HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #65 (SCO) 140 Litton Drive
Suite 240
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Tel: 530.272.5841
Fax: 530.272.5880
Gen’l Email: info@scopeinc.net
Truckee: 530.582.4043
March 6, 2013
Via email to dnishimori@townoftruckee.com
Town of Truckee Planning Department
Attn.: Denyelle Nishimori, A.I.C.P.
10183 Truckee Airport Road,
Truckee, CA 96161
Re: Canyon Springs – Comments on Draft EIR
Dear Denyelle:
This letter provides our comments on the Draft EIR for the Canyon Springs project. The
comments represent the combined input of the Canyon Springs development team’s technical,
planning and legal experts. Those participating in the preparation of these comments include:
Dale Creighton, A.I.C.P., Principal, and Martin D. Wood, P.L.S., Vice-President,
SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying (engineering and planning)
John Heal, Heal Environmental Consulting (biological resources)
Greg C. Gatto, Stoel Rives, LLP (legal, planning and entitlements)
Whit Manley, Remy Moose Manley LLP (CEQA)
Christopher Huck, Owner/Applicant, Canyon Springs Joint Venture
The EIR provides a thorough and detailed environmental analysis of the project. We
appreciate the efforts of City staff and its consultants to produce this document. Our comments
are designed to provide further clarification regarding some of the issues addressed in the EIR.
1. Table 2-1, page 2-12 (3rd bullet)
Mitigation measure AIR-2 includes the following requirement: “Watering shall occur at
least twice daily, with complete site coverage during the dry season.”
Please clarify the meaning of the term “complete site coverage.” This term could be
misleading by suggesting the entire site should be watered twice daily. Watering should
be required in the dry season only for areas that have been disturbed during that
construction season.
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 2
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
We propose revising this phrase to read as follows: “For areas that have been disturbed
during that construction season (e.g., excavation, stockpiling or grading), watering shall
occur at least twice daily during the dry season.”
A conforming change should be made to Mitigation Measure AIR-2 in chapter 4.3.
2. Table 2-1, page 2-12 (4th bullet down)
Mitigation Measure AIR-2 includes the following requirement: “The project sponsor
shall pave all access points or aprons onto Town streets prior to construction of Phase 1.
The aprons shall be flushed and swept a minimum of once per day.”
This measure appears to be derived from NSAQMD guidance cited in chapter 4.3. In
order to ensure this measure is consistent with Town of Truckee Public Improvement and
Engineering Standards, we recommend revising this measure to state: “A stabilized
construction entrance per Town of Truckee Engineering Standard Detail SD#39,
including notes 1-9 shown thereon, shall be installed at all construction access location
and maintained to prevent sediment from leaving the project site.”
This measure would also be consistent with best management practices recommended by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region.
A conforming change should be made to Mitigation Measure AIR-2 in chapter 4.3.
3. Table 2-1, AIR-3, page 2-13
Mitigation Measure AIR-3 states: “Residential open burning shall be prohibited within
the project.”
This measure appears to be based on the NSAQMD guidelines, which states that, for
residential projects of more than 200 units, “open burning may be prohibited.”
(NSAQMD Guidelines, p. 10.) Although the project is not over 200 units in size, we
agree this measure should apply. The measure should be revised, however, to make clear
that the use of natural gas fire pits located within patio areas are allowed based upon
approval of the Canyon Springs HOA/Design Review Board and shall be constructed in
conformance with Town of Truckee Building Department requirements. This change is
appropriate because, unlike open burning of vegetation, natural gas fire pits do not emit
PM10. A conforming change should also be made to chapter 4.3 at page 4.3-38.
4. Table 2-1, BIO-1, page 2-13
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 states: “Prior to the start of construction for each phase of
development, a qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall survey the
project site to determine if any burrows or other den sites suitable for use by Sierra
Nevada red fox are present.”
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 3
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
This mitigation measure is unnecessary because the project will not have significant
impacts on the Sierra Nevada red fox. Habitat on the site is “marginal.” (Draft EIR, p.
4.4-10.) As the Draft EIR states, there is no record of the presence of the species on or
adjacent to the site. The habitat is not suitable for denning. At most, the site may
provide potential foraging habitat, but even that is unlikely due to the proximity of the
site to existing development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-28.) The mitigation measure, however,
focuses on surveys for burrows or den sites, when there is no evidence that denning
activity has occurred, or could occur, on the site. For these reasons, the potential impact
should be identified as less-than-significant, and the mitigation measure should be
deleted.
