HomeMy Public PortalAbout4-14_TransportationTrafficRDEIR4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-1
This chapter describes the existing traffic, circulation, and transportation conditions
in the Town of Truckee, addressing vehicular traffic, as well as parking, transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, and aviation facilities, and evaluates potential impacts of the
proposed project. The information and analysis in this chapter is primarily based on
the following documents, which are included in Appendix I, Traffic Data, of the
2012 Draft EIR and Appendix B, Traffic Data, of this Revised Draft EIR:
Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consult-
ants, Inc., August 27, 2012.
Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum prepared by LSC Transportation
Consultants, Inc., January 17, 2014.
Additional analyses included in the Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum
reflects an update to intersection Level of Service (LOS) analyses for all study inter-
sections using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 method,1 and a limited
evaluation of the impact of the June 2011 updated Town of Truckee TransCAD
traffic model.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key regulations and programs applicable to transportation
and traffic in Truckee.
1. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertaining to traffic and transportation that apply
to this project.
2. State Laws and Regulations
a. Caltrans District 3 Transportation Corridor Concept Report, Interstate Route
80
The Interstate 80 Transportation Corridor Concept Report (TCCR) (2010) is Caltrans long
range (20-year) planning document for Interstate 80. Caltrans owns, operates, and
maintains Interstate 80, which provides the primary access to Truckee, including
the project site via Interstate 80 Segments 14 and 15. Segment 14 of Interstate 80 is
a 4- to 6-lane freeway running 4.7 miles from Donner Pass Road to Old Truckee
Airport Road (Overland Trail), and Segment 15 is a four-lane freeway that begins at
1 The HCM 2010 Method was not available when the Notice of Preparation was re-
leased on April 20, 2011, which is when LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. began the
Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-2
Old Truckee Airport Road (Overland Trail) in east Truckee and ends 11.2 miles to
the northeast at the Nevada County/Sierra County Line. The most important in-
formation included within the Interstate 80 TCCR is the level of service standards,
concept, and ultimate facilities, and a list of programmed, planned, and needed
projects.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Nevada County Regional Transportation Plan
The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) is the designated Re-
gional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Nevada County created pursu-
ant to Title 7.88 of the State of California Government Code, Section 67920. As
the RTPA for Nevada County, the NCTC coordinates transportation planning for
Grass Valley, Nevada City, Nevada County, and the Town of Truckee.2 The NCTC
acts as an autonomous agency in filling the mandates of the Transportation Devel-
opment Act.
As the RTPA for Nevada County, California State law requires the NCTC to pre-
pare, adopt, and submit an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) every five-
years. The 2010 update of the Nevada County RTP reflects the latest project fund-
ing and planning assumptions, and preliminarily addresses the new requirements of
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) regulating
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction of improvements
identified in the RTP. The RTP Policy Element identifies the transportation goals
and policies to meet the needs of the region and reflects the consideration of envi-
ronmental, social, and economic goals.
b. Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (May 2007)
The Town’s Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (TBMP) was adopted on April 4, 2002
(Council Resolution No. 2002-17) and amended on May 17, 2007 (Council Resolu-
tion No. 2007-20). The TBMP is intended to supplement and implement the
broader Truckee Donner Recreation Park District Master Plan by providing the more-
detailed analysis necessary for development of a town-wide trail and bikeway sys-
tem designed to increase recreational, educational, and alternative transportation
opportunities for the benefit of local residents and visitors to the Truckee area. The
goals and policies of the TBMP provide guidance for the planning, development
and management for the type, design, and general location of trail corridors within
the Town.
2 Nevada County Transportation Commission Website, retrieved August 5, 2011 from
http://www.nctc.ca.gov/About-NCTC/index.html.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISEDDRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-3
c. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The applicable General Plan goals and policies that relate to transportation and
traffic resources are listed in Table 4.14-1 and a detailed policy consistency discus-
sion is presented in Chapter 4.10, Land Use Planning, of the 2012 Draft EIR.
The Town applies the criteria and thresholds shown in Table CIR-6 of the General
Plan to development projects to determine the need for a traffic impact analysis to
be conducted and to determine if a project’s impact would be significant. The crite-
ria from Table CIR-6 of the Truckee General Plan are listed in Table 4.14-2.
d. Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program
The Town of Truckee maintains a traffic fee program, which requires entities initi-
ating new development within the Town to pay traffic impact fees. The fees col-
lected through this program, in addition to other funding sources, allow the Town
to construct transportation facilities needed. The impact is based upon a compari-
son between the projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) it generates and the VMT
generated by a proposed project. The current fee per single-family dwelling unit is
$5,771 and per multi-family unit is $3,578.3 The fee is due to the Town at the time
of issuance of building permits.
e. Nevada County General Plan
The Nevada County General Plan was approved by the Nevada County Board of Su-
pervisors in 1996 and subsequently amended in 2008 (Safety) and 2010 (Circula-
tion/Housing). The Nevada County General Plan sets forth standards for level of ser-
vice for rural intersections and roadways. The level of service standards are de-
scribed below under the Standards of Significance.
3 Traffic and Facility Impact Fees, Effective Date, February 1, 2014,
http://www.townoftruckee.com/about-us/forms-documents/folder-198, retrieved Septem-
ber 3, 2014.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-4
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-5 Encourage a mix of land uses in the Town to promote a vibrant community and to
reduce traffic, while addressing the need to minimize land use conflicts.
Policy
LU-P5.3
Support development of neighborhood centers through establishment
of uses and facilities that provide a direct benefit to the neighborhood,
such as educational and recreation facilities, day care services, places of
worship, community meeting centers, fire stations, small parks, libraries
and other public facilities, telcenters, and neighborhood commercial
uses.
Goal CIR-2 Maintain adequate level of service on Truckee’s roadways and intersections to ensure
the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Town.
Policy
CIR-P2.1
Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road segments
and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside
of the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and
collector road segments and for total intersection movements within
the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized
intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cu-
mulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of these conditions
shall be met for traffic operations to be considered unacceptable.
Policy
CIR-P2.2
In addition to the standards described in Policy 2.1, the criteria and
thresholds shown in Table CIR-6 shall be applied to future develop-
ment projects to determine the need for a traffic impact analysis to be
conducted and to determine if a project’s traffic impact is found to be
significant.
