The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5 Falcon Point CEQA Agenda Item # s-' Public Utility District Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Petr Holzmeister Date: March 1, 2002 Subject: Public hearing on Falcon Point pump station CEQA We have scheduled a public hearing to receive comments on our plan to adopt a Negative Declaration for construction of the Falcon Point Pump Station. However, we are not yet ready to take final action on this matter. The thirty-day review period has not yet expired. So, at the end of the hearing we need to take no further action at this time. A. 1 I i SAuers Engineering, hte. l Civil, X Environmental Hngineersl i; Memoran4m January 31,2UQ2 I I I TO: Board ofDirectors, and Ed Taylor,District Water Superintendents FROM: Keith Knibb,,Consulting Engineer SUBJECT: FALCON POINT PLACE BOOSTER PUMP STATION -CEQA I � _ We have completed the proposed Negative Declaration��Irtd Environmental Initial Study for the Falcon Point Place Booster Pump Station. Tbesc docuut`euts need to be r:irculatcd to responsible and interested ageneiec and made.available for public review. The District also needs to schedule a public hearing to receive comments. Filing the documents with the county clerk and state clearinghouse will trig cr a thirty day review perintl. II RECOMMENDATION I recommend the Board take the tollowing actions regarding the environmental review for the Falcon Point Place Booster I lump Station: 1. Authorize the filing f the proposed Negative D41aration and Envirommental Initial Study with the Office of the Nevada County Cleat. 2. Authorize the circuh Lion of the proposed Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study with responsit le and interested agencies ad with the State Clearinghouse. I 3. Authorize publicatio i of a Notice of Public Review Period and Public Hearing on the proposedNcgativc E eclaration. i 4. Schedule a public he ing for the proposed Negat�vc Declaration at the regular Board Meeting uu Manh 612002. I � , I •1 i ' 1 i L t 440 Lower Grass Valley Roadj Suite A, Ncvada Chy.CA 95959 (530) 765-A071 Fax(530)265-6834 i it i S P. 02 ! ! NEGATIVE DECLA TION I I I (XX) Proposed ( ) Final NAME OF PROJECT: Falc6n Point Place Booster Pump Station LOCATION: True cc, California Entity or Person Undertaking Project: (,W Truc�ee Donner Public Utility District i Other( ) Name: I Add ss: I i, Phor}e: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involved the construction of a new booster pump station,approximately 500 feet of pipeline, and approximately b0 feet of electrical facilities. Finding: It is hereby fond that the above named pi'jcct will nut have a signiIIcaut effect upun aie environment. Initial An initial stucq of tris project was undertnken and prepared in accordance with Article V .Study: of the District' 'local environmental guidelines and Section 15063 of the EIR Guidelines for the California nvironmental Quality Act for the purpose ofascertaining whether this project might have a significant effect upon the 4nvironment. A copy of such initial study is attached heret and incorporated herein by eference. Such initial study documents reasnns to support the above finding. y# Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potentially Measures: significant eets: None ' I < , I E Date: 13y: a Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager II I i P. razz i Truckee Dounei Public Utility District ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY (Prepared pursuant to Article V 'of the Environmental Guidelines of the Istrlct) j�II I.. Project Tatle:k'alcon Yoic i Booster Pump Station ! 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: l Truckee Donner Public Tltility nisttiet P.U.Box 3ti9 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 3. Contact Person and Phn a Number: Peter L.Bel imeis ter, (General Manager (530)583-3;16 I i I 9_ Project Location: Parcel A,Unit 9,Tahoe nonner 9ubdivisio�,Truckee,Nevada County,CA Nevada Co ty Assessor's Parcel Number�5 670-06 See attachm.,' t titled"Falcon Point Doostc"Puntp Station,Location Map." 5_ Project Sponsor's Name i'nd Address: Truckee Dormer Public Utility District i Y.U.Boe 3 Truckee, C 96160-0309 6. General Plan Designatfin ±j Tahoe Donn PC 7. Zoning. R-1 i I l{ 9. Description of Project: 'escribe the whole action iovoldad, including but not Booted to later phases y of the project,and any seconds ,support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.) The project cnnsicts