HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #30 (Holan)April
12,
2013
Jenna
Endres
Associate
Planner
Town
of
Truckee
Town
Council
c/o
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
10183
Truckee
Airport
Rd
Truckee,
CA,
96161
Re:
Tahoe
Donner
Marina
Project
12-‐020/AM
ND-‐DP-‐UP
Dear
Ms.
Endres:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
Tahoe
Donner
Marina
project.
I
have
been
a
resident
of
Truckee
for
13
years
and
have
used
the
marina
as
well
as
the
adjacent
State
Park
beach
frequently
over
those
years.
My
family
makes
great
use
of
the
scenic
and
recreational
resource
that
is
Donner
Lake
and
it’s
immediate
surroundings;
swimming,
running,
cycling,
picnicking,
paddle-‐boarding,
kayaking.
I
am
concerned
about
the
proposed
changes
to
the
TDA
Marina
on
a
number
of
fronts.
First
and
foremost
is
the
apparent
lack
of
transparency
of
the
purpose
of
these
changes.
The
TDA
presents
their
plan
primarily
as
an
improvement
in
accessibility
for
their
members,
and
yet
there
are
a
number
of
proposals
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
improved
ADA
access.
The
extensive
overhaul
of
the
lighting
system
for
a
facility
that
is
only
used
during
daylight
hours,
for
example,
does
not
improve
accessibility.
The
proposed
dramatic
expansion
of
the
patio
makes
it
no
more
accessible
than
the
existing
patio,
nor
do
the
two
large
rock
retaining
walls
at
the
back
of
beach
affect
accessibility.
This
appears
to
be
an
attempt
to
piggyback
changes
for
other
purposes
onto
a
more
laudable
proposal
regarding
accessibility.
These
“other
changes”
suggest
plans
for
expanded
use,
such
as
an
events
center,
including
weddings.
The
MDN
states
that
there
will
be
no
expanded
use
because
they
are
not
increasing
the
number
of
parking
spaces,
however
there
are
already
not
enough
parking
spaces
currently,
especially
acute
at
peak
times,
and
the
community
bears
the
burden
of
overflow
parking
along
Donner
Pass
Rd
all
the
way
to
the
Park
entrance.
The
TDA
appears
to
be
underrepresenting
their
impact
on
and
responsibility
to
the
community
with
their
proposed
changes.
Overall,
I
feel
strongly
that
the
scope
of
the
project
is
too
large,
too
heavy-‐
handed,
and
ultimately
overstretches
the
intended
use
of
the
facility.
At
minimum
it
requires
an
Environmental
Impact
Report.
Below
are
my
concerns
in
more
detail,
and
at
the
end
are
my
alternative
recommendations
for
scaled-‐back
enhancements.
1)
Tree
Removal:
Many
healthy
mature
trees
are
slated
for
removal.
After
viewing
the
site
and
trees
slated
for
removal,
I
feel
that
too
many
healthy
mature
trees
are
being
removed
to
maintain
visual
and
ecological
density
of
the
stand
on
this
site.
There
is
a
disturbing
discrepancy
between
the
TDA
forester
and
the
independent
arborist
assessments,
with
the
removal
of
at
least
7
mature
trees
in
dispute.
(If
tree
“N”
was
considered
healthy
enough
to
keep
(Figure
1,
below),
I
don’t
understand
why
other
trees
with
fuller
crowns
and
undamaged
trunks
were
determined
to
be
too
unhealthy
to
keep.)
These
trees
serve
as
forage
habitat
and
nesting
for
many
small
birds
but
more
critically
as
winter
habitat
when
the
marina
is
closed
for
overwintering
species
such
as
chickadees
and
nuthatches,
among
others.
Container
trees
are
not
an
adequate
replacement
ecologically,
nor
are
they
as
resilient
as
healthy
mature
native
trees
grown
from
seedling
–
less
than
100%
survival
of
replacement
trees
should
be
expected.
The
extensive
root
systems
of
the
remaining
large,
mature
trees
will
impacted
by
excavation,
grading,
and
compaction
from
heavy
machinery;
not
all
of
these
“saved”
trees
are
likely
to
survive
the
highly
invasive
construction
period
either.
For
example,
the
large
tree
“U”
(SW
corner
of
the
building)
will
be
entirely
surrounded
on
all
sides
by
graded
patio,
walkways,
and
a
boulder
retaining
wall;
several
unidentified
trees
12’
DBH
at
the
far
west
end
of
the
beach
will
be
impacted
by
hillside
excavation
and
rock
wall
construction,
but
this
is
not
indicated
on
the
plans.