Table CIR-6, Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria Category 3: Subdivision
of 11 or more lots, multi-family development of 11 or more units,
commercial/ industrial development of 7,500 square feet or more, or
equivalent development.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-5
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P2.3
Allow flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards described in
Policy P2.1 for the following intersections:
♦ Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road
♦ Bridge Street/River Street
♦ Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
Exceptions to the standards may be allowed in cases where the Town
finds that improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS: (a) should
be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and imple-
mentation of other projects including the Railyard; (b) will result in
unacceptable impacts (e.g. requiring demolition of historic buildings,
relocation of businesses); (c) are not feasible to construct; or (d) should
be deferred or lowered in order to better implement other transporta-
tion control measures including alternative transportation modes.
Exceptions should only be allowed after all feasible resources and op-
tions to implement needed improvements have been explored and
exhausted.
Policy
CIR-P2.4
Improve connectivity throughout the Town's roadway network,
through roadway improvements, while minimizing environmental,
circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts. This should include:
♦ New and improved links between roadways of the same classifica-
tion.
♦ New and/or improved links between higher and lower capacity
roadways where such connections would not negatively impact the
lower capacity roadway's operations or local neighborhood character,
would be consistent with community character and environmental
goals described elsewhere in the General Plan, and would not result
in redesignation of a lower classification roadway to a higher classifi-
cation, unless shown as such on the Circulation Plan.
♦ Discouraging the use of local and residential neighborhood roadways
as through routes, particularly for commercial and industrial traffic.
♦ Requiring that new development maximizes connectivity of local
streets within the development itself, and makes connections to the
adjacent street network and neighborhood areas.
Goal CIR-3 Minimize the impacts of new development on the existing roadway network.
Policy
CIR-P3.1
Require the preparation of traffic impact analyses to identify impacts
and mitigation measures for projects that may result in significant traf-
fic impacts, as specified in Table CIR-6. In these analyses, level of ser-
vice shall be computed according to the planning methodology docu-
mented in Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, published by the
Transportation Research Board in 2000, or as amended in subsequent
updates. Cumulative impacts shall be modeled buildout of the General
Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-6
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P3.2
Require the assessment of construction-related project impacts in traf-
fic impact analyses that assesses and adequately mitigates the effect of
construction traffic on the roadway network, as well as any potential
disruption to or re-routing of traffic that might be needed during pro-
ject construction.
Policy
CIR-P3.3
Require all new development projects to adequately mitigate identified
impacts through construction of improvements and/or payment of
traffic impact mitigation fees. Mitigation of significant project-related
impacts may require improvements beyond those addressed by the
current Capital Improvement Program and traffic impact mitigation fee
program.
Policy
CIR-P3.4
Ensure that new streets and roads are dedicated and constructed ac-
cording to roadway design and access standards adopted by the Town.
Goal CIR-4 Create new developments that are integrated into the circulation network and pro-
mote connectivity within and between community areas.
Policy
CIR-P4.1
Require transportation systems planned and constructed in conjunction
with significant development projects, including roads, trails, bikeways,
and other improvements, to provide links to the existing transportation
network.
Policy
CIR-P4.2
Require planning for land use and transportation systems in new
growth areas that provides opportunities for residents, employees, and
those without vehicles to accomplish many of their trips by walking,
bicycling, or using transit.
Goal CIR-6
Minimize potentially adverse impacts of transportation infrastructure and parking
facilities on Truckee’s community character and important environmental and cul-
tural resources.
Policy
CIR-P6.1
Locate, construct, and maintain new roads and roadway improvements
so as to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and significant biolog-
ical, scenic, and historic resources.
Policy
CIR-P6.3
Maintain Donner Pass Road at a three-lane cross-section (two lanes of
traffic with a left-turn lane). New projects that could add significant
traffic to Donner Pass Road must demonstrate that cumulative traffic
impacts will not result in the need to widen Donner Pass Road.
Goal CIR-10 Provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of facilities for pedestrians and
cyclists and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
Policy
CIR-P10.2
Implement the network of trails and bikeways described in the Trails
and Bikeways Master Plan, with priority given to establishment of a trail
from Donner Lake along Donner Creek and the Truckee River to the
eastern Town limit. This cross-town trail would serve as the main "ar-
tery" of the Town's trail network, with other trails connecting to it
along its length, and would provide a critical link to major regional
trails including a trail to the west that connects to Donner Summit and
the Pacific Crest Trail, and to the east to trails that follow the Truckee
River to Nevada.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-7
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P10.3
Identify and implement new pedestrian facilities beyond those identi-
fied in the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan and Downtown Streetscape
Plan. These facilities may include, but not be limited to, pedestrian
facilities along Donner Pass Road between Cold Stream Road and
South Shore Drive, along Highway 89 South, and along West River
Street.
Policy
CIR-P10.5
Link new trails and bikeways with other bikeways, parks and open
space areas to provide safe and continuous routes.
Policy
CIR-P10.10
Require major development projects to include pedestrian facilities and
bikeways.
Policy
CIR-P10.11
Enforce pedestrian and bicycle access standards for all new develop-
ment and require developers to finance and install pedestrian walkways,
equestrian trails, and multi-use trails in new development, as appropri-
ate and necessary to address circulation needs. Consider and work
towards a mean by which the requirements of the Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan can be met by affordable housing projects.
Policy
CIR-P10.12
Provide facilities that separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic from ve-
hicular traffic whenever it is feasible to do so.
Goal CIR-11 Enhance the existing bus and rail transit system in Truckee.
Policy
CIR-P11.1
Require new development to incorporate features that encourage trans-
it use, including shelters and safe routes to transit stops, and ensure
that right-of-way for future transit access is reserved in plans for new
growth areas.
Goal SAF-4 Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildland and urban fire.
Policy
SAF-P4.7
Ensure that the development review process addresses wildland fire
risk, including assessment of both construction- and project related fire
risks particularly in areas of the Town most susceptible to fire hazards.
Cooperate with the TFPD in reviewing fire safety plans and provisions
in new development, including aspects such as emergency access, site
design for maintenance of defensible space, and use of non-
combustible materials.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
8
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
2
TOW
N
O
F
TRU
C
K
E
E
TRA
F
F
I
C
IMP
A
C
T
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
REQ
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
A
N
D
CRI
T
E
R
I
A
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
y
p
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
?