of constnt lion of a new booster pump station,pipeline,underground electrical g facilities,and pavement at the istrict's existing Falcon Point 'lace Tank Station located in the Tahoo Donner subdivision. Falcon P int Station is aureutly dic silt ilf the 200,000 gallon Falcon Polm Tank and also iucludes paved drive y and parking,underground pipelines,and drainage facilities. The new pump station will con ist of an approximately 400 square foot building housing pumps,motors, k valves, and other mechanical 0 electrical equipment. Thcrc will be construction of approximately 70 .i feet of 8 inch diameter pipchn from the pump station under the paved driveway to an existing pipeline in Falcon Point Place along with �nubuulioa of approximately 500 feet of A"pipe in Himsel Avenue near Falcon Point Place. The project will include?n approximately 500 square foot paved parking area, The a I �� i i 1 I I � prop"m will also include construction of approximately 500 f4ct of underground elmLtical facilities along an existing District eaacment from die project Sit;,SUUdl tLi Saint Bernard Avenue. This booster station is onP of two stations which were anticipated in the original Tahoc Donner water Sys rem design but not built as Part of the original system, The Herringbone Booster Pump Sletion was completed in 1999. The pump'station being proposed under iliib Initial Study was originally planned to be located at a site on Northwpods Bvulmard between Cham¢nlx Road and Mulebach way. More recent water network ruudclitig of th;,Tahoe Donner disrrihutinn sy'rem shows the currently proposed site adjacent to the Falcon Pninr TAbk to be.a preterabie alternative. It was expected that these stations would be constructed when the subdivision approached 50 percent of buildout. The proposed Falcua Puinl Ptunp Station will function in fe same capacity as the previoµsly proposed Northwontig starion Falcon Point hooster pump station will pump water from Pressure Zone V to Pressure Zone VI working in pprpllel with the Innsbruck booster pump Station. Falcon PoiiIIt booster pump station will be designed such that working in combinatjbn with the Innsbruck station will provide builduut dcsign capacity to pressure zones which it servesi ;. Attached are two exhibits titl ""Falcon Point Booster Pttmp �tation,Preliminary Project Plan,On-Site Impmveanents"and "Patcon Point Booster Pump Station,Preliminary Proicet Plan,Oft-Site Improvements." i i I 9. Other agencies whose ap Lmvat is required(and perrafts needed): Town of TnrekP.e(Inwroachm,lit Permit) California Regional Water Quity Control Board,Lahontan Rcgion(Report of Waste Disclmrgc) 10. Environmental Setting Uf the Project: i The project is located in the P4 boe Donner subdivision,a plarjned community in Truckee. The project site is a District owned parcel f approximately one-third acre which is currently the site of a forty£uut diameter by twenty-four foot `gh welded steel water tank. The project site has a paved driveway. Tidrue Donner is a residential/esim cronmunity covering app�osimately 6Y,square miles and ranging in elevarinn between 6,20U feet ai ill 7,400 feet above sea level. The subdivision includes single family and 1 multifamily residences, contain rcial uses including restaurant and food store,and recreational facilities including skiing,golf, tennis,ciqucstrian,swimming,and clubLusc. j The project site is located in at area of single family residences at an elevation of 6,469 feet above sea level. the parcel sits behind o residential lots,lot 504 and lot 505 of Unit 9, on Falcon Point Place: The project site is acecssed by 1 existing paved driveway wliich also serves lots 505 and 506. The ' projcct site,including areas of}wilding mid pipeline wnstruetSon,has been previously graded as part bX' the construction of the Falcon) brut Tank. 1 i i i I I { I , I I i j 7 �� i I Environmental Factors Putcutiully Affected: The environmental factors checked helow wnnld be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Poientiall'y Significant Impact"or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as. indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ii ❑ Land Use and Plarurutg I! ❑ Trauspurtation/Cin;ulatiuu 0 Public Services I <I ❑ Popnlation and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems U Geophysical U Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics t �i ❑ Water 0 Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ;j ❑ A,LrQualiTy li ❑ Noise j ❑ Recreation �l U Mandatory