2)
Lighting:
While
the
existing
(minimal)
lighting
is
in
need
of
updating
to
reduce
light
impacts
to
the
Park
and
to
residents
across
the
road
and
around
the
lake,
the
proposal
of
new
lighting
fixtures
(including
22
x
10’-‐pole-‐mounted
patio
lights,
plus
path
and
stair
lighting
(pg.
10))
potentially
up
to
230
000
lumens
on
the
2.3
acre
site,
seems
excessive.
Why
does
this
facility
need
such
extensive
lighting
when
it
closes
at
dusk?
Why
is
it
needed
for
access
to
water
sports
and
beach
activities,
which
is
what
this
plan
is
supposed
to
be
enhancing?
3)
Undeclared
expanded
use
of
the
marina
facility:
As
stated
in
the
introduction,
there
is
strong
evidence
that
this
plan
is
part
of
a
greater
intention
to
create
an
event
center
that
goes
far
beyond
the
current
intended
uses
of
the
facility
–
picnicking,
swimming
and
water
sports.
First,
the
extensive
plans
for
lighting
suggest
nighttime
use,
which
currently
does
not
exist
and
will
impact
resident
all
around
this
lake
as
well
as
Park
visitors
and
campers
with
unshielded
light
and
noise
across
the
water.
Second,
proposed
changes
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
improving
accessibility
(expanded
patio,
night
lighting,
rock
retaining
walls
along
the
beach)
but
that
will
make
the
site
more
accommodating
for
events.
Third,
advertisements
on
TDA
website
that
include
the
Marina
as
a
wedding
venue
(advertised
on
their
website
at
$1000/hr;
http://www.tahoedonner.com/weddings/venues/).
Fourth,
the
ability
to
accommodate
event
overflow
parking
on
Donner
Pass
Rd
(at
the
expense
of
the
community;
see
next
item).
4)
Transportation
and
Traffic:
The
MND
states
that,
because
no
additional
parking
spaces
are
being
added,
that
use
of
the
facility
will
not
increase.
(Pg.
42
“Overall,
none
of
the
proposed
improvements
are
expected
to
generate
additional
traffic
and
no
new
parking
is
proposed.
Due
to
the
limited
off-‐street
parking
within
the
Marina
facility
and
limited
onstreet
parking,
the
Marina’s
capacity
is
to
a
large
degree,
regulated
by
the
two
parking
areas.
Because
the
Marina’s
capacity
is
not
increasing
and
traffic
volumes
will
not
increase
beyond
the
existing
baseline
conditions,
the
impact
on
levels
of
service
and
performance
of
the
circulations
systems
are
less-‐than-‐
significant.)”
The
many
changes
in
the
plan
that
are
not
related
to
accessibility
improvements
(i.e.
expanded
patio,
addition
of
nighttime
lighting,
rock
retaining
walls
on
the
hillside)
strongly
suggest
the
intention
to
increase
usage.
Currently,
far,
far
more
people
use
the
facility
at
one
time
than
the
50
parking
spaces
within
the
marina
property
can
accommodate.
Peak
days
on
mid-‐summer
weekends
can
reach
1000
people/day.
Extra
users
simply
park
alongside
Donner
Pass
Road,
sometime
as
far
as
the
Park
gates.
This
already
creates
traffic
congestion,
inhibits
emergency
vehicles,
endangers
pedestrians
and
cyclists
from
drivers
turning
left
into
and
out
of
the
marina
parking
lot
during
congested,
high-‐traffic
times,
and
impacts
walk-‐in
users
of
the
Park
that
have
no
other
place
to
park
except
along
DPR
next
to
the
marina.
TDA
appears
to
be
ignoring
the
added
usage
of
their
facility
that
is
allowed
by
parking
along
DPR
as
well
as
the
associated
impacts
to
the
community.
For
the
MND
to
claim
that
use
will
not
increase
because
no
extra
parking
spaces
will
be
provided
is
disingenuous.
No
information
is
given
in
the
MND
on
existing
capacity
for
the
marina,
let
alone
projected
use.
It
is
possible
that
TDA
needs
to
limit
the
number
of
marina
visitors
to
the
existing
capacity
(parking,
patio
tables,
beach
space)
of
the
site,
rather
than
attempt
to
accommodate
too
many
visitors
at
once.
5)
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality:
Wastewater
and
storm
water
runoff
from
the
site.
The
MND
states
that
since
no
great
changes
will
occur
at
the
site,
no
mitigation
is
necessary
to
deal
with
runoff
from
the
facility
into
either
the
lake
or
the
adjacent
Park
property:
“…any
runoff
from
the
new
improvements
is
not
likely
to
exceed
the
capacity
of
existing
or
planned
storm
water
drainage
systems.”
(pg.
32).
The
State
Park
(Sierra
District)
public
MND
comment
letter
states
as
their
first
concern
that
“No
surface
water
runoff
from
the
existing
and/or
proposed
development
shall
run
on
to
State
Park
property.”