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
b
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
W
o
u
l
d
A
d
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
a Local Roadway
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
1
Si
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
,
d
u
p
l
e
x
,
a
n
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
un
i
t
s
o
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
No
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
2
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
1
0
o
r
l
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
,
m
u
l
t
i
-
fa
m
i
l
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
1
0
o
r
l
e
s
s
u
n
i
t
s
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
7
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
,
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
No
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
3
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
1
1
o
r
m
o
r
e
l
o
t
s
,
m
u
l
t
i
-
fa
m
i
l
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
1
1
o
r
m
o
r
e
u
n
i
t
s
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
7,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
o
r
m
o
r
e
,
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Ye
s
,
i
f
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
b
y
T
o
w
n
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
LO
S
t
o
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
;
O
R
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
;
O
R
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
I
P
,
f
u
l
l
y
fu
n
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
;
O
R
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
I
P
,
f
u
l
l
y
fu
n
d
e
d
,
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Project does not increase traffic on local road by more than 1,000 average daily trips; OR
Project increases traffic on
lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
,
0
0
0
average daily trips, but the
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
.
AN
D
The provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
2
TOW
N
O
F
TRU
C
K
E
E
TRA
F
F
I
C
IMP
A
C
T
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
REQ
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
A
N
D
CRI
T
E
R
I
A
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.
1
4
-
9
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
y
p
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
?
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
b
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
W
o
u
l
d
A
d
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
a Local Roadway
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
-
P
C
1
,
P
C
3
,
Mc
I
v
e
r
H
i
l
l
,
H
i
l
l
t
o
p
,
M
i
l
l
S
i
t
e
,
P
R
D
-
1
,
PR
D
-
2
,
P
R
D
-
3
.
Ye
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
LO
S
t
o
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
;
O
R
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
L
O
S
.
AN
D
If
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
,
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
LO
S
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
5
.
AN
D
If
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
,
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
LO
S
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
f
:
Project does not increase traffic on local road by more than 1,000 average daily trips; OR
Project increases traffic on
lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
b
y
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
,
0
0
0
average daily trips, but the
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
.
AN
D
The provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met.
a P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
r
o
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
b P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
r
o
a
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
ng
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
w
i
t
h
n
o
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
at
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
2
0
2
5
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
,
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
6
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-10
B. Existing Conditions
This section documents the existing setting and operational traffic conditions in the
vicinity of the project site, providing a foundation for comparison to future condi-
tions.
1. Circulation System
a. Vehicular Circulation
The Town of Truckee is located in the Lake Tahoe region, along Interstate 80 ap-
proximately 90 miles northeast of Sacramento, California, and 34 miles west of
Reno, Nevada. In addition to Interstate 80, State Route 89, and State Route 267 are
the two major regional routes serving Truckee. Beyond these major regional facili-
ties, a series of arterial, connector, and local roadways constitute the roadway net-
work in the traffic study area.
The major components of the roadway system in the project area are described
below consistent with the definitions and classifications identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan.4
b. Study Area Roadways
The following describes the study area roadways that were analyzed in the project
Traffic Impact Analysis. These are shown in Figure 4.14-1.
Interstate 80: Interstate 80 provides interregional highway connections east to
Reno, Nevada and beyond, and west to Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay
Area. The Town lies along both sides of Interstate 80. This section of Inter-
state 80 is currently a four-lane divided highway with limited truck climbing
lanes, and with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. There are a total of
eight interchanges serving Truckee on Interstate 80, including the Donner
Lake Road and Hirschdale Road interchanges. The Glenshire area is served by
two interchanges: the Donner Pass Road (Eastern) interchange and the
Hirschdale Road interchange.
4 2025 General Plan, Circulation Element, Table CIR-3 Roadway Classification Defi-
nitions, and Table CIR-4 Town of Truckee Roadway Classifications, page 4-20 and 4-21,
respectively.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R6U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.15
78
6
3
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
69
/
13
0
1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS
BE08-I
7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JACK
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
138/6411/6
69/130
1
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.
DON
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
14
GLEN
S
H
I
R
E
R
.
D
S
O
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
JACKSVALLEYRD.
1,365 ,693
38/162
4/4
2,352/1,755
69/130
404/449
32/68
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
GLENSHIRE
WH
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
.DRELADHCSRIH
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
MA
R
T
I
S
P
E
A
K
R
D
.
I-
8
0
W
B
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
VSKCAJYELLA.DR
1
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.
.RDERIHSNELG
3
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
2
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
STOPSIGN
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
FIGURE 4.14-1
LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-12
Donner Pass Road: Donner Pass Road is a minor arterial road that extends
from the intersection with State Route 89 North (east of Downtown Truckee)
westward to Donner Lake, Donner Summit, and Soda Springs. This roadway
provides a vital link for local circulation in the Town. At its nearest point to
the project site, Donner Pass Road is a two-lane roadway accessing Historic
Downtown Truckee to the west and the Pioneer Trail area, Interstate 80 and
State Route 89 North to the east. At its intersection with Glenshire Drive, this
roadway provides a single through lane in each direction with a dedicated left-
turn lane for left-turns onto Glenshire Drive. The posted speed limit is 45
miles per hour.
Glenshire Drive: Glenshire Drive is a two-lane minor arterial roadway provid-
ing access between the Truckee commercial core on the west through the
Glenshire area to Hirschdale Road on the east. Glenshire Drive provides the
only access to the Glenshire area both to Truckee to the west and (with
Hirschdale Road) to Interstate 80 and Reno to the east. This roadway also
provides primary access to the Olympic Heights subdivision west of Glenshire.
The terrain along this roadway is rolling, with a 6 percent grade near Donner
Pass Road and near the west entrance to Glenshire, an 11 percent grade near
Wiltshire Lane, and a 9 percent grade on the stretch between Martis Peak Road
and Hirschdale Road to the east. The posted speed limit on this roadway is 45
miles per hour from Donner Pass Road to the western entrance to the Glen-
shire neighborhood. From the Glenshire entrance to a point east of Somerset
Drive, the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. The speed limit is 25 miles
per hour on the remaining segment of Glenshire Drive to the east until it pass-
es Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road (and enters Nevada County), after
which the speed limit is not posted.
Dorchester Drive: Dorchester Drive is a minor collector street serving the
northern portion of Glenshire, extending about 1.4 miles between its two in-
tersections with Glenshire Drive. It provides access to Glenshire Elementary
School, Truckee Fire Protection District Station 95 (Glenshire), Glenshire
General Store, other small commercial uses, as well as the residential area in
the northern portion of Glenshire. The speed limit on Dorchester Drive is 25
miles per hour east of Rolands Way and 30 miles per hour west of Rolands
Way.
Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Circle/Edinburgh Drive:
These local roadways provide access to the residences in the southeastern por-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-13
tion of Glenshire. The pavement width on these streets is approximately 26
feet, and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
Martis Peak Road: This is a local roadway providing access from Glenshire
Drive south to the gated Martis Peak Homeowners Association residential ar-
ea. The pavement width ranges from about 20 feet to 23 feet. The gate is lo-
cated approximately one-quarter mile south of the Glenshire Drive intersec-
tion.
