HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #33 (Zabriskie)1
March 4, 2013
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner
Town of Truckee Community Development Department
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Comment on 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Report for Canyon Springs Subdivision, Chapter 4.7,
Greenhouse Gases
Dear Ms. Nishimori:
The Town of Truckee takes deserved pride in its snow-capped mountains. Skiing and other
snow sports are woven into the community’s environment, history and identity. The local economy
depends on snowy winters to attract commerce and generate income. The Sierra Sun succinctly
captured the point recently with a headline proclaiming there is “No Business Like Snow Business.”
Given Truckee’s dependence on snowfall, it is surprising to see a draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Canyon Springs Subdivision that is so incoherent and defective in its analysis and
conclusions regarding the development’s projected emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). These
emissions contribute to the accelerating rate of global warming. Climate change will cause Truckee to
experience reduced snowfall and snowpack, as well as an increased risk of catastrophic wildfires, and a
higher probability of extreme weather events.
Because global warming poses such a threat to Truckee’s environment, identity and economy,
the Town needs to take it seriously and act accordingly. The draft EIR for the Canyon Springs
development does neither. It also violates multiple regulations under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
One of the draft EIR’s deficiencies is its failure to describe the significant environmental hazards
of increased GHG emissions on the proposed development. The draft EIR merely refers to the “global
climate setting” with passing references to adverse effects on the State as a whole. It describes impacts
that will not affect Truckee and fails to address those that will. The only reference to the reduced Sierra
Nevada snowpack concerns the broad threat to California’s water-storage systems.1 The draft EIR
appears to be a one-size fits-all approach to environmental review.
The draft EIR needs to analyze the short and long term effects of increased GHG emissions on
snowpack volume and duration in the greater Truckee area, the increased risk of catastrophic wildfires,
and the types of extreme weather that will affect the prospective residents of the proposed
development and the other residents of the Truckee community.2 The one-size fits-all approach is
inadequate.
Under CEQA, the Town must also determine whether the development’s GHG emissions will
have a significant impact on the environment.3 If the emissions are significant, mitigation is required.4
One factor the Town must consider is “[w]hether the project emissions exceed a threshold of
significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.”5
2
In this case, the draft EIR proposes that the Town apply a threshold of significance
recommended in a report by the staff of the California Air Resources Board entitled “Recommended
Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under CEQA.”6 Under this
standard, a development that emits more than 1600 metric tons of GHGs per year must “achieve a
series of performance standards in order [for the emissions] to be considered less than significant.”7
The Canyon Springs development is projected to emit 3026 metric tons of GHG annually.8 These
projected emissions are nearly twice the amount that the EIR drafters have adopted as the threshold of
significance. This rate of emissions is particularly high when considered on a per capita or per domicile
basis. This high level of emissions is not surprising, however, considering the development’s basic
design and location. Canyon Springs is proposed to have widely spaced, single-family homes, which emit
more GHGs than more concentrated housing.
The development’s remote location accounts in particular for the high level of GHG emissions.
It is located at the outskirts of the town’s limits. There are no nearby stores, sources of work, or public
transportation. Residents of the development will need to drive miles past empty lots in previously
approved residential developments to reach work, stores, and services.
Transportation is the source of over half of the development’s GHG emissions. The draft EIR
contains no performance standards or mitigation for reducing these emissions. Successful
implementation of public transportation is unlikely and not proposed. There is no expectation that the
jobs and stores will come to Canyon Springs.
The draft EIR does not reveal whether it relies on state-wide averages for calculating vehicular
emissions, but it presumably does. In that case, the EIR’s projected vehicular emissions are understated.
The local weather, road conditions, driving habits, and types of vehicle driven by Truckee denizens make
vehicular GHG emissions, on a vehicle-miles traveled basis, much higher than the statewide average.
The EIR’s projection of vehicular emissions needs to be corrected and augmented to reflect local
conditions.
While the development’s projected emissions grossly exceed the threshold of significance, the
drafters of the EIR nevertheless declare that the emissions are insignificant. They say there is no need to
consider mitigation or require that the development achieve any relevant performance standards. The
drafters posit two excuses for their conclusion.
First, the drafters say that the 1600 metric ton “threshold has not been adopted by the ARB and
[that] it should be noted that neither the NSAQMD [regional air quality board], nor the Town of Truckee
has established a numeric threshold for project GHG emissions.”9 This is akin to saying that since rat
poison is not a banned substance, its consumption does not pose a significant risk to your health. The
lack of a formally approved threshold for GHG emissions by new developments does not make new
emissions of GHGs less harmful to Truckee.