Findings of Significance a Determination. (I's be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evalaghion: I find that the proposed project!bOULD NOT have a sigmftes�t effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAR fi0N will be prepared. ® � I find that although the propos d project could have a significant effect on the environment, t there will not be a significant a ect in this ooze because the"ligation measures described on the attached sheets have been adde to the project. A NEGATIVP,DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the,pmpnsrrl project MAY have a significant effect Ion the environment,and an t:NVIVONMENTAL1MPAC. REPORT is requited. U I find that the proposed project MAY Dave a significant cffcct(s)on the envirotunent,but at least l unc effect 1)has been atlNuatt ly analyzed in an earlier dncu ent prinnant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addss' sed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described a on attached sheets,if the effect is a"porentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" An ENVIRONME TAL IMPACT REPORT is rCquired,but it must analyze only the E efts is drat rcrrrairr to be ad kc cd. ❑ i II !i I Signature Pate l Peter L.Holzmeisrer,General Manager Truckcc Donner Public Utility District Printed Name Fo� � I 3 l� ! P. a6 i jj i i 1 Evaluation of Environmental Innpacts: 1) A briefexplanadon is required for all answers except ".No Impaici"answers that are adequately supported by , the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses fallowing each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referemed information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved!(e,g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is base on project-specific factors as wel�as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to (pIollutants,based on a project-speck screening analysis), 2) All amweis must take accouuY of rite whole active involved,inchuding off'site as well as un-sice,cumulative as well as project-level,i idiroct 6 well as d4cci,and construction as well w uperadonal impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if an effect is signifcant or potentially significant,or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insign ficance. I�there are one or more"Potentially Significant Jmpact"entries when the determination is made,EIR is required. q 4) "Potentially Significant Uale s Mitigated"applies wbcac the iucuapvrativn of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant bapauC to a"Lobs than Siguificant Impact°'. Thu lead agency must I dcscilbc the mritigatiuu mcastica,and briefly explain how They reduce the effect to a less than significant level :6 (mitigation measures from Se Edon XVIi,"Earlier Analyses", rt)1y be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses maybe used here,pursuant to the Gering,program EIR or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(1)). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section at die end of the checklist. s 6) Lead agcucics aic oncmiago to iucurpuiate into dic checklist references to information sources for potential unpacrs(e.g.general plaru,z ning urdinances). See the sample�question below. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited In the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form)and lead agencies are free to use different ones. d Sample Question: i Potentially Potentially Significant Leas Than ,t 141gnificsnt Ilnlesa Significant No Issues(and Supporting Informatio Sources) Impact Mitigated Impact impact i ! Would the proposal result in peter tial impacts inuoMng: Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ (Attached source list explain that 1 is the general plan, j and 6 is a USGS topo map. 's answer would probably not need further explanation. I 1 I. LAND USE AND PLANNINC. Would theproposal. i a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? j ti (source it(s):2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable euvironwcntal plans ur ! policies adopted by ages Gies with jwisdictivar over the project? (2,3) ❑ ❑ D M , c) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g. impacts to soils or famill ds,or impacts front incompatible,land uses) (1) i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i 4 N. ar i I Potenvany Potentially signiricant Less Than ba(Aea(and sappor ring tnformacto Sources) Significant Unitas sigairm"t No , Impact M(Ngatcd Impact 1a1pact iI