Hirschdale Road: Hirschdale Road provides a connection from Glenshire to
Interstate 80 and serves residences to the east of the Glenshire area.
Hirschdale Road is a two-lane roadway with a pavement width of about 22
feet. The speed limit is not posted in the study area.
c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
As described in the Town of Truckee TBMP and illustrated on the TBMP Existing
and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network Map, the existing trails and bikeways
system includes recreational trails, Class I bike paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class
III bike routes.5 There are limited existing and proposed trails and bicycle facilities
in the project area. The Glenshire area has Class III Bike Routes, and the proposed
Recreational Trail (Surface TBD [to be determined]) that crosses the project site
would link to the existing Class III Bike Route at Glenshire Drive. In addition,
there are proposed Class II Bike Lanes proposed in the Glenshire area that would
also link to the proposed recreational trail located on the project site.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR, a well-
developed network of unpaved roads and trails is distributed throughout the site.
The project site is accessed by surrounding subdivision residents through connect-
ing trails and experiences year-round unauthorized and unregulated use.
d. Transit
The Town of Truckee offers both Fixed Route and Dial-A-Ride bus service in the
greater Truckee area. These services provide a range of options for travelers to
access recreational, employment, shopping, and social service opportunities. The
Fixed Route Services vary by season. During the winter season (mid December –
mid April) a ski shuttle service is offered seven days per week between Henness
5 A Class I Bike Path is a dedicated exclusive bike path meant for bike and pedestrian
traffic. A Class II Bike Lane is a marked lane exclusively for bike travel on roadways. A Class
III Bike Route is sometimes marked. Bicycle riders must share the roadway with other vehi-
cles.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-14
Flats, downtown Truckee, Sugar Bowl, Donner Ski Ranch and Soda Springs ski
resorts from approximately 6:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. as well as from 2:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. During the non-winter season (mid-April to mid-December) buses serve
the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Pioneer Commerce Center, Downtown, Gateway
Shopping Center, Donner State Park and the west end of Donner Lake on a fixed
hourly schedule from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., eve-
ry day except Sunday.
The Truckee Dial-A-Ride service is offered year round to the general public with
priority service for seniors and persons with disabilities. This paratransit service is
available for trips within the Town limits, over the same hours and days as the fixed
route service.
2. Analysis Methodology and Study Scenarios
a. Study Analysis Scenarios
The project Traffic Impact Analysis and Addendum evaluated roadway segments
and intersections in the project study area under the following four scenarios:
1. Existing 2011 Without Project
2. Existing 2011 With Project
3. Future 2031 Without Project
4. Future 2031 With Project
b. Study Roadway Segments
The following eleven roadway segments in the project area were evaluated:
1. Glenshire Drive between Donner Pass Road and Highland Avenue
2. Glenshire Drive between Highland Avenue and Dorchester Drive (west)
3. Glenshire Drive between Dorchester Drive (west) and Somerset Drive
4. Glenshire Drive between Somerset Drive and Martis Peak Road
5. Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
6. Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and Interstate 80 Westbound
Ramps
7. Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and Project Access
8. Somerset Drive between Glenshire Drive and Courtenay Lane
9. Courtenay Lane between Somerset Drive and Regency Circle
10. Regency Circle between Courtenay Lane and Edinburgh Drive
11. Edinburgh Drive
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-15
c. Study Intersections
The following eight intersections in the project area were evaluated:
1. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
2. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension (future intersection)
3. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (western intersection)
4. Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
5. Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
6. Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road
7. Interstate 80 Eastbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
8. Interstate 80 Westbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
d. 2011 Traffic Volumes
For the project Traffic Impact Analysis and consistent with Town practices, impacts
on roadways are determined by measuring the effect that site-generated traffic has
on traffic operations at the study intersections and along study roadways during the
tenth-highest summer weekday PM peak hour (approximately 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.).
An analysis of AM peak hour (approximately 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) conditions is also
included for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. Furthermore,
while the total intersection volumes are the highest in the summer tourism months,
the volumes on the minor approaches within Glenshire are generally higher during
school peak hours. Therefore, the AM and PM peak hours of school-related traffic
activity were analyzed for the following three study intersections within the Glen-
shire residential area:
1. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (west)
2. Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
3. Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
As the traffic volumes on Glenshire Drive at the outskirts of the Glenshire neigh-
borhoods are higher during the AM and PM commuter hours, there is no need to
analyze the school peak hours at intersections outside the Glenshire community.
i. 2011 Summer PM Peak-hour Traffic Volumes Without Project
2011 peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes without the project are
shown on Figure 4.14-2. These volumes are considered to be conservative, given
that a comparison of the 2006 to 2009 PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the
Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection indicates no growth in the total
intersection volume. A complete description of the traffic count methodology, in-
cluding adjustments to reflect current conditions in accordance with Town practic-
es are described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix I of the 2012 Draft
EIR).
FIGURE 4.14-2
2011 SUMMER PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-17
ii. 2010-2011 AM and PM Peak-hour School Season Traffic Volumes Without Project
School season intersection counts were conducted during the 2010-2011 school
year at the following three intersections:
1. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive West
2. Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
3. Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
The morning (AM) counts were conducted from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and the
afternoon (PM) counts were conducted from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in order to
capture the busiest periods of school-related traffic activity.6 The morning and af-
ternoon peak-hour volumes are shown in Table 4.14-3. The volumes along Glen-
shire Drive are generally highest during the summer season, whereas the volumes
along Dorchester Drive (the roadway providing access to the Glenshire Elementary
School) are highest during the school season.
e. 2031 Traffic Volumes
The future (i.e. cumulative) setting associated with the traffic analysis is based on
the Town of Truckee’s TransCAD traffic model that provides forecasts of traffic
conditions throughout the Town as well as the Martis Valley portion of Placer
County. As some of the development projects in the Martis Valley area have re-
cently been approved for development at levels less than those originally allowed
under the Martis Valley Community Plan, the land uses in the TransCAD traffic mod-
el were adjusted downward to reflect the approved Martis Valley projects.
The Town updated the Truckee TransCAD model in June 2011. As described in
Chapter 1, Introduction, of this Revised Draft EIR, the Notice of Preparation
(NOP) for the proposed project was released on April 20, 2011. LSC Transporta-
tion Consultants began the Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed Pro-
ject following the release of the NOP; accordingly, the Town-approved TransCAD
model at the time the NOP was issued was appropriately used to assess the traffic
impacts of the proposed Project.