This excuse also betrays the draft EIR’s disregard for CEQA guidelines. Contrary to the drafters’
claim, CEQA does not require that a threshold of significance be based on a formally adopted standard.
3
On the contrary, a threshold of significance can be based on either recommended or adopted
standards.10 Moreover, while the project proponent apparently selected the 1600 metric ton threshold
of its own volition, it could have proposed other methodologies for determining significance or reducing
emissions to an insignificant level.11 What will not suffice for purposes of CEQA is to claim that since no
threshold standard has been formally adopted, there is no duty to determine the significance of the
GHG emissions.12
The second excuse the drafters give for claiming the development’s emissions are insignificant is
that “GHG emissions emitted individually at the project level would not result in an adverse climate
change impact.”13 This statement overlooks the fact that this development is not the only source of
carbon pollution. It is the collective impact of GHG emissions that threatens Truckee. In other words,
global warming is “death by a thousand cuts,” where no single cut causes significant harm. Instead, the
emissions act cumulatively to spell significant environmental and economic harm for towns like Truckee.
The latter excuse, like their first one, violates CEQA guidelines. CEQA require that GHG
emissions be considered in the context of their cumulative effect.14 Indeed, the EIR drafters
acknowledge elsewhere in their report that a cumulative-effects analysis is required.15 When it comes
time to actually perform the analysis, however, they simply choose to misstate CEQA and skip the
analysis.16 Their failure to perform the cumulative-effects analysis betrays the pretense of CEQA
compliance. This dissimulation calls the analytic veracity of the entire report into question.
The drafters, presumably aware of the deficiencies in their analysis and conclusion, suggest that
the development’s design guidelines and energy-efficiency measures can serve as “performance
standards” that would justify a determination of insignificance. However, the purported reduction in
GHG emissions from these standards eludes quantification. The design guidelines and energy measures
are not identified as being part of any regional or municipal program to reduce GHG emissions.
The drafters do not show how the design guidelines would be enforced in this development.
The design guidelines merely “encourage” solar panels and provide that “southern exposure . . . should
be considered.” In other words, any potential reduction in the projected GHG emissions is wishful
speculation.17
The touted design and efficiency measures are also suspect due to contradictory information
and a notable lack of specificity. While the drafters refer to the development as being tailored to take
advantage of passive solar heating, the home sites will be oriented along contour lines instead. The
development slopes downward toward the northwest, which tends to reduce, if not eliminate, solar
exposure. The development maps do not indicate a solar alignment of the homesites. The
recommended shading of homes with evergreen trees will further impede the prospects of solar
heating.
Thus, the actual plans for the development contradict the drafters’ environmental platitudes.
Even if the drafters’ claims were supportable, implementation would only affect the more minor sources
of the development’s total GHG emissions. As reflected in Appendix H to the draft EIR, these measures
make no dent in the projected emissions level of 3026 metric tons per year.
4
It bears repeating. The draft EIR proposes a threshold of significance of 1600 metric tons per
year. The development is projected to emit nearly twice that amount. Despite exceeding the threshold
of significance, the draft EIR does not treat the emissions as significant. It does not provide for any
mitigation or supportable performance standards, and it does not justify the excessive emissions under
any valid criteria.
Project proponents, in disregard of CEQA, have presented a misleading and inadequate analysis
of the significance of the Canyon Spring development’s GHG emissions. The Town deserves better. As
noted in the draft EIR, state law has set a goal for reducing GHG emissions in California by at least 30%
over 1990 levels by 2020.18 Truckee has a direct interest in seeing that goal achieved. The draft EIR for
Canyon Springs conflicts with that goal. The Town should not be approving draft EIRs that conflict with
the State’s goals. An EIR that will bring the development in line with the State’s targeted reduction in
GHG emissions is needed. The draft EIR should be revised to comport with CEQA and help reduce GHG
emissions.
Jan Zabriskie
10295 Snowshoe Circle
Truckee, CA, 96161
1 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-12.
2 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, § 15126, subd. (a).
3 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (f)(1).
4 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, § 15021, subd. (a)(2).
5 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, § 15064.4, subd. (b)(2).
6 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15.
7 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15.
8 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-20. Construction of the Canyon Springs development is projected to produce an additional 2030
metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the first eight years. Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16.
9 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-22.
10 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14,§ 15064.7, subd. (c).
11 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, §§ 15064.4, subd. (b).
12 Public Resources Code § 21100(b); California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, §§ 15064.4, subd. (b), 15063.
13 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-24.
14 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, §§ 15063, 15064, subd. (h)(1) and 15130, subd. (b).
15 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15.
16 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-24.
17 Draft EIR, Appendix C, Architectural Guidelines.
18 Draft EIR, p. 4.7-4.