The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutCanyon Springs DEIR Public Comment #77 (Moore)Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner Date: March 3, 2013 10183 Truckee Airport Rd, Truckee, CA 96161 ry 0a 9�v m'AND dnishimori@townoftruckee.com Re: Comments for Canyon Springs DEIR Dear Denyelle: I am unable to gain access and review the complete DEIR; apparently the site has exceeded the allotted number of viewers and turned off. In most of my comments I am unable to reference specific pages or DEIR sections. The following are comments and concerns I have gathered regarding the adequacy of the DEIR for the proposed Canyon Springs housing development: Traffic: Access for development/construction will require use of Martis Peak Rd/Hirschdale Rd/Interstate 80 hwy. DEIR does not consider impact of I -80 closures, inclement weather or accidents. Furthermore, studies were not done to address snow periods. These periods need to be analyzed paying attention to intersections such as the Glenshire Drive /White Horse/Martis Peak Rd.s example have nlvehiclespin that i situation crest of the hill, losing traction and becoming which generally requires calling for a tow service and the road is blocked. If used as a primary access Edinburg Dr would receive large volumes of traffic and use impacts and which the road is not designed for. Were the impacts of parking on Edinburg Dr addressed along with pedestrian traffic? DEIR did not take into consideration of cumulative impacts on Glenshire Dr PR from Olympic Heights and downtown core. Traffic studies need to consider cumulative impacts for the region not just a reference to an existing EIR. ugh a Land Use and General Plan: Goal COS -9 Link open space as able to well- connected network of open space and trails. (p ) From the map I w access the trails within the area are fragmented and do not connect to t other access tf r Town of Truckee trail network, nor is there consideration to gain rig of way a trail connecting to Martis Valley. new Interesting comment, Land Ue the maximum Plan: development so as to presery mount of desired types of op n 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). Through this EIR process is the proponent requesting a General Plan amendment to allow this to happen? Wildlife and General Plan: 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 blocks 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. This statement is misleading and gives the impression this issue is being glossed over. Were the studies done by Department of Fish and Game in the 1980's or late 70's taken into consideration? These were for Martis Valley developments but are very applicable to this project and the welfare of the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd. These past studies were very contentious, but factual in finding flaws and irregularities in the private consultant's studies at the time, we see similarities here. The fact is the Project will have significant impact on Deer migration in the area and mitigation measures will not help. The DEIR provides zero support for statements that the deer will continue to be able to do seasonal migration trip through the site via the open spaces. It's just a guess; no evidence, facts, or references are provided. For things that are this important, there have to be facts and independent expert references, not just unsupported opinions of the owner's biologist. The cumulative affects on wildlife in future development of adjacent private property needs to be addressed. Air Quality: Project would allow wood stoves and fireplaces with no limitation except that they're EPA phase 2 certified. These still produce about 2/3 of the amount of toxic smoke pollutants as an old fashioned one; which is too much air pollution. DEIR needs to study environmental consequences due to our frequent temperature inversions during wood burning (colder) seasons. Added wood smoke from this development will decrease air quality for the Glenshire region which is not even mentioned/studied in DEIR. which is inadequate under CEQA. Fyydrology: DEIR hydrology section is inadequate. DEIR does not even mention Glenshire Pond at all which is a large omission because this is the receiving water for all of the proposed project's drainage. Sediments and nutrients that are added from project site will collect in Glenshire Pond causing severe impacts to water quality causing bacteria and algae blooms to form. In addition the question needs to be addressed about the "silting in" of the Glenshire Pond due to these conditions and the mitigation. DEIR assumes water will infiltrate into the ground as stated at public meetings, yet the soil survey have poor permeability, creating run -off. 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 soil and has massive impacts already with erosion and flooding. DEIR needs to consider cumulative hydrology impacts from other development projects. The current Canyon Springs owner has allowed erosion to take place during big storm events that has caused significant soil movement towards the pond and filled culverts under Glenshire Drive with material. The owner is not displaying responsible land stewardship nor has he taken remedial measures to correct these problems. Fire and Fuels Management: A fuels modification plan was briefly mentioned at a public meeting. No discussion on any details were forth coming or mention of the opportunity for public review prior to implementing. Adjacent property owners must be required to develop a fuels management plan on their own properties to create at least a 300 foot buffer around the proposed development. There has been no mention at any public meeting about Truckee Fire District, just the generic requirements that to state law regarding fire flow and ingress /egress. The answered are: Is the current staffing at the Glenshire Fi is approved? Is the right mix of equipment available or required to fund additional an engine or water tender? the mitigations required by the Cal -Fire may require according specific questions that need to be re Station adequate if the project is the developer going to be A revised DEIR needs to be prepared and released for public review prior to any decision making. Thank you for allowing me to address my concerns regarding the DEIR for Canyon Springs. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding my comments and concerns addressing the adequacy of the DEIR. Sincerely, Signature Robert Moore 10057 Wycliffe Ln. Truckee, CA 96161 530 - 575 -5766 snowfire.fire @gmail.com