6 2010-2011 school year traffic count data is in Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Anal-
ysis, attached as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
1
8
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
3
20
1
1
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
WIT
H
O
U
T
PRO
J
E
C
T
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
32
0
-
-
1
7
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
0
9
4
5
7
2
2
5
-
-
1
,
0
6
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Do
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
4
7
-
-
1
9
3
1
1
5
59
-
-
-
-
1
4
8
5
7
6
1
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
32
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
8
1
3
6
4
7
-
-
1
3
8
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
5
1
7
1
3
0
1
1
5
8
7
1
1
6
3
8
6
1
9
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Do
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
4
8
-
-
1
2
7
1
5
6
13
3
-
-
-
-
9
0
2
7
5
8
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
15
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
7
2
8
5
4
3
-
-
1
4
2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
4
0
6
6
1
8
9
6
1
8
5
8
1
1
7
2
0
6
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-19
The 2011 TransCAD model assumes a different mix of dwelling unit types in the
Glenshire Subdivision. Specifically, a higher portion of residential units are as-
sumed to be full-time residences, which have a higher trip generation rate than
part-time residential units. Consequently, the 2011 TransCAD model has a higher
level of trip generation associated with the Glenshire Subdivision than the previous
TransCAD model. Subsequently, more trips are assumed to use the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road route (west side of Glenshire Drive) than in the previous
TransCAD model. Furthermore, the vehicle trips using the eastern route via
Hirschdale Road have been reduced in the 2011 TransCAD model.
Given this update to the 2011 TransCAD model, during the 78-day comment peri-
od for the 2012 Draft EIR, members of the public requested the cumulative traffic
analysis of the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road Extension intersections be revised using the 2011 TransCAD model.
The analysis using the 2011 TransCAD model was performed to determine if the
higher traffic volumes would produce any new project impacts at these two inter-
sections.
This Revised Draft EIR includes cumulative 2031 summer PM peak-hour intersec-
tion turning-movement volumes under the 2011 TransCAD model that were de-
veloped for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road Extension intersections for the proposed project. Specifically, the traffic
volumes at these intersections were derived from the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-
3) Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. on Sep-
tember 4, 2013.7 Subtracting the proposed project site-generated traffic volumes
included in the updated Truckee TransCAD model yields the estimated "future
without project" volumes.
In previous and 2011 Truckee TransCAD traffic model, buildout of the Town’s
General Plan is conservatively assumed to occur by 2025. No further growth in
traffic is assumed between 2025 and 2031.
The Teichert’s Boca Quarry Expansion Project, which is located north of Interstate
80 and accessed via Stampede Meadows Road and the Hirschdale interchange
ramps is within the vicinity of the project site and assumed to be complete under
cumulative conditions. While the quarry project is not included in the Truckee
7 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) volumes are provided in Appendix B of this
Revised Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-20
TransCAD model, the generated traffic volumes are provided in the Teichert Boca
Quarry Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consult-
ants, Inc. on September 7, 2011.8 These volumes are conservatively high, as they
reflect maximum potential production levels at the quarry.9
The following future roadway assumptions are made for the purposes of the cumu-
lative roadway analysis:
The “Donner Pass Road Extension” will be completed with construction of
the Truckee Railyard Master Plan Project. This new roadway will extend east
from the eastern portion of Downtown Truckee through the Railyard devel-
opment and form a new T-intersection with Glenshire Drive to the east of the
intersection with Donner Pass Road. The new Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road Extension intersection would include exclusive turn lanes on each ap-
proach. The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and it is included
in the Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating
new development within the Town to pay traffic impact fees.
The Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions, which would provide a con-
nection between Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner, and Pioneer Trail, are
assumed to be complete.
Two bridges on Hirschdale Road (crossing the Truckee River and crossing the
Union Pacific Railroad Tracks) are proposed to be removed by Nevada Coun-
ty. A potential new route from the north side of the river over to Stampede
Meadows Road could provide access to the parcels that are served by the
bridges. The change in traffic patterns associated with the bridge removal is
expected to be minimal, given that there are only a few parcels (and Truckee
River access) served by that route.
The 2031 summer weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes
without the project are shown in Figure 4.14-3, and the 2031 AM and school PM
traffic volumes without the project are shown in Table 4.14-4.
8 Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion volumes are provided in Appendix E of the Traf-
fic Impact Analysis, attached as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
9 The Raley property to the east of the project site and the Railyard Master Plan in
downtown Truckee are included in the TransCAD model.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
225
522
365
47
221 461
50
48120
264
368
182
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
145
36
8
51
203 122
0
039 65
98 112
40
15
144
218
191
15227
143209
54
104
51 179 32
84 24 147
29
132
67
21
125
112
945
38 45 161
263
367
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
2031 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
FIGURE 4.14-3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2014.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-22
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
4
20
3
1
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
WIT
H
O
U
T
PRO
J
E
C
T
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
15
1
-
-
4
6
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
1
4
7
1
2
8
1
8
5
-
-
1
,
1
5
5
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
7
1
-
-
2
3
9
1
5
6
83
-
-
-
-
2
2
2
7
7
8
4
8
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
48
-
-
1
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
9
1
8
9
7
1
-
-
2
0
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
8
0
7
1
3
0
1
8
7
8
9
1
7
6
3
8
6
2
0
9
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
2
-
-
1
5
7
2
1
1
1
8
6
-
-
-
-
1
3
5
3
6
7
9
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
23
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
6
3
9
8
6
5
-
-
2
0
6
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
6
0
6
6
0
1
3
1
2
6
2
1
2
5
8
1
1
7
2
2
0
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Tab
l
e
1
1
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-23
Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR) for the
assumptions used in producing the 2031 traffic volumes estimates without the pro-
ject for AM and school PM. The assumptions used in producing the 2031 traffic
volume estimates without the project for summer PM are included in Appendix B
of this Revised Draft EIR.
f. Level of Service
Traffic operations at the study intersections are assessed in terms of level of service
and delay consistent to those standards set forth by the Caltrans, the Town and
Nevada County.10 Level of service is a concept that was developed by transporta-
tion engineers to quantify the level of operation of intersections and roadways.11
Level of service measures are classified in grades “A” through “F,” indicating the
range of operation. Level of service (LOS) “A” signifies the best level of operation,
while "F" represents the worst.
In general, Caltrans tries to maintain LOS D or better, although exceptions are
made in specific cases. The Nevada County General Plan requires that rural intersec-
tions and roadways maintain LOS C, except where the existing level of service is
less than LOS C. In those situations, the level of service shall not be allowed to
drop below the existing level of service. In other words, level of service on an inter-
section or roadway already below LOS C should not be allowed to degrade below
its existing condition. Level of service shall be based on the typical highest peak
hour of weekday traffic.
