Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #44 (The Meadows HOA)The Meadows Homeowners Association P.O. Box 1696 Truckee, CA 96160 (530) 587 -8647 March 1, 2013 Denyelle Nishimori Town of Truckee Community Development Department 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Re: Canyon Springs Draft Environmental Impact Report The Canyon Springs Subdivision Project is the most recent of several residential developments proposed on this site. Through the years, The Meadows Association has closely followed all of these proposals and has consistently expressed our concerns about density and resulting impacts. Our most recent letter dated April 26, 2011 was submitted for consideration in the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). In reviewing the December 2012 DEIR, we found the majority of our concerns were either inadequately addressed or not addressed at all. DENSITY: What is the TOTAL proposed density (not only the proposed 185 lots, but also multi- family housing and second dwelling units)? The DEIR acknowledges that construction of second dwelling units are allowed, and even includes a projection of 50% in the Traffic Study Reference: (TABLE 4.14 -6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION. Pg 4.14 -30) but does not include them for impact discussion in any other areas. The impact of Second Dwelling Units needs to be factored into the total density and that number should have been addressed in the DEIR. Reference: DEIR (pg 3 -17) Secondary residential units are allowed as a matter of right in the Single - Family Residential (RS) zoning district, subject to Zoning Clearance approval and provided certain size, setback, and design conditions are met The requirements for second units in all permitted zones state that there shall be no more than one second unit per legal parcel and second units shall not be allowed on a parcel developed with two or more dwellings. The construction of secondary units is not proposed as part of this project; however, the construction of secondary units is allowed The Town's own General Plan "assumes that 20 percent of all future single - family units will be secondary dwelling units ". However, the actual number could be higher since this is a new development and it is much easier to site plan a second unit when a lot is vacant. This undetermined density should not be a hidden density. It should be a specific potential number and, therefore, included in the maximum approved density. For example if it is determined that 20% of new development will have second dwelling units, then a development of 1.00 units will only be able to create 80 lots, because 20 of the lots will have a second unit and thus will have reached the maximum allowed density. The 8 affordable lots will be allocated for future "multi - family" attached housing. The DEIR assumes a total number of 28 affordable housing units. This number also needs to be factored into TOTAL density. TRAFFIC - INTERSECTION OF WHITEHORSE ROAD/MARTIS PEAK ROAD/ GLENSHIRE DRIVE: The Meadows Association is particularly concerned about the intersection of Whitehorse Road / Martis Peale Road/Glenshire Drive. The Traffic Study confirms that drivers exiting Whitehorse Road onto Glenshire Drive do not have adequate corner sight distance to judge acceptable gaps looking either to the east or west. Reference: DEIR (pgs 4.14 -53 to 4.14 -58) i. Intersection Corner Sight Distance The addition of project traffic at the Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Drive / Whitehorse Road intersection could result in hazardous driving conditions due to the current limited sight distance conditions. b) Whitehorse Road Looking West Along Glenshire Drive Whitehorse Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195 feet, which does not meet the Town's 330 - foot requirement (see Figure 4.14 -8). Please note this Figure does NOT take into account the reduced visibility due to snow banks in the winter months. The corner sight distance at this location is limited by the existing embankment and vegetation on the northwest corner of the intersection, as well as by the horizontal and vertical curvature along Glenshire Drive. The corner sight distance improves as the driver on Whitehorse Road approaches the edge of the travel lane on Glenshire Drive. Measured 10 feet back from the edge of the traveled way, the corner sight distance is approximately 195 feet, and when measured from a 5-foot setback the corner sight distance increases to approximately 255 feet; however, these values do not achieve the Town's 330 foot requirement and impacts to drivers on Whitehorse Road would be potentially significant. The corner sight distance at this location could be improved by modifying the existing embankment on the northwest corner of the intersection. However, such an improvement would likely require the acquisition of right -of- way from the single-family parcel located on this corner. Town standards indicate that "where restrictive conditions do not allow compliance with the specified sight distance requirements, the Town Engineer may approve a reduction of the corner sight distance to the minimum stopping sight distance as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. "According to Caltrans standards, at a 30-mile-per- hour design speed, the minimum stopping sight distance is 200 feet. Measured stopping sight distance for drivers approaching along Glenshire Drive from the west is 210 feet measured to an object six inches in height, and at least 255 feet to a vehicle turning into the westbound through lane. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided far eastbound drivers along Glenshire Drive to see and react to a driver pulling out from Whitehorse Road_ Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving impacts at this location would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted. c) Whitehorse Road Looking East Along Glenshire Drive The corner sight distance from Whitehorse Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is roughly 170 feet, which does not meet the Town's 330-foot corner sight distance requirement. To the east of the intersection Glenshire Drive curves to the north and then back to the south. When looking east from Whitehorse Road, a driver can see a portion of the road, but as it turns to the north it disappears from sight and reappears into the driver's sight as it curves back to the south. The corner sight distance at this location is limited by an existing utility box in the northeast quadrant of the intersection, as well as by existing vegetation. If the existing utility box and vegetation were removed, then the corner sight distance to the east would be improved to roughly 580 feet, thereby meeting minimum corner sight distance requirements. However, the stopping sight distance along Glenshire Drive east of Whitehorse Drive (measured along the travel lane) is over 500 feet, as the existing utility box does not block the driver sight line along the traveled way. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided. If a driver makes a right turn from Whitehorse Road without an adequate gap, a vehicle traveling on Glenshire Drive westbound would have adequate stopping sight distance to react and come to a stop. Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving impacts at this location would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted. It does not seem to be a reasonable or responsible conclusion that, because there were no accidents reported at this intersection PRIOR to the addition of 2,578 one - way daily vehicle trips, that the impacts will be less than significant. (Reference: TABLE 4.14 -6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION. Pg 4.14 -30) There is no acknowledgement or studies of the additional reduction in visibility from all directions due to snow banks in the winter months. There is no acknowledgement or studies of the decreased stopping ability on icy roads, especially at the edge of a "steep grade of about nine percent" during the winter months. Yet, the drivers referenced above, that the DEIR assumes are capable of stopping for someone pulling out from Whitehorse Road in front of them, are the same drivers referenced below that have two times the State and County average accident rates. REFERENCE: DEIR (pg 4.14 -58) ii. Roadway Segment Hazards The roadway segment of Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road has a steep grade of about nine percent. The existing pavement width accommodates 11- foot travel lanes with no shoulder in some locations. Both Nevada County and Town of Truckee roadway design standards call far 12 foot lanes with 4-foot shoulders, and maximum grade of eight percent. Therefore, as this segment of Glenshire Drive does not meet the design standards, it is considered to have an existing geometric deficiency. While Nevada County recently added roughly 200 feet of guardrail along the south side of this roadway segment, no additional improvements are planned for this roadway segment. The Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road roadway segment on has an average accident rate (from 2006 to 2010) about two times the State and County average rates for similar facilities. The injury and fatal accident rate is also higher than the State and County average rates for similar facilities. However, the severity of the accidents is relatively minor overall, given that no fatalities were reported, and two- thirds of the accidents resulted in property damage only (no injuries). Furthermore, while one -third of the accidents occurred under icy /snowy road conditions, each of these accidents involved a single vehicle, and there were no injuries. Therefore, because the proposed project would result in an increase of up to 1, 600 daily one -way trips, including 160 peak -hour trips, on this roadway segment, which when compared to existing conditions, equates to about a 50 percent increase in the total peak- hour traffic volume, hazards at this already deficient roadway segment hazards with the addition of the proposed project would be significant. Reference: DEIR (pg 4.14 -71) Mitigation Measure TRANS -S: The project applicant shall fund a safety study as well as implementation of the recommended safety improvements along this roadway segment as a result of the safety study. The scope and cost of the study should be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to the study being conducted. Funding shall be in place prior to the issuance of grading or building permits and safety improvements along Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road should be implemented as a part of Phase 1 construction. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. How can this impact be reduced to "less than significant" when a Safety Study hasn't been completed. Shouldn't any Safety Study be compiled, and included as a part of the DEIR, to ensure that there are actually solutions /mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant? The construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location is not feasible due to the existing steep grade. The transition in and out of either improvement would create unsafe traffic conditions, particularly in inclement weather. TRAFFIC — OTHER: * Significant improvements to the intersection of Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive must be completed before any additional projects are approved in the Glenshire Area. While the construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension is identified in the CIP, it is not fully funded, nor is it scheduled for completion within three years. * The Traffic Study did not address the safety concerns for children leaving the Meadows communities from Whitehorse Road and walking along Glenshire Road to catch the school bus at Yorkshire with this increase in traffic. WILDLIFE: * What is the realistic impact on the Loyalton- Truckee Verdi sub -unit Deer Herd that returns to the Hirshdale /Glenshire/Martis Valley in the spring for fawning and summer forage. Has the study between the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife and the NV Department of Wildlife on collared deer that began in Fall 2009 been completed? What does the Study show? In addition to the 100 plus acres of trees and vegetation expected to be removed for the project (Reference Biological Resources. D. Impact Discussion. Pgs 4.4 -38 to 4.4 -39), what is the additional loss of habitat in acres of trees and vegetation required by the Truckee Fire Protection District for: 1) 30' defensible space around structures; 2) 10' on both sides of roads and driveways; 3) Fuel Modification Plan for the entire subdivision, including a 200 -300 ft. shaded fuel break. (Reference: DEIR Appendix B, Letter from Bob Bena, Truckee Fire Protection. District May 12, 2011) Wbat will be the cumulative loss of habitat for the Deer Herd and other wildlife? * How will the proposed development protect migrating deer and other wildlife from free - roaming domestic animals? * What are the guidelines for fencing within the proposed development? Will they inhibit migration and create a gauntlet effect? Will bear boxes be required to prevent increased interaction between humans and bears? * Will any mitigations proposed be protected through deed restrictions rather than homeowner CC &Rs that can be changed at the whim of any majority of homeowners? GENERAL COMMENTS: * What is the effect to surrounding property values when there are so many vacant lots on the market within the Town already (Elkhorn Ridge, Grays Crossing, etc.)? * Why wasn't the development of the adjacent "Teel Property" included as a cumulative impact in the DEIR? * The TDPUD and TSD have indicated that the Canyon Springs Project will require modifications or additional 'infrastructure to accommodate this subdivision. What cost will the existing district members bear? What modifications will be required to other existing infrastructure and what will be the resulting costs to district members? * The number of phases (8) with "build -out of the project anticipated to take 20 or more years" will result in continual construction traffic, noise and disturbance to surrounding homes for years. How can this be mitigated? Thank you for addressing the Association's concerns. Sincerely, The Meadows Board of Directors: Ken Weakley Mike Sabarese Dave Giacomini