If the Town does not change the characterization of the significance of this impact, then
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 should be revised to read: “Prior to the start of construction
for each phase of development, a qualified biologist approved by the Town of Truckee
shall survey the project site to determine if any burrows or other den sites suitable for use
by Sierra Nevada red fox are present.”
We request this change because the applicant, as the entity that will bear the cost of
carrying out this measure, should have input into the biologist who performs this work.
At the same time, the Town will retain control of the biologist who is chosen to ensure
that the biologist is qualified to perform this work. This approach is consistent with
CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1.) In the event this change is made, a
conforming change should be made to chapter 4.4.
5. Table 2-1, BIO-2, page 2-14
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 states: “If vegetation removal is not possible during the non-
nesting season, a qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall survey the
proposed work area and lands within a 500-foot radius (this area may be decreased due to
property access constraints) for nesting birds.”
This measure should be revised to read: “If vegetation removal is not possible during the
non-nesting season, a qualified biologist approved by the Town of Truckee shall survey
the proposed work area and lands within a 500-foot radius (this area may be decreased
due to property access constraints) for nesting birds.”
We request this change for the same reason as the change requested for Mitigation
Measure BIO-1. A conforming change should be made to chapter 4.4.
6. Table 2-1, CULT-1, page 2-17
Mitigation Measure CULT-1a states in part: “Prehistoric sites P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760
and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 shall remain within protected open-space areas to avoid
impacts from grounddisturbing activities. During project construction, a protective buffer
shall be maintained by installing temporary fencing around each site; this activity shall be
directed by a professional archaeologist. Fencing shall be removed after project ground-
disturbing activities cease.”
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 4
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
The mitigation measure should allow for removing protective fencing after ground
disturbance ceases in the vicinity of these resources; otherwise, the fencing could remain
there years after construction in this area is over. The final sentence should therefore
read: “Fencing shall be removed after project ground-disturbing activities cease in the
vicinity of these sites, such that the risk of disturbance no longer exists.”
A conforming change should be made to chapter 4.5.
7. Table 2-1, HAZ-1b, page 2-21
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b states: “The project applicant shall ensure that fire flow be
provided to each hydrant at a rate of no less than 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration
of two minutes in residential areas, with the provision that any residential dwelling
exceeding 3,600 square feet shall be required to have no less than a fire flow rate of 1,500
gallons per minute.”
This measure does not conform to the corresponding measure in chapter 4.8. In addition,
this measure contains an error by referring to a duration of “two minutes,” rather than two
hours. We recommend revising this measure to be consistent with Mitigation Measure
HAQZ-1b in chapter 4.8, which states: “Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b: The project
applicant shall ensure that fire flow be provided to each hydrant at a rate of no less than
1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for a two-hour duration with 20-pounds per square inch
(psi) residual in residential areas.” (See Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-17 – 4.8-18.)
8. Table 2-1, HYDRO-1b, page 2-23 (2nd bullet down)
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1b, second bullet on page 2-23, states: “Any soil-
disturbing work that is allowed to be performed (which requires a variance) between
October 15 and May 1 of each year shall be conducted in such a manner that the project
can be winterized within 48 hours. Winterized means implementing erosion and/or
sediment controls that would prevent the discharge of earthen materials from the site and
the controls would remain effective throughout the rainy/snow season without requiring
maintenance. In general, this requires stabilizing bare disturbed soils with mulch, erosion
protection blankets, or other suitable materials, and installing perimeter sediment controls
such as fiber logs or other similar materials that would remain effective during significant
rain and snow events.”
The use of the term “variance” is potentially confusing, as it refers to a term of art under
the Planning and Zoning Law. The measure should be revised to make clear that soil
disturbance work is not allowed from October 15 to May 1, unless the Town provides
advance approval of such work. For this reason, the first sentence of this measure should
be revised to read: “Soil-disturbing work shall not occur between October 15 and May 1
of each year unless approved in writing by the Town Engineer before this work
commences. If approved, any such work shall be conducted in such a manner that the
project can be winterized within 48 hours.”
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 5
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
A conforming change should be made to chapter 4.9 at pages 4.9-27 – 4.,9-28.
9. Table 2-1, HYDRO-1c, page 2-25 (1st bullet)
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1c, first bullet on page 2-25, states: “Earthen drainage
facilities should be protected immediately following construction using rock riprap,
erosion control fabric or other energy dissipation measures to prevent erosion of the soil
surface. In addition, cut slopes and drainage ways should be protected from direct
exposure to water runoff immediately following grading activities.”