Under the Town’s General Plan Policy P2.1 LOS D or better on road segments
and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside of the
Downtown Study Area must be established and maintained. LOS E or better on
arterial and collector road segments and for total intersection movements within
the Downtown Specific Plan Area are to be established and maintained. Through-
out the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized intersections shall not
be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cumulative vehicle delay of 4 vehicle
hours. Both of these conditions shall be met for traffic operations to be considered
unacceptable.
The intersections of Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension (future intersection) are located within the
10 A detailed description of LOS criteria is in the Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C,
attached as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
11 Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-24
Downtown Specific Plan Area, and therefore, the LOS E standard would apply.
The remaining study intersections are outside the downtown Truckee area; there-
fore the LOS D standard would apply.
For signalized intersections, level of service is primarily measured in terms of aver-
age delay per vehicle entering the intersection. Level of service at unsignalized in-
tersections is quantified in terms of delay per vehicle for each movement. Unsignal-
ized intersection level of service is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for
side-street stop sign-controlled approaches, while signalized intersection level of
service is based upon the assessment of volume-to-capacity ratios and control de-
lay.12 Existing 2011 intersection level of service is shown in Table 4.14-9 and pro-
jected 2031 intersection level of service is shown in Table 4.14-13.
As previously stated, the additional analyses included in the Traffic Impact Analysis
Addendum reflects an update to intersection Level of Service analyses for all study
intersections using the HCM 2010 method.
g. Roadway Safety Analysis
A roadway safety analysis was conducted in the study area, including a review of
historical accident data and existing driver sight distance.
i. Historical Accident Data
Historical accident data was analyzed at the following locations:
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection
Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive
Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road Intersection
Glenshire Drive between West Residential Entrance (Old Highway 40) and
Martis Peak Road
Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and Interstate 80
The roadway segment along Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Cir-
cle/Edinburgh Drive
12 Computer output of detailed LOS calculations for all intersections is provided in
Appendix D of the Traffic Impact Analysis, provided in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-25
The accident analysis is based on traffic collision data obtained from the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), which is managed by the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) and contains a comprehensive list of all reported collisions
in the State of California. Local jurisdictions do not maintain any accident records
exclusive from SWITRS. Accident records were obtained for the intersections and
roadway segments listed above for the five-year period from 2006 through 2010.
The detailed results of the analysis are included in the Traffic Impact Analysis and
summarized in Table 4.14-5.
TABLE 4.14-5 HISTORICAL TRAFFIC DATA (2006- 2010)
Road Segment
Total
Accidents
Total In
Snow/Ice
Conditions Fatalities
Annualized
Accident
Rates
(MVM)
Intersections
Glenshire Drive/
Donner Pass Road 12 1 0 .52
Glenshire Drive/
Dorchester Drive 4 0 0 .38
Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak
Road/Whitehorse Road 0 0 0 0
Roadways
Glenshire Drive between
West Residential Entrance
(Old Hwy 40) and Martis
Peak Road
16 6 0 1.11
Glenshire Drive between
Martis Peak Road and
Hirschdale Road
9 3 0 1.98
Hirschdale Road between I-
80 and Glenshire Drive 6 2 0 2.61
Segment on Somerset
Drive/Courtenay
Lane/Regency Circle/
Edinburgh Drive
2 0 0 1.54
Note: MVM = Million Vehicle-Miles for roadways and Million Vehicle-Movements for intersections.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis.
In addition, the Nevada Community Development Agency Department of Public
Works investigations of the roadway segment of Glenshire Drive east of Martis
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-26
Peak Road show a majority of the crashes happened in 2006 and 2007, and were
concentrated in a 500 foot area approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak
Road/Glenshire Drive intersection.13
ii. Driver Sight Distance
A detailed evaluation of the driver sight distance at the Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection was performed. Traffic
engineers consider driver sight distance by two parameters:
1. Stopping sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that a driver on the
approaching uncontrolled roadway has adequate time to perceive and react to
the presence of an obstruction in the roadway, and come to a stop in a safe
manner.
2. Corner sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that adequate time is
provided for the waiting vehicle at an unsignalized intersection to either cross
all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right
without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. Corner sight dis-
tance requirements are based upon major street roadway design speeds and are
identified in Standard Drawing Number 28 in the Town of Truckee Public
Improvement and Engineering Standards. The corner sight distance require-
ments are meant to provide 7½ seconds for the driver on the crossroad to
complete the necessary maneuver, while the approaching vehicle travels at the
assumed design speed of the major roadway.
A speed study was conducted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 from 3:20 to 5:20 p.m.
at a point on Glenshire Drive immediately east of Martis Peak Road.14 There is
currently a sign in both directions of this segment advising a travel speed of 25
miles per hour. A total of 203 vehicles were observed on Glenshire Drive during
the study period. According to the results of the study, the 85th-percentile speed is
estimated to be 30 miles per hour in each direction. According to Town standards,
the applicable corner sight distance (measured at a 10-foot setback from the edge
of the travel lane) at 30 miles per hour is 330 feet.
13 Written correspondence from Steve Castleberry, Director, Nevada County De-
partment of Public Works, to Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner, Town of Truckee, Febru-
ary 13, 2013.
14 The speed study is provided in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is
provided in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-27
A driver sight distance survey was performed at the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse
Road/Martis Peak Road intersection. The results of this survey show that the cor-
ner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the west along Glenshire
Drive exceeds 330 feet, and is therefore adequate. The corner sight distance from
Martis Peak Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is roughly 425 feet,
which exceeds the requirement. Therefore, no driver sight distance deficiencies are
identified on the Martis Peak Road approach. However, the corner sight distance
looking to the west and east from Whitehorse Road is not adequate. Whitehorse
Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195 feet, which does not
meet the Town’s 330-foot requirement. The corner sight distance from Whitehorse
Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is roughly 170 feet, which does not
meet the Town’s 330-foot corner sight distance requirement.
In summary, drivers exiting Martis Peak Drive onto Glenshire Drive have adequate
sight distance to judge an acceptable gap in both directions. However, drivers exit-
ing Whitehorse Road onto Glenshire Drive do not have adequate corner sight dis-
tance to judge acceptable gaps looking either to the east or west. In both directions,
however, oncoming drivers along Glenshire Drive have adequate stopping sight
distance to react to the presence of a vehicle turning onto the roadway.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to transportation
and traffic if it would:
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into ac-
count all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for desig-
nated roads or highways.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-28
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dan-
gerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
Result in inadequate emergency access.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bi-
cycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities.
a. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
The following establishes the project’s estimated trip generation, distribution, and
assignment onto the study roadways and intersections.
i. Project Trip Generation
Project trip generation evaluates the number of vehicle-trips that would either
have an origin or destination within the area. The trip generation rates of the
proposed project are based on a number of assumptions, which are described
in detail in the Traffic Impact Analysis (See Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR)
and Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (See Appendix B of this Revised Draft
EIR).
