HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #6 (Martin)1
John N. Martin, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 9536
14909 Northwood Blvd
Truckee, CA
Aug 6. 2013
TO: Town of Truckee Planning Commission
FROM: John N. Martin, 14909 Northwoods Blvd, Truckee, CA
RE: Tahoe Donner Revised Plans
I have been following the evolution of Tahoe Donner’s Marina proposals closely since
their inception. I would like to make the following remarks on the latest versions.
The Trees
The new plans call for planting some new Jeffrey pines, but somewhat misleadingly
present drawings of the resulting project as it will be in several generations time when the new
tress are mature. Tree removal remains excessive, and as far as I can tell, the plans are
inconsistent on how many and which trees are to be removed. The Engineer’s covering letter
announces that fewer trees will be removed than originally planned, and the accompanying “Tree
Map” marks only 12 trees for removal. The plan’s summary, however, still calls for the removal
of 20 Jeffrey pines of diameter greater than 6 inches. Of the 12 trees marked for removal on the
“Tree Map,” six are to be removed because they conflict, by only a few feet, with the current
construction plans.
If more trees are to be preserved, the revisions are to be applauded. Although it is
undisputed that several of the trees that were originally condemned are unhealthy or dangerous,
the Commission should now be aware that Tahoe Donner’s “Forester’s Report” of 2/15/13
justifying the large scale tree removal is controversial. Independent arborists have criticized the
report for employing open forest thinning standards inappropriate to the Donner Lake setting,
and the Commission’s Staff reports on previous versions of the plans have called for the
preservation of as many of the trees as possible. Tahoe Donner has also failed to address an
“elephant in the room,” namely that the grading and trenching will certainly affect the remaining
trees. The three part excavation – the grading for pathways, the lowering of the upper lawn by
several feet, and the digging of deep trenches for lighting – is immediately adjacent to the
existing trees and will certainly impact their root systems. Precautions should be required to
project the remaining trees and monitor their future health. I urge the Commission to:
• Make Tahoe Donner clarify precisely how many and which trees will be removed.
• As recommended by the independent arborist’s report, require that construction be
redesigned to extend the drip lines of the remaining trees and to provide the air space
necessary to avoid root damage.
2
• Require that for the next five years Tahoe Donner mitigate tree damage and, if necessary,
replace any trees that die or are weakened as a result of the construction, excavation, or
soil compaction.
• Require additional repositioning of the pathways and borders by several feet in order to
save several of the trees current condemned because they conflict with current
construction design.
• Require that the ADA accessibility ramp to the upper lawn be lengthened by several feet
to eliminate the need to excavate the area.
Marina Usage
The Tahoe Donner Board and Management have made it clear both in testimony at
Board meetings and before the Planning Commission, and in the documents accompanying the
present revised proposal, that Tahoe Donner intends to use the Marina for events other than those
for which it is approved. The Marina is approved for daytime recreational uses appropriate to a
beach on Donner Lake, namely for boating, swimming, and picnicking. But Tahoe Donner
officials in meetings have cited as examples of uses weddings and meetings of organizations like
the annual potluck meeting of the Tahoe Donner Senior Ski Club. I attended the Ski Club
meeting last year, and about 100 people attended. The Engineer’s covering letters, both the letter
on the project as a whole and the one describing the proposed shuttle service, refer to holding
“large functions” at the Marina, and cites these as a justification for the shuttle. The proposed
system of extensive outdoor tree lighting clearly has no function in daytime recreational use, but
is auxiliary to these larger nighttime plans.
The Engineer’s letters refer to these non-recreational uses as “private,” and the Board is
trying to justifying them by calling them “historical”. Beware, however. “Private” does not
mean “non-commercial” because Tahoe Donner is currently charging usage fees for events at the
Marina, and is apparently claiming that it has an unlimited right to conduct commercial activities
at the Marina. The Commission should also be very wary of the argument that Tahoe Donner
should be allowed to expand these commercial uses because of its “past practices” or because
there is a history of such uses. Two points need to be made about this argument.
• First, the Commission should be skeptical of claims about history, which are easily made
without evidence. Although there have been larger gatherings at the Marina in recent
years (e.g. the Ski Club meeting mentioned above), these have only been occasional and
on nothing like the scale of frequency, size and time of day that the Management appears
to be planning for the future. The Management’s claims to the contrary about “past uses”
should be documented.
• Second, regardless of any “past practices,” commercial activity at the Marina for
purposes other than boating, swimming, and picnicking is simply inconsistent with the
Marina’s approved uses. That Tahoe Donner has been “getting away” with violations is
no justification for continuing them. Quite the contrary. The current usage restrictions
are public policy and have been instituted in the public interest. (The relevant Town
ordinances and environmental policies are cited in detail in previous Staff reviews of the
3
project.) It goes without saying that it is the responsibility of the Town to enforce the
restrictions as they stand even if Tahoe Donner has been ignoring them in the past.
Tahoe Donner does have a legitimate role in charging usage fees for the smaller scale Marina
activities connected with boating, swimming and picnicking (e.g. for boat rental and the snack
bar), but larger scale commercial activity is simply inconsistent with the Marina’s approved uses,
despite contrary claims by the Tahoe Donner Management. The Staff of the Commission is to be
congratulated for formulating, and recommending, in its last review of the plans the following
carefully worded restriction on commercial uses:
26. No commercial events (i.e. weddings involving more than 10 people, concerts,
corporate retreats, events incorporating amplified sound or PA systems or similar type
events) are approved, nor are they allowed within the marina facility. In general,
commercial events include those which are made available to Tahoe Donner property
owners or non-Tahoe Donner property owners that fall outside the normal parameters and
uses of a private, marinal recreational facility for Tahoe Donner property owners. This
requirement does not apply to small-scale events available to Tahoe Donner property
owners which have historically occurred at the marina facility, including birthday parties,
family events, day camps or similar type events. (Planning Division).
Tahoe Donner has several other nice venues appropriate for large gatherings like meetings and
weddings. I urge the Commission, in the strongest possible terms, to implement the restrictions
formulated in the Staff’s recommendation 26 above. An important implication of the commercial
restrictions is that nighttime use of the Marina is inappropriate and, in particular, that the
project’s extensive lighting plans – a major part of the project – should be largely curtailed.