The potential for erosion of earthen drainage facilities is a function of the quantity and
velocity of the flow, the characteristics of the soil, and the steepness of the ditch. Not all
earthen drainage facilities require additional protection utilizing erosion control fabric
and rock lining. The Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Standards
(Section 5.09, B. Roadway Drainage, C. Open Channels) indicates ditch materials listed
in the order of preference (grass lined, earthen, rock-lined, asphalt concrete lined). Rock-
lining all ditches may hinder maintenance of ditches, which requires removing sand and
debris. This approach has not been the general practice of drainage design and
construction in the Truckee area. In order to ensure this mitigation measure is consistent
with Town standards and practices, the measure should be revised as follows:
“Earthen drainage facilities shall be protected with proper BMPs and erosion
control methods immediately following their construction. Drainage ditches that
have the potential for erosion or scour shall be further protected utilizing rock
riprap, or other energy dissipation measures to prevent erosion of the soil surface
in conformance with the Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering
Standards.”
A conforming change should be made to chapter 4.9 at page 4.9-29.
10. Figure 3-8, OPEN SPACE MAP
Figure 3-8 is an open space map for the site. The map includes a red-dashed line
indicating the portion of the site zoned Open Space (OS) under the Town’s zoning
ordinance. The map contains an error. The southernmost area does not contain the
intended drainage swale or gully that exist onsite. The line should be moved so that it
matches the proposed Tentative Map.
During the initial layout of the proposed tentative map, we brought this minor
inconsistency to the attention of the Town of Truckee Community Development Director
John McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin confirmed that our understanding of the location of
this line. Figure 3-8 should be revised accordingly.
11. Table 2-1, TRANS-1, page 2-28
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 states: “The project applicant shall construct a center turn
lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 6
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
Glenshire Drive. The turn lane shall be constructed during Phase 1 of project construction
and prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. Project construction shall not exceed a
maximum of 102 single-family lots and eight affordable housing lots until the completion
of the Donner Pass Road Extension is identified in the CIP, fully funded, or scheduled for
completion within three years of the beginning of Phase 6, or any phase that exceeds 102
single-family lots and eight affordable lots, of the proposed project.”
The Draft EIR determines that this mitigation measure is necessary in order to address the
project’s contribution to traffic at this intersection. As the Draft EIR explains: “The
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds during the
PM peak hour in 2011 without the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed
project would exacerbate an existing deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in
increased vehicular delays during the PM peak hour.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-70.)
The traffic study also shows, however, that the number of trips contributed to this
intersection is modest. In the near term, the project contributes only 57 total trips during
the peak hour, even if all turning movements are counted together. In the year 2031, this
number drops to 20. (Draft EIR, Table 4.14-7.)
The problem at this intersection is the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive to
Donner Pass Road, which already operates at LOS F. The EIR is ambiguous about the
extent to which the project will add trips to this movement. Figure 4.14-4 indicates the
project will contribute 23 northbound left turns to this intersection. Table 4.14-7 states
the project will contribute 33 northbound left turns to this intersection. In either event,
however, the project’s contribution amounts to only two or three cars per minute.
As the traffic study acknowledges, the problem at this intersection is not caused by the
project. It is an existing problem. The project’s contribution to this problem, in both the
near- and long-term, is minimal.
The project’s contribution is also overstated. The identification of this impact is a
byproduct of the conservative assumptions used by the Town’s traffic consultant to
determine the number of trips the project will generate. The Town’s consultant
characterized its assumptions in estimating the number of trips as “extremely
conservative.” (Appendix I, p. 18.)
The consultant was right. Trip generation rates were determined based on rates for
analogous land uses published in the ITE manual. As the consultant noted, however,
observed trip generation rates in the Glenshire area, based on actual traffic counts, “are
approximately 42 percent lower than the ITE rates. Furthermore, the ITE rates do not
consider the relatively high proportion of ‘trip chaining’ (making multiple stops as part of
a single external round-trip from the residential area) due to the relatively long travel
distance from Glenshire to the rest of the Truckee community.” (Appendix I, p. 18.)
The ITE manual states that, where actual data is available, that data should be used rather
than the generic data provided in the ITE manual. That makes sense, in that the ITE trip
generation rates are derived from similar categories of land uses located throughout the
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 7
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
country. Actual data available for this part of Truckee is a far more reliable source of
data than the generic ITE rates. That data would also account for the “trip chaining”
effect noted by the Town’s traffic consultant.
There are other reasons why the Town’s trip generation rates overstate the traffic the
project will generate:
78% of eastern Truckee homes are full-time residences, and 22% are second
homes or vacant based upon the American Communities Survey Five-Year
Estimates for 2005-2009. The Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, however,
assumes 100% of all homes will be full-time residences.