H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal• a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections (2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. throu4 projects in an undeveloped area or extension of m2jor in&.tstructure)? (2,1) ❑ ❑ c) Displace existing housjng,especially affordable housing? (2,3) Cl Cl III. GEOPHVSTCAL, Would Azpreposal result in or expose ! penply.to prVa"Hal impacts"m oAang: a) Seismirity: faultruptute? O j Q Q ❑ h) Seismicity: ground g orliquefaction? O ❑ ❑ ❑ n) Seismicity: seiche or tsunamfl () 0 0 ❑ d) Landslides or mudslide? O ❑ ❑ Q a) Erosion,ehangea in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading of Gil? O ! ❑ ❑ 4� ❑ 1) Suboidence of the land. () ❑ ❑ ❑ (� g) F.apaasivc soils? O Q ❑ ❑ h) Uniquc geologic or physical fcmuies?O ❑ ❑ ❑ l� IV. WATER, ifbutd tl+e pr'vpu ut result in: I I' a) Changes in absvipaunnaLts,drainage patterns,or the late dud amount of su a runoff? () ❑ ❑ U i b) Exposure of people or f roperty to water related hazards such as flooding? (} ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Discharge into surface i raters or other alteration of surface water quality(e g.temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)! ) ❑ U ❑ d) Changes in the amount f surface water in any water body? () U ❑ ❑ Q e) Changes in currents,or he course or direction of water movements? (} € ❑ ❑ ❑ t) Change in the quantity c f ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifir r by cats or excavations?f.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ! g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?O ; ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Impacts to groundwaterquality? (} ❑ ❑ Cl i 1 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: I ' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? () ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () ❑ ❑ O { 5 I I i I v. us i i i I I j 1 Potentially { PoientiWty Slgnifieanr l.tss'rhan . Issues(and suppnrring Infomwtl a Sources) Significant Unless SiLmifccant . N. p Impact Ylltigated Impact Impact j I i I c) Alter air moves«cat,inloisntre,or temperam",nr muse , any cbauge iu Clhnatc� () Q ❑ u ❑ d) Creatc ob*tiunablc o ors? O i ❑ ❑ ❑ IT TRAMSPORTATIONICIRC7U.0.'I'lUN- GPould the proposal result rh: fIf a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? O U ❑ ❑ h) Halards to safety from design featueec(e.g.sharp curves or dangerous iti(ersections)or incompatible nses(e.g.farm equipment)?O ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Inadequate emergency 6ccess or access to nearby uses? O E ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Insuff cient parking calacity on-site orof-site? {) i ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Nazarda or barriers for cdcstriaus u1 bicyclists? O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Conflicts with adopted Dolicies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.bus tuutouts,bicycle racks)? () ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Rail,waterborne or air Taffic impacts? () ❑ ❑ ❑ �tl VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Mould the proposal result t I impaeu to: I a) Endangered,threatened or rare speries or their habitat (including hot not limit to plants,fish,Insects, animals,and birds)'! { ❑ U ❑ b) Tonally designated species(e.g.heritage trees)? () ❑ ❑ c) i.neslly designated natural communities(e.g.oak fnresh rnstal habitat )? O I ❑ ❑ ❑ [ d) W?hand habitat(e.g.mursh,riparian and vernal pool)? ! e) Wildlife dispersal ormi Cion corridors." () ❑ ❑ ❑ ;; i VIIT. ENERCY AND MINE RCSOURCES { Would the pnposal. � 1 a) Conflict with adopted ci=gy wnservativn plans? () ❑ ❑ ❑ ® t{j b) Usonoa-mnmablcmojicmisiawascuful and l inefficient maimcr? () ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. HAZARDS. Would dw pry oral involve: I a) A risk of accidental expilln.9inn or rnli ie of hazardous ! substances(including,bit not limited to. oil, pesticides,chemieaN orradiarion)'/ () ❑ ❑ �� Q b) Possible interference wil It emergency response plan or emergency evacuation)plan? Lj I I I fi i i P. 39 `i I � I I C. I � I j PateutlAlly Potentially Signifieaat Lecc Than Issues(area supporting Tntormunint Sources) ! Significaur Unless Signincaut No , Impact Mitigated Impact Imp= i I I I c) The creation of any hc4hh hazard or potential healrh i ❑ ❑ Q Lazard? O I . i d) Lxposurc of pcuple to Listing sourres of potential ❑ ❑ ❑ U hcaM hazards?vO I i c) Increased fire harri id Areas u^::lt flammable