The
TDA,
however,
provides
no
evaluation,
evidence
or
information
regarding
the
efficacy
or
adequacy
of
the
existing
containment
system.
From
personal
observation,
storm
water
currently
runs
off
the
asphalt
leading
to
the
boat
ramp
onto
the
gravel
strip
along
the
south
side
of
the
asphalt
(Figures
2a
and
b).
This
water
runs
downslope
directly
into
the
lake
next
to
the
boat
ramp,
and
through
the
chain
link
fence
into
the
meadow
on
Park
property.
Existing
storm
water/drainage
systems
do
not
appear
to
be
adequate
for
the
current
facility,
and
are
unlikely
to
be
adequate
during
construction,
or
afterward.
6)
Beachside
Retaining
Walls:
The
TDA
proposes
two
crescent,
4-‐6’
tall
rock
retaining
walls
in
the
hillside
at
the
central
and
western
part
of
the
beach.
These
are
to
increase
picnicking
area,
and
to
prevent
natural
and
human-‐induced
hillside
erosion.
The
proposed
walls
would
be
large
enough
to
be
seen
from
all
along
the
Park’s
eastern
beach
and
from
the
Park
directly
across
the
lake,
not
to
mention
by
boaters;
however,
these
large
walls
would
still
only
provide
retention
for
less
than
half
the
length
of
the
hillside,
and
a
minimal
increase
in
beach
area.
This
is
a
heavy-‐
handed
solution
to
erosion,
which
includes
excavation
and
rock
wall
construction
and
associated
heavy
machinery.
7)
Other
concerns:
A)
I
was
shocked
to
learn
that
as
much
as
the
top
three
feet
of
soil
will
be
removed
from
the
upper
picnic
area
to
grade
it
and
turn
the
existing
3-‐
tiers
(beach,
mid-‐,
and
upper
picnic
levels)
into
two
tiers.
The
demolition
of
the
two
existing
rock
retaining
walls
and
the
construction
of
a
new
rock
wall
along
the
eastern
part
of
the
hillside
is
aggressively
intrusive
and
will
result
in
the
removal
and/or
injury
to
a
number
of
mature
trees,
not
to
mention
the
health
of
the
soil.
Surely
a
more
benign,
less-‐intrusive
solution
can
be
found
for
improving
the
upper
picnic
area
and
access
to
it.
B)
Almost
complete
removal
of
the
existing
lawn
area:
Repeated
references
to
the
planned
“enhanced
lawn/picnic
area”
appears
to
mean
the
severe
reduction
of
the
lower
lawn
(currently
heavily
used
for
picnicking,
lounging,
staging
for
swimmers,
paddle
boards/kayaks/canoes/shells,
and
child
play),
the
large
expansion
of
the
paved
patio,
and
the
addition
of
a
surrounding
rock
wall.
While
this
will
increase
the
seating
for
the
snack
bar
(and
events?),
I
am
disappointed
to
see
the
many
other
uses
for
this
area
disappear.
The
tiny
remaining
lawn
area
farthest
from
the
water
and
next
to
the
parking
lot
is
not
appealing
for
these
uses.
8)
Insufficient
information:
Throughout
the
MND
document,
mitigation
measures
are
stated
thus:
E.g.,
from
section
1.
Aesthetics:
“The
grading
plan
shall
include
an
erosion
and
sediment
control
plan
for
grading,
incorporating
best
management
practices.
The
erosion
and
sediment
control
plan
shall
address
temporary
measures
and
facilities
to
control
erosion
and
sediment
during
construction.
A
plan
for
permanent
maintenance
of
erosion
and
sediment
control
measures
and
facilities
shall
also
be
prepared
as
part
of
the
final
construction
plans.”
And
regarding
water
quality
impacts:
“Preparation
of
grading,
erosion
control
and
improvement
plans
…
shall
be
prepared
in
accordance
with
Town
of
Truckee
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.The
requirements
set
forth
within
this
Section
and
within
the
grading,
erosion
control
and
improvement
plans
shall
be
implemented
throughout
the
entire
construction
process.”
No
attempt
is
made
to
provide
actual
plans
that
can
be
evaluated
by
the
public
or
by
experts
to
determine
whether
TDA
and/or
their
contractors
will
take
appropriate
or
adequate
measures
to
mitigate
the
impacts
of
this
project,
either
during
construction
or
in
the
long
term.
There
is
insufficient
information
in
this
MND
regarding
concrete
mitigation
of
the
effects
of
demolition,
excavation,
grading,
tree
removal,
and
heavy
equipment.
Public
input:
The
TDA
only
submitted
their
revised
plans
to
the
Town
in
February
2012,
when
the
facility
was
already
closed
for
the
season.