The traffic analysis assumes that 50% of all single-family residences will contain
secondary units (granny units). Although the zoning allows for secondary units,
no secondary units are proposed, and whether they will ever be proposed is a
matter of conjecture. Under those circumstances, it would be appropriate to
assign no trips to hypothetical secondary units. (See Save Round Valley Alliance
v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1449-1454 [rejecting claim that
EIR had to analyze second units authorized by zoning, where no proposal to
construct second units had been submitted].) At most, the trips assigned to
hypothetical second units should be based on actual data, rather than an arbitrary
assumption that 50% of the lot owners will construct them. In fact, such data
exists. From 2003 through 2009, three out of every 1,000 new single-family units
– 0.3% -- had a legal secondary unit built with them.
The traffic analysis assumes that all of the secondary units will be full-time
residences. There is no data to suggest that secondary units are all full-time
residences. Trip generation rates for these units should be adjusted downward to
reflect the fact that many, if not most, will be vacant much of the time.
Taken together, these assumptions result in significantly overestimating the amount of
traffic the project will generate. We understand the Town’s desire to err on the side of
conservatism. Through a series of conservative assumptions, however, one heaped atop
the other, we are concerned the desire to be conservative has resulted in trip generation
rates far higher than what will actually occur. That, in turn, results in overestimating the
volume of traffic that will be contributed to the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive
intersection.
We request that the Town revisit this issue. In particular, we request that the Town
revisit mitigation measure TRANS-1.
The first part of this measure – constructing a center turn lane on Donner Pass Road – is
acceptable. The measure is feasible, and it will address the current, failing LOS left-turn
movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road. The applicant does not object
to fixing this existing problem, even though the problem is not of the project’s making.
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 8
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
The second part of this measure – imposing a ceiling of 102 single-family lots and eight
affordable lots – is excessive. We request that the Town modify Mitigation Measure
TRANS-1 to include a more realistic ceiling on the number of lots that can be established
prior to the construction of the Donner Pass Road extension. To the extent there is a
ceiling at all, it should be higher than 102 lots.
We also request the following text be added to TRANS 1 mitigation as follows:
Upon build-out of 15% (or more) of the lots within the Project, or when the
Project has reached the maximum build-out cap or ceiling established by TRANS-
1 mitigation, the applicant may fund a minor traffic analysis (Town selected
consultant) to verify the as-built progression of lots. The purpose of this study
shall be to determine the number of secondary dwellings units and full-time
residents, and to determine a projection of traffic generated at build-out based
upon actual trip generation data from the project. The traffic consultant may
inflate observed occupancy and trip generation rates by up to 10% in order to err
on the side of conservatism. Based on this actual data, the maximum number of
residential units that can be constructed prior to the construction of the Donner
Pass Road Extension shall be increased to a level that the traffic model supports.
The aim is to allow for revisiting the 102-lot cap, if (as we suspect) actual data shows the
trip generation rates used in the traffic study are far too conservative.
Conforming changes should be made to chapter 4.14 at page 4.14-70. To the extent the
Town revisits trip generation rates (as we believe it should), the text and tables in chapter
4.14 will have to be revised, particularly Table 4.14-6.
12. Table 2-1, TRANS-4, page 2-29
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 requires preparation and approval of a Construction
Traffic Management Plan prior to Phase 1 construction of the Project. This mitigation
measure defers the formulation of plan elements pending further study. This type of
mitigation is appropriate when, as in this case, it is impractical to identify specific
measures at an early stage of approval.
When the details of a mitigation plan will be developed through later design or
engineering work, identification of specific measures may be deferred pending further
study if the mitigation measure describes the options that will be considered and
identifies performance standards.
In the interest of providing a full description of the information the plan will contain, we
request that the Town revise TRANS-4 to contain a discussion of specific options to be
considered in the Construction Traffic Management Plan in order to meet LOS standards
for Project construction traffic. These options may include the following:
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 9
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
Distributing or mailing flyers to residents in Glenshire and surrounding affected
neighborhoods advising about upcoming project traffic prior to the initiation of
construction;
Placing advisory signs along construction routes in advance of construction to
alert traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclists about the upcoming construction traffic
activity;
Install temporary construction area signage on designated haul routes to inform
the public of the presence of trucks;
Provide information to all truck drivers identifying haul routes, speed limits,
location of any flaggers, and any other pertinent public safety information; and
Monitor truck and traffic conditions to identify traffic congestion, safety concerns
regarding truck, vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts and to adjust the
Construction Traffic Management Plan as needed.
In addition, the revisions to this measure should reflect the impact this measure is
designed to address. The EIR describes Impact TRANS-4 as follows: “Construction
trips added to Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road or the eastbound left-turn lane along
Glenshire Drive at its intersection with the western end of Dorchester Drive intersection
would exacerbate these already deficient intersections.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-71.) The
Construction Traffic Management Plan should therefore include the following elements:
The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall provide that construction traffic
will not travel through the site using the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour.
