HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #72 (Zink)March 4, 2013
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner
10183 Truckee Airport Rd.
Truckee, CA 96161
dnishimori@townoftruckee.com
Re: Comments for Canyon Springs DEIR
Dear Denyelle,
The following are comments and concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR for the proposed Canyon
Springs housing development:
LAND USE AND GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE:
Goal COS-9 Link open space areas in Truckee through a well-connected network of open space and trails.
(p 7-40).
Trails in this project do not connect with the entire development, or the Town of Truckee’s trail
network.
Section LU-P9.7 Oppose development within the Planning Area that significantly impacts the Town’s
natural ecosystems and viewsheds. Goal CC-1 Preserve open space in Truckee that contributes to the
town’s scenic mountain community character. ¤ Ensuring that new development enhances the desired
character of each of these areas. And section COS-P1.1 s Acquire and preserve open space lands in
Truckee, and purchase development rights for the purpose of open space preservation, with priority
given to the following open space types: ¤ Pristine open space and large blocks of undeveloped open
space.
Canyon Springs will significantly impact the 8 acres of meadows and wetlands that occur on this
property. The construction of bridges will cause impacts to the wetlands they are supposedly
enhancing. The development will cause discontinuity in the meadow systems and springs with unknown
and possibly devastating consequences to these special meadows. These meadows are a significant
part of Truckee’s scenic mountain community character and there is no justification to have any impact
on these valuable ecosystems. At least 8 lots in phases 7 and 8 and within 200 feet of wetlands,
Goal LU-5 – Encourage a mix of land uses in the Town to promote a vibrant community and to reduce
traffic…
Canyon Springs is in direct conflict with this goal. It significantly increases traffic w/o doing anything to
promote a vibrant community or mixed land use.
Goal COS-15 - Encourage conservation of energy and fuel resources, strive to reduce generation of solid
waste, and promote environmental sustainability.
Canyon Springs is on the far outskirts of Truckee, which does not encourage sustainability and will use
more energy and fuel resources for construction as well as for the distance residents will have to travel
to services, since it provides no services to the development.
Goal LU-9 Support development patterns in the Planning Area that do not negatively impact the Town
of Truckee, and that enhance the quality of life for residents of Truckee and the wider region.
There is nothing about Canyon Springs that enhances the quality of life for the residents surrounding the
development. It will increase traffic on Glenshire drive to significantly more than mitigateable levels.
Glenshire Drive and Donner Pass Road as well as Glenshire Drive and Dorchester are already over LOS
and cannot support the 2,578 additional trips a day that will be generated by Canyon Springs.
Construction traffic will impact Glenshire and Olympic Heights for years. It will turn neighborhood roads
into an unsafe situation for children walking to and from school and bus stops and for playing. Heavy
construction traffic will have a negative impact on the condition of Glenshire Drive, is the developer
going to provide for the extra road maintenance costs?
REQUEST: Traffic studies need to be done during winter storm periods to truly show the impact of
thousands more trips per day on Glenshire Drive and on traffic safety. Is it worth people dying to allow
yet another development that is not economically feasible? Glenshire Drive is a very unsafe road during
winter storms. This development is unfeasible due to its more than significant impacts on traffic and
human safety in the adjacent neighborhoods and on all of Glenshire Drive and should not be approved
as proposed.
Canyon Springs is in conflict with Goal LU-9 of the General Plan and should not be approved.
Goal LU-3 states Create efficient land use patterns which reduce environmental impacts and
minimize the potential for residential and commercial sprawl.
Canyon Springs is sprawl and is in conflict with the General Plan. People who do not live in Glenshire
complain about how far it is from town, Canyon Springs is even farther. Developments that use more
gas and produce more greenhouse gases to get to and from city centers do not enhance Truckee and are
an environmental impact that must be considered.
Goal CC1, P1.3 Cluster new development so as to preserve the maximum amount of desired types of
open space, as identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element (p3-30) This development
represents sprawling development and not clustered. Project development should illustrate ‘Rural
Clusters’ as noted in General Plan (Table LU-7, 2-62)
DEIR alternatives: Request an Alternative be considered with no wetland crossing that clusters
development on the north side of the property only and reduces density. The current reduced density
alternative covers the same footprint and the current no wetland crossing alternative keeps the same
density with smaller lots. There should be an alternative combining lower density with no crossing to
see if it reduces impacts to an acceptable level.
WILDLIFE
Goal COS-4,P 4.2 Protect sensitive wildlife habitat from destruction and intrusion by incompatible land
uses where appropriate. All efforts to protect sensitive habitats should consider (1)Sensitive habitat and
movement corridors in the areas adjacent to development sites, as well as on the development site itself,
(2) Prevention of habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity (p 7-31)
This project will impact a known deer migration corridor, making no attempt to protect it. New deer
study data needs to be incorporated into DEIR, as current analysis is not sufficient and updated.
Cumulative impact of development throughout the Verdi-Loyalton mule deer migration corridors should
be considered in the DEIR. The DEIR consultants seem to have used the project owner’s deer report
without any kind of independent peer review or to have consulted any other experts for other
information or possible dissenting opinions. The deer analysis appears biased due to conflict of interest
and needs more factual and recent data.
Canyon Springs will have significant impact on deer migration in the area and mitigation measures
cannot help. Changes in migration corridors affect deer significantly, as has been shown in Martis
Valley. The DEIR provides zero support for statements that the deer will continue to be able to do
seasonal migration trips through the site via the open space that remains. The numbers of this
beleaguered herd have reduced significantly in the last decade. There needs to be updated data and
independent expert references, not just unsupported opinions of the owner’s biologist and previous
data used.
HYDROLOGY
The DEIR hydrology section is inadequate. It does not include Glenshire Pond, which is a large omission
as Glenshire Pond receives the water from all of the proposed project’s drainage. Sediments and
nutrients that are added from the project site will collect in Glenshire Pond causing severe impacts to
water quality and bacteria and algae blooms to form. Hydrology and mitigation measures need to be
re-analyzed.
DEIR assumes water will infiltrate into the ground, yet the soil surveys have indicated poor permeability.
This means the analysis of the amount of pollutants and run-off in the water that overflows the
sediment basins is inadequate. Elkhorn Ridge development was built on similar soils and it has
experience large impacts due to erosion and flooding. The DEIR needs to consider cumulative hydrology
impacts from other development projects as well.
This DEIR is inadequate due to its lack of overall consideration of cumulative impacts. Loss of
migration corridors, loss of habitat, loss of connective meadow systems, water quality, air quality,
biological resources. In addition, Canyon Springs does not comply with numerous goals and land use
objectives of the general plan and that in itself should be reason for denial.
The biggest testimonial to denial is the DEIR itself. The amount of significant impacts stated for this
project should require denial considering that Truckee’s economy probably cannot even support 185
more residential lots. It states significant impacts would result to air quality, numerous biological
resources (this in itself should be unacceptable), hazardous materials, soils, hydrology and water quality
and last but certainly not least on traffic. Is this what we really want for Truckee? I don’t believe this is
any citizen of Truckee’s vision for our town, except maybe the developer.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on this DEIR. And thanks to the Town of Truckee for the effort it
has put into helping get the public involved and public comment into this project.
Sincerely,
Jacqui Zink
15434 Donnington, Truckee,
587-6030
tahoejaz@gmail.com