map (Draft EIR Figure 3.0-7). As shown in Draft EIR Figure 3.0-7, the City’s vision for a majority of the Planning Area is to retain the existing land use conditions (with the exception of the Urban Study Areas), which is reflective in the impact analyses of the Draft EIR. The proposed General Plan does not specifically identify that the Urban Study Areas are to be incorporated



3.0-72

into the City and urbanized and are thus not designated with any specific urban land uses. The General Plan simply identifies these areas as land areas that should be carefully studied prior to consideration of development. However, for purposes of the cumulative impact environmental analysis, the Draft EIR assumes that these areas could be annexed and urbanize after buildout of the City. The Draft EIR does evaluate the potential flooding impacts associated with the potential development of the Urban Study Areas under Impact 4.8.7, Cumulative Flood Hazards. However, the City is not proposing any development within the Planning Area that would result in direct impacts on the hydrology of the Planning Area. Thus, it is not necessary for the Draft EIR to provide an extensive analysis of flooding potential in areas where no impacts are expected to occur. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) specifically notes that the description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the project.

General Plan Policy LU-15 and LU-15-Action 1 state the following:

LU-15 The areas designated in the Planning Area as “Urban Study Areas” are envisioned as areas in which urbanization to some extent could occur, generally in compliance with the following criteria:

• Development should be limited to areas outside of the 100-year floodplain.

• Development should take place in compliance with the goals and policies of this General Plan.

• Any study of potential land uses in these areas should be accomplished in cooperation with the County of Sacramento.

• Any study of land uses in these areas should be accompanied by an environmental evaluation of potential impacts of development.

• Prior to the completion of land use studies, the City’s policy is that County of Sacramento land use designations in effect as of December 21, 2002, are retained.

LU-15-Action 1 Work with the County of Sacramento to establish and implement a program to study the potential for these areas to support urban development.

Since the lands in the Planning Area are outside City boundaries, they are not under the jurisdiction of the City. The above policy and action item creates a working relationship between the City and Sacramento County, and requires additional environmental analysis before any development could occur. The policy also states that the land use designations provided by the County are intended to remain in those areas. The City acknowledges SAFCA’s request to add an additional action item on to Policy SA-19. However, since this comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further discussion is necessary. This comment is referred to City Council for further consideration.

Response J-3

The commenter indicates that agricultural lands outside the current City limits occupy significant portions of the floodplains and that agriculture is a productive use of floodplain land and that preservation of this use is an important element of floodplain management. The commenter



3.0-73

further states that several mitigation programs exist in the Sacramento Valley and that CEQA requires consideration of mitigation measures that would lessen the severity of the impact related to loss of agricultural land. The commenter indicates that agricultural preservation and maintenance measures are feasible and suggests several changes to General Plan policies.

The commenter is referred to Response J-2 regarding evaluation of impacts of development within the Planning Area. As discussed under Response J-2, there is no development currently proposed for the Planning Area. Impacts related to flooding and to the loss of agricultural land would be considered as part of the CEQA process prior to any annexation of this land by the City or any development of this land by the City or County. The commenter is referred to Response H-1 regarding the feasibility of mitigating for the loss of agricultural land. It is noted that the General Plan does include policies and actions that support the preservation of agricultural land, but that this preservation is not considered mitigation under CEQA and thus does not reduce the severity of impacts to agricultural lands described in the Draft EIR.

Response J-4

The commenter suggests changes to General Plan policies CAQ-3, PRO-5, PRO-5-Action 1, and PRO-5-Action 2. Since these suggestions deal with the General Plan and do not affect the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further discussion is necessary. However, these suggestions are referred to City Council for further consideration.

Documents

3.0 C OMMENTS AND RESPONSES · 3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES City of Elk Grove General Plan City of Elk Grove Final Environmental Impact Report October 2003 3.0-44 Letter F: Peter Christensen,