Although the discussion of Impact TRANS-4 indicates there is also an adverse impact at
the intersection of Glenshire Drive and Dorchester Drive, the traffic study indicates this
intersection is operating at LOS A or B. For this reason, it is unclear why the
Construction Traffic Management Plan needs to address this intersection. If it does,
however, Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 should be revised to make clear exactly how the
plan should address construction traffic at this intersection. We would suggest language,
but we do not understand the EIR’s reason for conclusion that mitigation is needed here.
13. Table 2-1, TRANS-5, page 2-29; chapter 4.14, p. 4.14-71
The EIR describes Impact TRANS-5 as follows: “The existing pavement width on the
roadway segment on Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road currently accommodates
11-foot travel lanes with no shoulder in some locations and both Nevada County and
Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot lanes with 4-foot shoulders,
and maximum grade of eight percent. The increase in traffic from the proposed project
would exacerbate this existing geometric deficiency.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-71.)
The description of this impact is incorrect. Specifically:
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 10
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
Ten locations along this roadway section were field measured January 26, 2013
by Martin D. Wood, P.L.S. from SCO Planning & Engineering, including
pavement widths and general shoulder widths. Although the roadway is generally
striped to contain two (2) 11’ drive lanes with an outside fog line, the actual
asphalt roadway was 24-25’ in all locations which does match the County of
Nevada requirements for minor collector lane widths. Shoulder widths (paved and
unpaved) were generally 2’-4’ wide (and wider in some areas). (See attached
exhibit.)
The roadway was improved in 2008 and 2009. Improvements included new
striping, guard-rail and pavement rehabilitation. Since these improvements were
completed, the accident rate has been significantly reduced.
Based on these facts, the EIR should instead conclude that Impact TRANS-5 is less
than significant. If the Town nevertheless believes that mitigation is needed, the most
that should be required is installing additional signage and/or striping to the
satisfaction of the County of Nevada, which owns and is responsible for the
maintenance of this section of roadway. Those improvements would be more
sensible and cost effective than spending money on a traffic safety study.
14. Page 4.3-8 (Air Quality)
The Draft EIR states: “The NSAQMD has rules and regulations to protect regional air
quality. District Rule 226 would be applicable to the proposed project. The rule requires
the submittal of a Dust Control Plan to the District for approval prior to any surface
disturbance, including clearing of vegetation. The NSAQMD would prefer to have the
conditions of the Dust Control Plan included in the General Notes and/ or the Grading
Plan for the project.”
This statement appears to derive from NSAQMD guidelines for assessing and mitigation
of air quality impacts of land-use projects (2009), which the Draft EIR cites elsewhere.
The Draft EIR should make clear that the applicant will be required to comply with Rule
226, and that the Dust Control Plan must contain the requirements set forth in that rule.
We also agree with the recommendation to include the plan’s conditions in the General
Notes and/or the Grading Plan for the project. The text of the Final EIR should be
revised to make clear that all of these requirements apply to the project.
Similarly, the Draft EIR should cite to the NSAQMD guidelines as authority for the
requirements of Mitigation Measure AIR-2. Citing Rule 226 and these guidelines will
make clear that the project will adhere to regulatory requirements adopted for the purpose
of reducing the project’s construction-related PM10 emissions.
15. Chapter 4.4 (Biological Resources)
This chapter refers to the California Department of Fish and Game. The name of the
agency has been changed to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The change
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 11
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
is not substantive, however, so we do not believe it is necessary to update text of the
Draft EIR.
As noted above, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 should be revised.
The Town has received comments on the Draft EIR suggesting that mule deer move
north/south on the property, rather than east/west. Comments suggest that mule deer will
not travel into the “urban area” – the Glenshire neighborhood – to the west. These
statements are incorrect. Data on the presence of mule deer on the site is provided in
Appendix E of the Draft EIR.
The Town has received comments stating the project should provide an open-space
corridor on the east side of the property. The project includes revegetation of the
southeastern portion of the site, as well as installation of guzzlers and other facilities to
provide a water supply for wildlife. These project components will enhance the quality
of wildlife habitat on the eastern portion of the site.
At page 4.4-30, the text states: “The northern goshawk nests in coniferous forest, usually
on north slopes near water, and is extremely defensive of nesting territory.” The sentence
should be revised to refer to “north-facing slopes.” As an example, the slopes on the
southern bank of the Truckee River are north-facing slopes, some of which are preferred
by goshawk.