The
site
visit
–
the
only
opportunity
for
the
public
to
view
the
property
with
the
updated
plans
–
happened
the
day
before
comments
close
on
this
project.
It
seems
unfair
to
the
public
not
to
give
them
adequate
time
to
visit
the
site
and
organize
a
thoughtful
assessment
of
the
plan.
This
likely
and
inappropriately
diminishes
public
input
to
this
project.
SUGGESTED
ALTERNATIVES:
Hillside
erosion:
The
proposed
rock
walls
are
intended
to
prevent
natural
and
human-‐induced
hillside
erosion.
A
far
less
invasive
and
more
effective
solution
to
both
causes
of
erosion
is
hillside
re-‐vegetation.
Dense
ground
cover
would
retain
both
soil
and
moisture
(which
retaining
walls
do
not
retain),
deter
people,
be
self-‐
sustaining
in
the
long
run,
and
be
far
more
slightly
and
appropriate
for
the
natural
setting
of
Donner
Lake.
In
addition,
split
rail
fencing
such
as
is
currently
proposed
between
the
rock
wall
crescents,
could
be
added
along
the
top
and/or
bottom
of
the
hillside
to
further
deter
people,
particularly
during
the
initial
stages
of
re-‐
vegetation.
Re-‐vegetation
improves
lake
water
quality,
habitat,
hillside
stability,
beach
stability,
soil
moisture
retention
and
is
appropriate
for
this
ecologically
and
visually
sensitive
area.
Accessibility
to
upper
picnic
area:
Currently,
there
is
already
a
sloping,
low-‐angle
pathway
from
the
SW
corner
of
the
building
to
the
upper
picnic
area
(see
Figures
3a,
b,
and
c).
This
existing
pathway
could
readily
be
improved
(given
a
consistent
grade,
paved).
While
the
upper
picnic
area
would
expanded
less,
this
solution
would
prevent
the
removal
of
approximately
8
mature
trees
on
the
hillside,
and
approximately
6
mature
trees
in
the
upper
picnic
area
that
would
not
survive
the
3’
reduction
in
grade,
as
well
as
eliminate
the
need
for
extensive
hillside
excavation
and
the
removal
of
several
hundred
cubic
yards
of
topsoil.
A
second
alternative
solution
is
to
use
the
existing
gate
from
Donner
Pass
Rd
that
accesses
the
upper
area
directly.
Parking
also
already
exists
here
and
could
be
designated
for
handicapped
visitors.
Lighting:
While
the
existing
lighting
is
out-‐of-‐date
(i.e.
low
efficiency,
not
down-‐
pointing),
the
addition
of
numerous
10’-‐pole-‐mounted
lights
and
many
more
ground
lights
is
far
in
excess
of
what
is
need
for
a
facility
used
for
daytime,
beach-‐oriented
activities.
I
recommend
installing
a
system
of
updated
lighting
approximately
equivalent
to
the
minimal
lighting
that
currently
exists.
Patio
expansion:
The
replacement
of
the
lawn
area
almost
entirely
with
patio
pavers
and
a
3’
tall
rock
perimeter
means
the
disappearance
of
a
piece
of
real
estate
heavily
used
for
swimmer
and
non-‐motorized
boat
staging,
lounging,
and
child
play.
I
recommend
the
expansion
of
the
patio
such
that
the
total
area
between
the
building
and
the
asphalt
be
divided
50/50
between
patio
pavers
and
lawn
area.
In
summary,
I
feel
strongly
that
the
proposed
changes
to
the
TD
marina
are
excessive
and
heavy-‐handed
when
viable
less-‐intrusive
alternatives
exist.
The
proposed
plans
for
extensive
excavation,
grading,
topsoil
removal,
and
construction
in
an
ecologically
and
visually
sensitive
area
require
an
Environmental
Impact
Report.
Alternatively,
a
less-‐extensive
and
more
habitat-‐sensitive
proposal
may
be
more
acceptable
to
the
community.
Thank
you
for
your
time
to
read
these
comments
on
the
proposed
plans
for
the
TD
Marina.
Sincerely,
Lisa
Atwell
Holan,
M.Sc.
Biology
Figure
1.
This
tree
was
considered
healthy
enough
to
retain,
despite
having
been
severely
topped
and
limbed
for
power
lines,
while
other
fuller
trees
are
slated
for
removal
due
to
health.
Figure
2a
and
b.
Runoff
below
the
slit
drain
runs
onto
this
gravel
strip,
then
downslope
into
the
lake
and
onto
Park
property
on
the
other
side
of
the
fence.
Figure
3a,
b,
c.
The
existing
pathway
to
the
upper
picnic
area
that
could
be
improved
(smoothed
and
paved)
to
provide
ADA
accessibility.