HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #10 (Gilliom)August
9,
2013
Jenna
Endres
Associate
Planner
Truckee
Town
Hall
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Truckee
CA
96161
RE:
Tahoe
Donner
Marina
Project
Dear
Ms.
Endres:
I
have
reviewed
the
applicants
revised
plans
(June
2013
version)
and
their
associated
transmittal
letter,
with
regard
to
how
the
applicant
has
addressed
the
deficiencies
and
concerns
identified
in
the
previous
plan
(February
2013
version)
by
members
of
the
public
and
the
Planning
Commissioners.
Following
is
a
brief
summary
of
how
deficiencies
in
the
previous
plan
have
been
addressed,
or
not,
in
the
revised
plan,
and
I
have
assigned
a
letter
grade
to
express
my
view
of
the
adequacy
of
response
by
the
applicant.
My
grades
can
be
interpreted
as:
A. Great
job,
shovel
ready
B. Pretty
good,
but
needs
some
adjustments
C. Significant
revision,
but
substantial
improvement
still
needed
D. Token
revision,
major
additional
improvement
needed
E. No
effort
made
1. Reduction
of
Upper
Terrace
Impact
on
Native
Trees:
C+
Reduced
excavation
and
redesign
will
save
some
important
trees,
but
more
is
readily
achievable
by
conforming
more
closely
to
the
existing
condition
(little
difference
in
square
footage)
and
in
combination
with
a
more
efficient
ADA
access
that
achieves
greater
elevation
so
that
excavation
needs
are
minimized.
2. Improved
ADA
Access
with
Less
Construction
Impact:
E
No
effort
seems
to
have
been
made
to
improve
this
aspect
of
the
design,
but
a
simple
redesign
should
be
able
to
terminate
the
ADA
ramp
at
a
higher
elevation
and
avoid
all
or
most
of
the
excavation
in
the
revised
plan
that
will
adversely
affect
trees.
3. Improve
Construction
Methods
used
around
Trees:
E
I
see
no
evidence
of
specific
plans
for
“state
of
the
art”
construction
practices
for
tree
conservation
(such
as
air-‐spading,
tree
set-‐backs,
and
use
of
specific
small-‐sized
equipment
with
minimal
compaction
impact).
Specific
plans
should
be
prepared
by
an
arborist
(and
approved
by
the
Town),
and
construction
should
be
monitored
by
an
arborist.
Without
such
plans
and
construction
oversight,
many
of
the
trees
that
are
intended
to
be
protected
will
eventually
be
lost.
4. Elimination
of
the
Two
Bank
Excavations
and
Retaining
Walls
at
the
West
end
of
the
Beach:
E
Although
my
understanding
from
the
first
hearing
was
that
these
are
in
conflict
with
Town
rules
for
disturbance
of
steep
slopes,
no
changes
have
been
proposed
in
the
revised
plan.
5. Reduce
Amount
and
Visual
Impact
of
Lighting:
D+
I
see
little
evidence
that
lighting
has
been
significantly
redesigned
to
reduce
visual
impact
on
the
community
and
the
State
Park,
although
there
does
appear
to
be
a
planned
reduction
in
pole
lights
from
22
to
20.
6. Improve
Management
of
Stormwater
Runoff
and
Drainage:
B
It
appears
that
some
significant
improvements
have
been
made
through
renovating
existing
drainage
structures
and
adding
infiltration
trenches.
7. Reduce
Deck
Expansion
to
Leave
Part
of
the
Existing
Lawn
for
Safe
Pedestrian
Passage
and
Staging
of
Non-‐motorized
Watercraft:
D
A
very
small
increase
in
the
watercraft
staging
area
has
been
proposed
by
adding
a
24-‐
30
inch
strip
of
artificial
turf
between
the
patio
retaining
wall
and
the
striped
pedestrian
path.
Compared
to
the
previous
plan,
this
is
a
small
improvement
in
safety,
but
is
not
a
useable
width
for
staging,
while
still
allowing
pedestrian
passage.
For
example,
a
paddleboard
or
kayak
is
as
wide
as
the
proposed
turf
area,
leaving
no
room
for
the
people
staging
it.
The
deck
expansion
should
be
reduced
by
50%,
which
would
still
provide
a
sizeable
increase.
This
reduced
expansion
would
leave
room
for
safe
passage
and
for
a
useable
staging
area
next
to
the
boat-‐ramp
vehicle
traffic
flow.
Overall,
the
revised
plan
gets
a
D.
The
applicant
has
made
token
revisions,
but
additional
major
improvements
are
needed
before
it
is
acceptable.
They
also
appear
to
discount
concerns
that
past
and
future
event
activities
are
not
in
conformance
with
current
regulations
and
permits.
Clearly,
past
violations
do
not
give
the
applicant
the
right
to
continue
into
the
future
and
I
trust
that
the
Town
will
take
appropriate
action.
In
view
of
the
unanimous
and
clear
expression
of
these
concerns
by
the
Planning
Commission
at
the
first
hearing,
the
revised
plans
seem
like
an
insult
to
the
process
of
achieving
the
best
possible
plan
in
the
interest
of
the
Truckee
Community—including
Tahoe
Donner.
Robert
J.
Gilliom
15638
Alder
Creek
Rd
Truckee
CA
96161
530-‐550-‐7171