At page 4.4-50, the text states: “Implementation of the proposed project could impact the
biological resources on the project site and reduce biodiversity.” This statement is
incorrect. Biodiversity is defined in terms of species diversity, ecosystem diversity, and
genetic diversity. The project does not eliminate any of the ecosystems or species, either
on the project site, or in the Truckee area generally. In fact, as mitigated, the project is
consistent with the goals of the Town of Truckee General Plan promoting biodiversity.
IMPACT BIO-1 addresses the removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush habitat, and the
potential resulting impact on Sierra Nevada red foxes if suitable den sites occur on the
project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-53.) As the Draft EIR acknowledges elsewhere, however,
the potential for red fox to be present on the site is very low. The potential for denning
activity on the site is even lower. Foxes have not been observed on the site. The site
contains no denning habitat, and its proximity to humans makes the site unsuitable for
this species. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-28.) For these reasons, the Town should change the
conclusion to identify this impact as less than significant. In that event, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 is no longer needed. In any event, the Town should revise this measure,
as explained above.
The Draft EIR concludes that impacts on deer movement and migration will be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-49.) We agree. Available evidence shows that, as
mitigated, the project includes features that enhance habitat, and incorporates open space
corridors sufficient to allow for deer migration. We recognize some members of the
community have voiced concerns about mule deer migration. Available evidence shows,
however, that the projects’ impact on this species will not be significant.
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 12
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
16. Table 4.10-1
Table 4.10-1 provides the Town’s analysis of whether the project is consistent with
various General Plan policies that are potentially applicable to the project. The table
appears to contain some errors, in that it concludes that the project is “inconsistent” with
certain policies, when the analysis does not support that conclusion. Specifics are
summarized in the following comments.
17. Policy CIR-P2.1
Policy CIR-P2.1 states:
Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road segments and for total
intersection movements in portions of the Town outside of the Downtown Specific
Plan Area.
Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and collector road
segments and for total intersection movements within the Downtown Specific Plan
Area.
Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized intersections
shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cumulative vehicle delay of four
vehicle hours. Both of these conditions shall be met for traffic operations to be
considered unacceptable.
Table 4.10-1 states the project is inconsistent with this policy. This statement is
incorrect. As the traffic chapter makes clear, all of the impacts associated with the
project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires the applicant to construct a center turn lane on
Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire
Drive. This measure also establishes a cap on the number of lots that can be
constructed before the Donner Pass Road Extension is completed. These measures
avoid the potential impact to this intersection.
As noted above, we believe the Town should reconsider this cap, but the underlying point
remains the same: the impact can and will be addressed. As LSC’s Traffic Impact
Analysis dated August 27, 2012 Executive Summary, Recommendation item 1, page ES-
3 states “the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is shown to operate within
the LOS thresholds with implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension.”
Elsewhere, the Traffic Impact Analysis states that, with implementation of the lane
improvement included in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, “even with full buildout of
Canyon Springs, the delays at the intersection would be shorter than under existing
conditions without the lane improvements (and without any development). That is,
implementation of the entire Canyon Springs development and the lane improvements
would result in an improvement over existing traffic conditions at this intersection.”
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 13
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
(Appendix I, p. ES-3.) With the construction of the lane improvement, development at
Canyon Springs could occur without causing a significant impact. The traffic study
indicates this intersection could accommodate up to 102 single-family lots and 8
affordable lots. (Appendix I, p. 64.) Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 is consistent with
this analysis. While we believe the 102-lot ceiling is too low because the trip generation
calculations are unduly conservative, the fundamental point is that, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, this impact is less than significant, and
the project is consistent with this policy.
18. Table 4.10-1, CIR-P2.2, page 4.10-22
Goal/Policy CIR-P2.2 states:
In addition to the standards described in Policy 2.1, the criteria and thresholds shown
in Table CIR-6 shall be applied to future development projects to determine the need
for a traffic impact analysis to be conducted and to determine if a project’s traffic
impact is found to be significant.
Table CIR-6, Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria Category 3: Subdivision of 11 or more
lots, multifamily development of 11 or more units, commercial/ industrial
development of 7,500 square feet or more, or equivalent development.
Table 4.10-1 states the project is inconsistent with this policy. This statement is
incorrect. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires the applicant to construct a center turn
lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from
Glenshire Drive. This measure also establishes a cap on the number of lots that can be
constructed before the Donner Pass Road Extension is completed. With implementation
of this measure, the project is consistent with Policy CIR-P2.2.