The estimated weekday trip generation analysis is summarized in Table 4.14-6. As
indicated, at buildout the proposed project would generate up to approximately
2,578 one-way daily vehicle trips, of which 194 (46 inbound and 148 outbound)
would occur during the AM peak hour and 257 (164 inbound and 93 outbound)
would occur during the PM peak hour.
ii. 2011 and 2031 Project Trip Distribution
The distribution of traffic throughout the project area and surrounding network is
estimated based on the following conditions and assumptions:
Existing traffic patterns in the Glenshire area;
Expected trip purposes of future residents and visitors to the project;
Location of the site relative to major employment, commercial, and recrea-
tional activity centers; and
Distribution generated by the Town’s traffic model for the project site.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-29
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
6
PRO
J
E
C
T
TRI
P
GEN
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
IT
E
La
n
d
U
s
e
IT
E
Co
d
e
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
U
n
i
t
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
s
a
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
T
r
i
p
s
a
t
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Da
i
l
y
AM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
a
i
l
y
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM Peak Hour
In
O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
In Out Total
Ma
r
k
e
t
R
a
t
e
Ho
u
s
e
s
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
21
0
1
7
7
D
U
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
b
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
c E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
d 1
,
7
5
8
3
4
1
0
0
1
3
4
1
1
1
6
5
1
7
6
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
U
n
i
t
s
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
22
0
8
9
D
U
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
e
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
f E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
g
6
3
5
9
3
7
4
6
4
1
2
2
6
3
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
2
2
0
2
6
D
U
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
e
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
f E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
g 1
8
5
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
6
1
8
To
t
a
l
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
29
2
D
U
2
,
5
7
8
4
6
1
4
8
1
9
4
1
6
4
9
3
2
5
7
No
t
e
:
D
U
=
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
a T
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
gr
e
s
s
i
o
n
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
b
a
se
d
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
8
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
(I
T
E
,
2
0
0
8
)
,
u
n
l
e
s
s
N
o
t
e
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.
b T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
te
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
ti
o
n
L
n
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
2
*
L
n
(
#
D
U
)
+2
.
7
1
.
c
Th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
ch
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
in
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
0
.
7
0
(
#
D
U
)
+
9.
7
4
;
2
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
75
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
d
Th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
ch
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
in
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
L
n
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
0
*
L
n(
#
D
U
)
+
0
.
5
1
;
6
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
ip
s
,
3
7
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
e T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
6
.
0
6
(
#
D
U
)
+
1
2
3
.
5
6
.
f T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
0
.
4
9
(
#
D
U
)
+
3
.
7
3
;
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
ou
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
8
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
g
Th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
is
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T=
0
.
5
5
(
#
D
U
)
+
1
7
.
6
5
;
6
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
ou
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
3
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
3
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-30
Trip distribution projections show that more than one quarter of trips generated by
the proposed project in 2011 are expected to travel to/from the Gateway area (near
the State Route 89 South/Donner Pass Road intersection). In addition, existing
traffic volumes indicate about 25 percent of Glenshire traffic travels to/from Inter-
state 80 to the east of Hirschdale Road.
Under future 2031 conditions, the trip distribution to these key locations is ex-
pected to be lower, considering the new commercial development assumed to oc-
cur in other areas of Truckee (e.g. Railyard Development).
iii. 2011 and 2031 Project Trip Assignment
The proposed project assumes full access to the site via Martis Peak Road as the
Edinburgh Drive access point would be gated and accessible for emergency use
only. Based on a series of assumptions described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (see
Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR) trip assignment projections indicate that the
majority of project-generated traffic would use Hirschdale Road/ Interstate 80 to
access the areas listed above, with the exception of Downtown Truckee (for which
Glenshire Road would serve all drivers). A minority of drivers with a particular
aversion to out-of-direction or freeway travel (such as the elderly) is expected to
continue to use Glenshire Drive, particularly for trips where the
Hirschdale/Interstate 80 travel route does not provide a large travel time savings.15
The 2011 project-generated PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the study inter-
sections are illustrated in Figure 4.14-4 and the future 2031 project-generated traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 4.14-5. The 2011 and 2031 project-generated intersec-
tion turning-movement volumes during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour
of school-related traffic activity are shown in Table 4.14-7.
Excluding trips between the project site and Reno/Sparks, Glenshire or Stampede
Meadows Road, 45 percent of project traffic to/from the west would use Glenshire
Drive and the remaining 55 percent would use Hirschdale Road/ Interstate 80.
Given the location of the project access point in the easternmost portion of Glen-
shire (2 miles east of the Glenshire General Store), this distribution proportion is
consistent with the observed traffic patterns.
15 The detailed results of the travel time analysis is presented in Table 6 of the Traffic
Impact Analysis, which is provided in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
10
6
23
0 39
32
0
0
0
55 0
0
036 57
00 0
0
0
0
103
57
430
3359
1
32
3
60
0
49
29
0 23 2
0 0 41
0
0
61
0
0
103
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE
0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
FIGURE 4.14-4
2011 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
12
7
-3
0 12
32
0
0
0
56 0
0
036 57
00 0
5
3
0
98
54
320
3765
1
36
3
60
0
50
29
0 17 2
0 0 30
0
0
61
0
0
103
24
0 0 26
25
4
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
SITE
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
EDINBURG
H
80
80
267
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 4.14-5
2031 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-33
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
7
PRO
J
E
C
T
GEN
E
R
A
T
E
D
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
2
0
1
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
33
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
1
0
3
0
-
-
5
7
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
0
0
1
3
-
-
-
-
4
4
3
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
0
0
4
7
-
-
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
57
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
2
9
0
0
1
9
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
0
0
4
7
-
-
-
-
2
7
2
7
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
0
0
0
2
9
-
-
7
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
36
0
5
7
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
0
2
0
0
2
5
7
FU
T
U
R
E
2
0
3
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
0
-
-
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
3
4
0
-
-
2
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-34
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
7
PRO
J
E
C
T
GEN
E
R
A
T
E
D
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
0
0
1
3
-
-
-
-
4
4
3
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
0
0
4
7
-
-
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
58
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
2
8
0
0
1
9
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
es
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
0
0
4
8
-
-
-
-
2
7
2
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
0
0
2
9
-
-
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
37
0
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
1
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
7
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-35
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into ac-
count all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit.
