The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutCanyon Springs EIR Scoping - 30.pdfMay 21, 2011 Town of Truckee Planning Department 10183 Airport Rd. Truckee CA 96161 Dear Denyelle, I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Process for the Proposed Canyon Springs Development. As part of the EIR Scoping Process, I would like to have the following questions and concerns addressed in the EIR for Canyon Springs: A. Land Use & Planning; Population, Employment, Housing 1. As far as I know, this parcel has not been reviewed for its land use designation and zoning since the Town incorporated in the early 1990s. This parcel’s land use designation changed upon its turnover from Nevada County jurisdiction to the Town of Truckee jurisdiction. It had a significantly lower zoning designation under Nevada County (approx. 80 units total) and the Town of Truckee up-zoned the property upon incorporation (.5-1 unit per acre). As a former Planning Commissioner from 2003- 2007, I requested that this parcel be evaluated as part of the Land Use piece of the General Plan during the General Plan Update process. My request was denied and I was told that since the parcel had an “active application” the town could not re- evaluate the parcel at that time. The community has not had an opportunity to re- evaluate this parcel to be consistent with the current vision and goals of Truckee since 1996. I request that this application be put on hold until the community has had the opportunity to re-evaluate this parcel to be consistent with the current vision and goals of the updated General Plan. 2. As this parcel comprises part of the eastern boundary of the Town of Truckee with Nevada County I am concerned that the growth inducing impacts caused by this project will result in additional growth in this area. I believe this project qualifies as sprawl due to its peripheral location and is at odds with the vision of the Town of Truckee. Growth for growth’s sake is counter to our goals outlined in the General Plan 2025. Please address how this large-scale housing development does not contribute to growth inducing impacts, such as overpopulation and could possibly be considered a benefit to the community. 3. In addressing the affordable housing requirements per the Town of Truckee Housing Element, the project applicant mistakenly implies in his marketing materials he receives additional density beyond the .5-1 unit/acre zoning to meet the required 15% affordable units or lots. I believe the applicant is required to include the affordable units as part of the total allowable density. Additional density can be achieved with additional affordable units, but this is not what the applicant is proposing. Please clarify what the affordable housing requirements are specifically for this development. 4. With regards to affordable unit requirements, the applicant is proposing 27 units, however he should be offering 32 affordable lots/units as part of the 15% requirement of 213 total lots. Please explain how the applicant is addressing the town’s policies with regards to Affordable Housing. 5. The project applicant proposes to offer multi-unit lots (3-4 units per parcel) in this single family housing development as a way to address his affordable housing requirement. The Truckee Housing Element expresses the community’s desire to keep like with like. This means that in a single family housing development it is not in keeping with our town’s housing and community character goals to offer a much different style of housing for the affordable units. Please explain how this project proposal is not at odds with the goals outlined in the General Plan Update 2025. 6. As the mother of a student at Glenshire Elementary I have seen first-hand the impact of crowding on our classrooms and the lack of necessary financial and administrative resources. While the project applicant promotes their payment of required school fees as a benefit to the community, I would like to see how this project is a net benefit to the school system and not another drain on inadequate resources. B. Transportation, Circulation & Parking 1. The previous owners of Canyon Springs had their DEIR traffic study completed during non-school year period. The traffic levels are significantly lower, especially in the neighborhoods in close proximity to this parcel during the non- school year period. I request that the traffic study for this EIR be completed during the school year and not during a holiday period. 2. While the project applicant proposes to keep the Edinburgh access gated except during an emergency I would like the EIR to address what the impacts will be on the roads that connect to Edinburgh during an emergency if all traffic is diverted this way. 3. Although the project applicant is proposing to keep the only active access to the project at the Martis Peak Road entrance, I don’t imagine the residents will use Hirschdale Drive and Interstate 80 as their preferred route to downtown Truckee as it adds at least 10 extra minutes to the travel time. What will the impacts be to the intersections along Glenshire Drive if most, if not all of the traffic is directed down Glenshire Drive into Truckee? 4. What will happen if this project receives entitlements prior to the Railyard Development completing its required improvements to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection? The intersection is already failing or close to failing without the added growth of either of these developments. C. Hydrology & Water Quality 1. The proposed development crosses a number of significant waterways. I am concerned about the degradation not only to the surrounding soils and habitat, but also to the water quality. Please address how the heavy equipment and construction methods required to build the bridges and infrastructure will avoid impacting and forever damaging the surrounding environment. 2. If the project is allowed to move forward with its infrastructure development, ie. roads, bridges, utilities, etc. prior to the construction of homes, please address how the run-off will be managed without the permeable surfaces that existed prior to the application of paving and utilities. D. Utilities 1. The citizens of Glenshire/Devonshire are currently paying a $10.75 surcharge to their water bill due to the cost of bringing the water quality up to standard when higher than safe levels of arsenic were discovered. Will the citizens of Glenshire/Devonshire and beyond be faced with additional fees to accommodate the water needs and impacts of the 213 or more additional homesites? 2. An electrical substation is currently located on or in close proximity to the Canyon Springs parcel. Has an evaluation been performed to determine whether or not this is damaging to the health of our citizens and the natural environment? E. Public Services 1. In the event of another catastrophic fire please address how emergency services can adequately serve this large scale development in addition to the existing homesites in Glenshire/Devonshire, the Meadows, Cambridge Estates, Juniper Hills, Juniper Creek, Sierra Bluffs and Elkhorn Ridge. F. Project Alternatives 1. In addition to the “No Project” Alternative, I would like to request the following Project Alternatives be reviewed: i. Transfer appropriate density from this project to a site in the town core and conserve the property as open space/non-motorized recreation in perpetuity. ii. Modify the zoning to .25 units/acre. Allow 25 homes situated in proximity to the entrance to Martis Peak Road. Cluster the homes and allow for the remaining acreage to be maintained as undeveloped open space. iii. Modify the zoning to .5 units/acre but restrict the development from crossing any waterways or creating any bridges. iv. No decrease in current zoning designation but require a ¾ buildout of homes prior to the construction of any additional infrastructure on subsequent phases. G. Other 1. Although an economic analysis of possible community impacts is not always performed as part of the EIR process I am requesting that an economic study be performed to evaluate the impacts this development could have on our community. Housing values are at an all time low. We are currently surrounded by housing developments that sit idle, with few homes built and many undeveloped parcels. In Glenshire alone there is Elkhorn Ridge, adjacent to Canyon Springs and Sierra Bluffs at the western edge of Glenshire. Grays Crossing, Old Greenwood, Donner Crest are some of the recently approved housing developments that are far from build-out. The Master Plan for the Railyard development in downtown Truckee has been approved and has yet to begin construction. I appreciate the opportunity to have my questions and concerns addressing during this EIR scoping period for the proposed Canyon Springs development. Thank you. Sincerely, Nikki Riley 15903 Windsor Way Truckee, CA 96161 designsense@infostations.com Former Town of Truckee Planning Commissioner 2003-2007 LEED AP Board Member Mountain Area Preservation Foundation Nevada County First Five Commissioner-Truckee Representative Truckee Public Art Commissioner