19. Table 4.10-1, CIR-P2.3, page 4.10-22
Policy CIR-P2.3 states:
Allow flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards described in Policy P2.1 for the
following intersections:
♦ Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road
♦ Bridge Street/River Street
♦ Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
Exceptions to the standards may be allowed in cases where the Town finds that
improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS: (a) should be deferred in order to
better coordinate with the planning and implementation of other projects including
the Railyard; (b) will result in unacceptable impacts (e.g. requiring demolition of
historic buildings, relocation of businesses); (c) are not feasible to construct; or (d)
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 14
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
should be deferred or lowered in order to better implement other transportation
control measures including alternative transportation modes.
Table 4.10-1 states the project is inconsistent with this policy due to the “significant and
unavoidable impact” at the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection. This
statement is incorrect. The impact is not significant and unavoidable. Mitigation
Measure TRANS-1 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level. With
implementation of this measure, the project is consistent with Policy CIR-P2.3.
20. Table 4.10-1, CIR-P3.3, page 4.10-24
Goal/Policy CIR-P3.3 states:
Require all new development projects to adequately mitigate identified impacts
through construction of improvements and/or payment of traffic impact mitigation
fees. Mitigation of significant project-related impacts may require improvements
beyond those addressed by the current Capital Improvement Program and traffic
impact mitigation fee program.
Table 4.10-1 states the project is inconsistent with this policy due to the “significant and
unavoidable impact” at the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection. This
statement is incorrect. Impact TRANS-1 is not significant and unavoidable. Mitigation
Measure TRANS-1 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level. With
implementation of this measure, the project is consistent with Policy CIR-P3.3.
21. Table 4.10-1, CIR-P4.2, page 4.10-24
General Plan Policy CIR-P4.2 states:
Require planning for land use and transportation systems in new growth areas that
provides opportunities for residents, employees, and those without vehicles to
accomplish many of their trips by walking, bicycling, or using transit.
Table 4.10-1 states the project is “inconsistent” with this policy. The text states that the
project, though consistent with General Plan designations and zoning, “is primarily
automobile dependent as it is not in close proximity to basic commercial services.”
We disagree with this conclusion. First, the site is not a “new growth area,” and is
therefore not directly subject to this policy. The site has been designated for residential
uses for years. Second, even if this policy does apply to the site, the project is consistent
with it:
The project is highly walkable with trail connections to the north, south and west.
Glenshire Elementary School, the primary school of the area is only
approximately ½ mile from the proposed Canyon Springs Development and well
within walking distance for school age children with no driving needed.
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 15
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
Canyon Springs is part of the greater Glenshire area and has numerous
recreational opportunities (walking, hiking, snow shoeing, mountain biking, cross
country skiing, etc.), all of which can be enjoyed by future Canyon Springs
residents without having to drive.
There is a deli/market and gas station just over one mile northeast of the project
near the intersection of Hirschdale and Glenshire Drive.
Approximately 1.3 miles away from the Canyon Springs project is the Glenshire
market along with other commercial/retail businesses near Dorchester/Glenshire
that serves the greater Glenshire area. This commercial area is within walking
and biking distance. Additionally there are four (4) parcels zoned commercial
(CN) that could provide support additional retail service opportunities for Canyon
Springs and the greater Glenshire area.
Mail delivery will be delivered to a mail box cluster to reduce the amount of
travel required by the US Postal Service, but will locate mail within walking
distance from future Canyon Springs residents.
Third, even if the Town continues to believe the project is inconsistent with this policy,
the policy by its express terms is not prohibitory. Rather, the policy states the Town will
plan for developing transportation options that do not involve the automobile. The
project does not preclude the Town from doing that. Nor does the policy prohibit the
Town from approving residential development, except when it is close to downtown.
Interpreting the policy in that manner would trump zoning designations that have been in
place for years. Nothing in the policy suggests the Town intends that result.
22. Table 4.10-1, CIR-P6.3, Page 4.10-25
Policy CIR-P6.3 states:
Maintain Donner Pass Road at a three-lane cross-section (two lanes of traffic with a
left-turn lane). New projects that could add significant traffic to Donner Pass Road
must demonstrate that cumulative traffic impacts will not result in the need to widen
Donner Pass Road.
Table 4.10-1 states the project is inconsistent with this policy because “The worst
movement at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection would continue to
operate at LOS F.” This statement is incorrect. The project is consistent with this policy
for the following reasons.
The Railyard Masterplan, Chapter 7 Transportation and Circulation, identifies the
existing Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive as Arterial roadway sections
which will contain a three-lane cross-section.
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 16
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, Donner Pass Road is
being maintained as a three-lane cross-section (two lanes of traffic with a center
turn lane for a two-stage turning movement).
