HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #66 (Heyman)March 6, 2013
Attention: Denyelle Nishimori
Town of Truckee Planning Commission
Regarding: Canyon Springs DEIR
Dear Sirs/Madams,
After looking through the DEIR and having attended the presentation by those who
prepared the report, I have numerous concerns about issues that were either not
addressed at all or not addressed adequately. I’ll stick to just the main points here.
Traffic
The preparer of this report seems very clearly to be bringing an urban mentality to the
issue. Imposing urban traffic levels on a rural setting such as this one shows that the
DEIR and its preparer are out of touch with the setting and the values of the people
living in Truckee. Even setting aside the safety concerns for a moment, the resulting
dramatic increase in noise pollution, as well as other types of pollution, would go a long
way to turning a rural mountain town into an urban setting. Specifically, stating that an
increase of 850 to over one thousand vehicle trips on residential roads is acceptable is
divorced from the reality of rural mountain town life, and reflects an urban bias that has
no place in this setting. Additionally, how those numbers of increased traffic were
determined is highly suspect.
Safety
The amount of attention given to safety was woefully inadequate. On the stretch of
Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road, the only focus on
safety was on the average number of auto collisions reported over the past few years.
The most obvious fault with this approach is the absence of unreported collisions,
including accidents involving wildlife. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up
with an accurate number for unreported accidents, that is not an excuse to omit them
from consideration. Bicyclists, for instance, are frequently endangered with the number
of vehicles already using that stretch of road. Increasing the number of vehicles as
dramatically as this project proposes would increase danger to cyclists, wildlife, and
drivers to an unacceptable level.
Migratory Corridor
Simply putting up a few cameras and checking them to see whether they’ve taken any
shots of wildlife is laughable as a means of determining whether this project will have an
impact on the migratory corridor. Wildlife photographers spend years trying to capture
shots of wildlife using trip-activated cameras. The fact that wildlife can be illusive
doesn’t mean it isn’t there. We already know that there is a migratory corridor through
this area and it is a natural next step to determine that a project the size of this one will
very definitely have a dramatic negative impact on it. This impact was not properly
addressed in the report.
Open Space
To say that there is enough open space in the greater region that destroying this area of
open space would be acceptable sounds like a developer’s words to justify such a large
project rather than the words of an environmental expert. If we were to use that
mentality each time we determined whether to preserve open space or destroy it with
development, there would likely soon be no open space left. The fact remains that this
area of open space would be decimated if this project were to be allowed. Keep in mind
that the impact on wildlife and open space would stretch far beyond the boundaries of
the project itself as wildlife will likely stay far away from any signs of development,
creating a much larger impact zone than the report takes into account.
Density of the Development
The DEIR report recommends a “medium” density option simply because it is allowed
by an outdated town policy from years ago, before there was an adequate emphasis on
environmental impacts. That is not a good enough reason to go with what the report
refers to as medium density, but what in this region would more accurately be described
as high density. Even the “low” density option that the report offers covers about the
same area as the medium density option, and thus would have a similar impact on open
space and wildlife. A true low-density option needs to be explored, as well as a realistic
approach to preserving the land as open space, instead of simply paying lip service to
the preservation option.
Sprawl
The location of this project is at the farthest outskirts of town. Thus, vehicle trips will be
much longer than if we as a community were focusing more on the preferred approach
of developing and redeveloping closer to the center of town. The sprawl that results
from this type of over-development, if it is allowed to continue, would eventually leave
Truckee virtually unrecognizable, and looking like it belongs in the Bay Area, destroying
the unique mountain town charm that we have all come to love about this place we call
home.
Cost to Taxpayers
The total cost of this project to the town of Truckee, and thus to the taxpayers, in the
form of infrastructure and other costs, is very difficult to determine precisely.
Nevertheless, there should be a legitimate attempt at estimating this cost, both in the
short term and in the long term, and at determining how the developer will pay for all of
these costs down the road. The DEIR does not adequately address this issue.
This project, if allowed to go forward, would create far too much of an environmental
impact on not just the immediate area, but also the greater region, and thus would
contribute to the destruction of the very setting that we have all come to treasure. For
this reason, among others, the Canyon Springs project has no place in this rural
mountain setting, and should be denied. Remember that once this land is developed on
the scale proposed there is no going back. The damage will have been done. The DEIR
does not come close to taking the scope of the potential overall environmental impact of
this project into account, and therefore should be completely redone with a more
professional and unbiased perspective.
Thank you in advance for taking my concerns into consideration.
Sincerely,
Alex Heyman