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