23. Table 4.10-1, H-P4.2, page 4.10-27
Policy H-P4.2 states:
Encourage residential development that reduces infrastructure and other development
costs, preserves and enhances important environmental resources, and maintains
important areas as open space.
Table 4.10-1 states the project is inconsistent with this policy because “roadway
improvements to the existing roadway infrastructure would be required and new on-site
roadways would be constructed. Furthermore, there is no existing utility infrastructure on
the project site and the project would require off-site water line infrastructure
improvements. While the environmental impacts associated with development of the
project’s infrastructure were found to be less than significant or less than significant with
mitigation, the project would not reduce infrastructure and other development costs.
These statements are incorrect. The Canyon Springs property has been instrumental in
the reduction of sewer infrastructure costs for the greater Glenshire area. Sewer
Assessment District 6 (SAD6) was formed in 1986 to bring sewer to the Glenshire area.
The Canyon Springs properties were assessed 280 equivalent dwelling units (edu’s). As a
result the owners of the Canyon Springs Parcels, including financing costs contributed
$430,163 in fees which were instrumental in bringing the overall infrastructure cost of the
sewer project for all Glenshire residents to a more economically reasonable cost per
parcel.
In addition, the Canyon Springs project as designed preserves and enhances important
environmental resources and creates and maintains permanent areas of open space in
excess of Town of Truckee Development Code requirements. Over 192 acres (67%+) of
the project site is designated as open space; this amount exceeds the Town of Truckee
Development Code requirements.
The discussion of Policy H-P4.2 in Table 4.10-1 suggests that development is
inappropriate in any area where roads or utilities do not already exist. The policy does
not say that. Rather, the policy states the Town will “encourage” development in areas
with roads and utilities, not that the Town will prohibit development elsewhere. Such an
interpretation of this policy would trump zoning designations that have been in place for
years.
24. Alternatives Analysis
An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternatives. If the no-project
alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR must also identify an
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 17
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (e)(2).)
Table 5-1 (DEIR p. 5-6) identifies the No Project alternative as the environmentally
superior alternative. The text on DEIR page 5-53 should clarify that the No Project
alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.
The DEIR also analyzes other alternatives to identify the next environmentally superior
alternative, aside from the No Project alternative. However, the DEIR appears to contain
a typo, as it identifies Alternative D as the environmentally superior alternative.
Table 5-1 shows that Alternative E will have a slight improvement to environmental
impacts over the proposed project in ten different categories, while Alternative D will
have a slight improvement in five categories. Therefore, Alternative E should be
identified as the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project
alternative.
With respect to Aesthetics, Alternative D would not necessarily retain more trees and
vegetation and would have a negative effect to some aesthetics. The significantly
narrower lots indicated on Alternative D would severely limit custom homes to be
flexibly located onto the home sites. Retention of existing trees and rock outcroppings
that are typically designed around when adequate lot size and width are available would
be far less. Although the overall area would be smaller, at build-out, a far fewer amount
of trees would remain in the new residential neighborhood creating a “clear cut” effect”.
Alternative D has other significant disadvantages with respect to grading. The narrower
lots again do not allow for flexibility in properly siting proposed custom homes. Without
the room, or ability to rotate building footprints to work with the contours of each
individual site, it can lead to additional grading that would not normally be required. It
would also be expected that most of the existing vegetation would be removed on these
lots due to the small size if you take into account utilities installation and that many
homes would span the full width of the Alternative D lots. This can give the effect of a
more “mass graded” project in lieu of custom homes working with the existing terrain.
The lack of existing vegetation that is essential to filtering sediment would be reduced
under Alternative D which is also a concern with maintaining water quality to the
adjacent water courses.
Again, the lack of lot width does not allow proper siting of homes and can lead to a far
less superior product in orientation for solar exposure and application of both passive and
photovoltaic solar applications.
In summary Alternative D is not environmentally superior to the proposed Canyon
Springs project. Alternative D fails to accomplish many of the key project objectives and
design elements contained in the project description and design guidelines.
* * *
Town of Truckee – attn. Denyelle Nishimori
March 6, 2013
Page 18
S:\WDocs\rtmmmain\CANYONSP\193\LETTER\00205465.DOC
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments, and look forward to the
Town’s consideration of the project.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Dale Creighton, A.I.C.P., Principal, and Martin D.
Wood, P.L.S., Vice-President, SCO Planning,
Engineering & Surveying
John Heal, Heal Environmental Consulting
Greg C. Gatto, Stoel Rives, LLP
Whit Manley, Remy Moose Manley LLP
Christopher Huck, Owner/Applicant, Canyon
Springs Joint Venture
Attachment: Glenshire Drive Exhibit