brush, grass,or trees? O (, ❑ ] (� i I K NOISE. Would the proposal result in: I a) Increases in existing n ise levels? O I_,J [� ❑ h) Exposure of people to every noise levels? (} ; ❑ ❑ ❑ [� i V. PUBLIC SERVICES, Iiro�ld the p,vposull,uve ua effect upon, or result in a needfo(new or altered government servos in any ofthe follonluog at eas, a) Fire protection? O ❑ ❑ ❑ [y� b) Police protection? {} ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Scbools? () ❑ ❑ ❑ (}� d) Maintenance of public eilities,including roads? () ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other Rovetmltcutal se ices? O ❑ ❑ ❑ I,�p XIL UTILITIES AND SERVT�R 'I SYSN',ivlS. Would the i proposal result In a need fn now,eystems,orn.brtann'al alterattons to the following uldies A a) Power or natural gas?( ❑ ,) ❑ (� b) Cnmmunicarinns syster6s't O i ❑ ❑ ❑ c) T,nrsI or regional water Yreeament or distribution facilities? () i ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Sewer or septic tanks? ) ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Stoma Crater drainage? ) ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal?( ❑ ❑ ❑ (� t! %III.AESTHETICS. Would the rnporal: ! l a) Affect a scenic vista or conic highway?O ❑ ❑ ❑ ('� b} Have a demonstrable ue nGve aesthetic cfllz;P. ❑ ❑ ❑ � c) Create light er glauc?() ❑ ❑ (3 [ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCI S. Would the proposal: { a) Disturb paleontological source;?(} ❑ O iJ b) Distub a chaculog cal o trees? () j ❑ ❑ ❑ c) ❑ d) Ilavo thr yvteutiai to ca se a physical change which t would affect unique ethnic culture values?() ❑ ❑ ❑ IS') k i I 7 i � 1 i I r . ie i JF 1 Potentially iF Potentially Significant Less Than $IgniGcan[ L%micee S+gnifican[. Nm i issues(and supporting Intormatiol Bootees) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact !) ij I t e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ® ® ❑ potential impact area. XV. RECREATION. Wou&IM proposal: i a) Increase the demand forinaighborhood or regional j parks or other recreatio al facilities?(} ❑ ® ❑ s b) Affect existing mcreati al opportunities?() ❑ ❑ ❑ ® .) (III! XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. I a) Doss the project have potential to degrade The quality of rho crivironint nt,substantially reduce the :# habitat of a fish or wildl fe species,cause a fish or wildlife population to di up below self-sustaining levels, threaten To elimix ale a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered pla t or animal or eliminate important examples of t e major periods of California history or prehistory? i ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantag of long-term,environmental goats? , ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Does the project have in xpacts that are individually 1 limited,but cumailatively considerable? j ("Cumulatively conside able"means that the incremental effects of s project are considerable when viewed in connection w th the effects of past projects, j the effects of other curri at projects,and the effects of probable future projects) ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have ei vironmental effects which will cause substantial ac verse effects on human beings,either directly o indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ i XVIT.FARLIFR ANALYSIS. Farlier Analyses may he rt. d where,pitrwant to the tiering,program FIR,or other CRQA,prorass,ont, y nr more Pfferts have heen�adPr[natPly ATIA Iy�Plt to aim PArlrPT RIR Or negAtn7P rlPClAtAt)nn SP.ctinn i 1%61(r,)(4)(D) In this c,se a discussion shnnld identiFy'tbe following on AftAched sheets: o) Farlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and i tote where they are available for revicw. 9t b) Impacts adequately�ddressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequatey analyzed by the earlier docu{nent. I 1 E i i si i ii I i I i 1 c) Mitigation measvres� For effects that are"potentially significant" or"potentially significant unless mitigated",describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project, j � I i No earlier analysis were used ij preparation of this Initial Study. i; EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST ANSWERS A b6c£explalnation is required`for all answers mucpt"Nu Imkaur"aaswcrs that arc adcquaicly supported by die i'lfOAnnation sources a lead hgeucy IItC ill the pall;[llllese5 I'ulluwing each qucstiuri. 1 I I. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1 This project is included I the District's"Truckee wate> system water Master Plan Update'and associated environments documents. This project,alon with all the projects proposed in the masterplan, is based on Ce general plan of the agency o jruisdiction. The project is consistent with general plan designation and zoning of the'i own of i ruckee. II. POPULATION AND t UUSINt; 1 The Falcon Point pump Station will be designed to aecotftmodate the continued infill development of a portion of'the Tahoe Uor�er subdivision consistent with,the population and housing projections of the general plan. f( III. GEOPHYSICAL The project will be constructed on a site already developed as the Falcon Point Tank site. The project will require a modest amount of grading to prepare the pump station building pad and parking area. Pipeline and undergroun electrical construction will involve excavation and backfill of trenches. As is standard with all Distri ct construction projects of this type,grading and excavations will include surface restoration either with paving or otherpetmanen erosion control measures. This is considered a less than significant im act. f Typical soils in the area i if the project site consist of a mixture of sands,gravels,volcanics.and i decomposed organic top oil with underlying volcanic rock such as basalt, These sails are not r considered potentially ex ansive. There are no unique Physical nr genlogir,features associated with the project site. 1V, WATER There will he a slight incT-mse in the amount of impervio4ns surface ss a result of this project including the pump station and paved area. This is expected to be approximately 800 square feet. Drainage will t flow from the impervioti auras to an infiltration trench. ;The infiltration trench will be sized to . accommodate runoff fror i a I-hour,20-year storm as de#"med by the Lahontan Regional Board. This is considered a less than si uficant impact. The project will have no affect on groundwater. t V. AIR QUALITY There will be no air errds ions from the pump station. There may be incidental emissions during 1 construction from contra tor's operations including vchi�c las and mechanical equipment. VI. TRANSPORTATIOrN'I�IRCULATION During construction there will be an increase in vehicle trips to the project site associated with the contractor's activities. This is considered a less than significant impact. Pipeline construction along Hansel Avtiwe Judy ullpaut L&MQ aluug that load. It is alrtiuipatcd that ; pipeline will be construe d along the shoulder of Maisel Avenue alluwing the road to rotnain upon in a both du'ectious. Disvict 'uustluctivu ulrrtlauts IuuWlcly Jlcludc Specitivalivns requiring uumrdutors to prepare traffic control and lane closure plans prior to construction. These plans will be made available for review and approval t the Town of Truckee through the encroachnrcnt permit application ptoecss. f 9 I 1 k I I � This is considered a less than significant impact. The project will not have any affect on emergency access, access to nearby es,or alternative transpurtaliun.ts 3 The project will for District vehicles. VD. RK)LOCTCAT,RESOT�RCFS } Cnnstrnction of the pump satin will take place over a relatively small area.appruicilauLdy 900 syumc feet. The project site is rent magi lered habitat for threatened or endangered species of plants or j animals. The site contain no locally designared speries`or natural communities. The site is in an upland area containing nb wetlands. 'l he project will halve no impact on wildlife dispergal nr g Migration. j i l� I#AL Vlll. ENERCY AND MINE RESOURCES The pump stations will u e electrical energy. pumps will be chosen which work at high efficiencies under design conditions_ IX. HAZARDS i During construction there is a risk of accidental release¢f hazardous substances such as paint,fuel,or oil from spillage. District construction contracts require the contractor to be prepared for such accidents and provide cldan-up which in this case would)likely be limited to the paved project sae. This is cuusidcicd a loss than significant impact. X. NOISE f a During euustruuiiun,the,r will be an iutaeasc iu noise 1eIvets associated with contractor operations including op-Taliuu of a^,l�.u,lranical equipnieut such as a Ilackhoe,generator, and compressor. This is 5 considered a less than sil niCuurl impact. Xl. Film 1ICSERVTCF.S I! This project is based on and consistent with the general plan of the Town of Truckee including projections for the need or public gemees. XII. UTILITIES AND SUR IC.'E SWCEMS The project will result in improvements to the water dis¢ribution system by increasing the capacity and , reliability of the system. j XIII. AESTHETICS The pump station site is ocated along Falcon Point Place and will be visible from the street. Building materials and colors will be chosen to complement the+tiona's surroundings. Materials will include a rough-hewn split face onry block building with mtal roof. Because of the relatively small size of the building and the c oice of materials,this is consi ercd a less than significant impact. The pump station builduii is subjw to review by the Tahoe Donner Architectural Standards Officc. XIV. CULTURALRESOURCES All piojeet cousttuction will take place on already developed land which has been graded in connection with the con ction of the existing tank.. Any potential archaeological resources would likely have been lost dur ng the original site developmeiju. XV. RECREATTOY �! The project ig hased on and consistent with the general plan of the Town of Truckee including projections for needed r creadonal facilities. f! XYT. MANDATORY FINDTiGS OF STGNiFTCANCE The project will take plc a on a graded and paved site and will not affect plant or animal species or hahitnt or eliminate preh stone or historic resources. 10I ;1 i P . 13 i i l I i The project achieves ho shore term and longterm environmental goals by increasing water pumpiug efficiency, avoiding pot ntial shortages in pumping capacity,and allowing the implementation of adopted land usP and envn'onmental plans. I Public water supply is n e of many services needed to allow the continued orderly growth wad development of the Truckee at-ea. Issues related to growth and development including intensity, density, location,and timing, among others,are the responsibility of the appropriate planning agency, in this case the Town of Truckee. Similarly any impacts associated witli dic growth and development of the Truckee area are E Iso the responsibility of the ap�ropi iate agencies and are addressed in the various laud use and cm iroamental plans adopted by thusc agencies. The provision of a public water supply is not considercd a significant contribution towaF s impacts which may be associated with the continued growth and development of the Tiuckcc area as defined by the appropriate planning agency. Implementation of this project will allow the District to continue to provide an adequate public water supply. Provisions of a aft and tcliablc water supply i9 considered to have a beneficial effect on human beings. i REPORT PREPARATION This Initial Study was prepareii under eontractwith the'1'rackge Donner Public Utility District by Sauers Engineering,Lne. Principal author was Keith ibb. Prepared b 34 Date: �3 �z i1 i l t i i 1 ;l A' S I � 4 � 1 j i F . 1 4 i REFERPNCES These references are availablelfor review st the Truckee Donner Public Utility District office, 11570 Donner Plus Road, Truckee,California. i 1. USGS Truckee Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series. 2. Truckee Water SystemJater Master Plan Update,Truckee Donner Public Utility District,tifarch 2001 3. Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study,�ruckce Water System Wdtor Master Plan Update, Truckee Donne Public Utility District,March Fool I i t i t i r 11 � 79 �1 i 7t l� i i 1 i i i S i' i. f t 3� 12 P. is i Follco i 1 i�J Booster Pump \� Pump Station i � I � iw�o cme. uoxn:av:+ D— luks V y v ' ' I t i M ! i F i LOCATION ! MAP f r Tiuckes Donner Puhlir,uniity nietrict i FALcbN POINT BOOSTER PUMP STATION LOCATION MAP n a 1504 V \ \ �1 P)l\RCEL "A"\ NEV\T NSFO'1`�MER D j r\\ / \ \ \ \505 (J\EIA/MX 8' P STATf(9T1 � a \� E80.W'94 � \ NE PAVED PAING AREAIS-TING C,20M- \ OPAGETAN r CCNNECTTO�K CONNN T O �P\ mot=_ - -- - - - SUPPLY LfNE. -\�--......----...- -- - __ .. • ra'}+' 1-- 8'DP 'AND NEW DERGRO NID FL LIN= I �'.:�ir ELECTRRt FACILITI ��\ v� �.« `- - TANK DRAINsumP\ \ \ \ A RPIPE E 1L'TANKsu=PLVLNe \ \ 483 \\\ \T \ \ \ 4 /?o a \16 \� L1MT5 OF P.AVEMEW E. 182 F Truckee Donrer Public Utifty Distri-i / \ FALCON POINT BOOSTER PUMP STATION 481 PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLAN ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS P. 17 i I I i \ ' W E I \ EXISTI FA CON P INT A WITH W T P 10 ADD 0 X T E N n N W AL 0 PO — 8 OS ER U S t � W 0 D !� E C I FL IE l y/ Y Truckee Donner Public Utility District i FALCON POINT BOOSTER PUMP STATION I PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLAN OFF—SITE IMPROVEMENTS' I '