Adding the 2011 project-generated traffic volumes to the “2011 without project”
volumes yields the “2011 with project” intersection volumes shown in Figure 4.14-
6 and Table 4.14-8.
i. 2011 Level of Service Impacts
All study intersections were evaluated using the HCM 2010 method to determine
existing operational conditions for the 2011 summer PM peak hour. The Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection was also evaluated for the summer AM peak
hour. In addition, the intersections of Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (West),
Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive, and Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road were
evaluated for the AM and PM peak periods of school-related traffic activity. As
indicated on Table 4.14-9, using the traffic volumes identified above, all study in-
tersections currently operate at acceptable levels during all periods without the pro-
posed project, with the exception of the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road inter-
section. During the PM peak hour, the worst movement on this intersection (the
left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive to Donner Pass Road) operates at LOS
F, with a total of about 11.3 vehicle-hours of delay. This exceeds the Town’s
standard of LOS F and a maximum of 4 vehicle-hours of delay.16
16 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Adden-
dum, January 2014, page 2.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
247
237
129
188
368 394
38
3497
195
276
131
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
107
24
6
34
160 87
0
038 65
95 7
2
2
12
256
202
13727
107130
67
81
41 101 54
33 60 110
21
130
65
21
125
112
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 4.14-6
2011 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-37
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
8
20
1
1
W
I
T
H
PRO
J
E
C
T
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
35
3
-
-
1
8
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
0
1
0
4
6
0
2
2
5
-
-
1
,
1
1
7
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
4
8
-
-
1
9
3
1
1
5
72
-
-
-
-
1
9
2
6
0
6
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
32
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
2
1
3
6
9
4
1
9
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
62
1
9
8
1
3
0
1
1
5
8
7
2
8
3
5
3
8
6
3
8
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
-
-
1
2
7
1
5
6
1
8
0
-
-
-
-
1
1
7
2
9
6
6
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
15
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
7
2
8
5
7
2
2
2
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
40
0
6
3
6
1
8
9
6
1
7
0
1
0
7
8
1
1
7
4
6
3
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
8
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-38
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
9
20
1
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Ty
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
With Project
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
3
0
.
3
D
OV
F
F
49
.
2
E
OVF F
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Si
d
e
S
t
re
e
t
S
t
o
p
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
6
A
1
2
.
6
B
4
.
5
A
1
4
.
4
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
8
.
0
A
8
.
0
A
8
.
5
A
8
.
7
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
4
A
1
0
.
6
B
4
.
3
A
1
4
.
2
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
2
A
1
0
.
3
B
5
.
2
A
1
1
.
6
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
St
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
6
A
1
0
.
6
B
5
.
1
A
1
1
.
6
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
1
A
1
0
.
2
B
6
.
0
A
1
0
.
7
B
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
2
.
4
B
3
3
.
5
D
1
6
.
4
C
44.4 E
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
7
A
1
3
.
4
B
6
.
5
A
1
4
.
6
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
3
A
7
.
4
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
8
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
2
.
3
A
9
.
4
A
6
.
0
A
1
0
.
9
B
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
9
20
1
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-39
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
y
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
8
A
1
2
.
2
B
5
.
4
A
1
3
.
2
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
2
A
7
.
3
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
6
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
7
A
9
.
4
A
4
.
8
A
1
1
.
3
B
No
t
e
s
:
BO
L
D
t
e
x
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
ov
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
L
O
S
F
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
an four total vehicle-hours of
de
l
a
y
i
s
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
OV
F
=
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
.
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
i
n
d
i
c
a
te
s
a
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
ra
t
e
l
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
,
T
a
b
l
e
1
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-40
As indicated on Table 4.14-9, implementation of the proposed project would result
in increased delays at all study intersections, and the level of service would degrade
by one level at some intersections as described below. However, no additional in-
tersections would exceed the Town standard in 2011 with the project.
At the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, the total intersection level
of service would degrade from LOS D Existing 2011 No Project conditions (base-
line) to LOS E (Existing 2011 with Project conditions) during the summer PM
peak hour, while the worst movement would continue to operate at LOS F with
more than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. Implementation of the proposed project would
therefore exacerbate an existing level of service deficiency at this intersection, as it
would result in increased vehicular delays during the summer PM peak hour.
Therefore, level of service impacts at this intersection would be potentially signifi-
cant.
Intersection level of service mitigation measures have been considered for the
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, as it is expected the level of ser-
vice threshold will continue to be exceeded in the 2011 summer PM peak hour,
without the project, and further exacerbated with the proposed project. The follow-
ing provides a summary of each of the intersection level of service mitigation
measures considered.
1) The construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location is not feasi-
ble due to the existing steep grades. The transition in and out of either im-
provement would create unsafe traffic conditions, particularly in inclement
weather. Therefore, this mitigation measure is considered infeasible.
2) Provide a two-way left-turn lane along Donner Pass Road between Glenshire
Drive and Keiser Avenue. With a two-way left-turn lane, drivers are expected
to make a left turn into the center lane and then move into a gap in the west-
bound through traffic and accelerate in the through lane, rather than accelerat-
ing in the median lane. A driver would be prohibited by law from traveling
more than 200 feet in a two-way left-turn lane. There would be a potential for
conflicts between drivers turning left from both Glenshire Drive and Keiser
Avenue. Drivers in both directions would also need to accurately judge ac-
ceptable gaps in oncoming traffic by looking in their rear view mirrors. As the
speed limit along this portion of Glenshire Drive is 45 miles per hour, this
would create an unacceptable potential for accidents. For this reason, two-way
left-turn lanes are typically not provided along roadways with speeds exceeding
35 miles per hour. Therefore, this mitigation measure is considered infeasible.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-41
3) Provide a left turn acceleration lane (center lane) along Donner Pass Road
west of Glenshire Drive, which would allow drivers turning left from Glen-
shire Drive to make a “two-stage” left-turn movement, first using a gap in the
eastbound traffic to turn into the center lane before using a gap in the west-
bound traffic to merge to the right into the westbound through lane. A con-
ceptual layout for this improvement is illustrated on Figure 4.14-7. The center
lane would not be permitted for drivers turning left from Keiser Avenue. The
pavement markings associated with the left turn lane would be designed to
discourage drivers making left turns from Keiser Avenue onto Donner Pass
Road from pulling into the painted median area, in order to minimize the po-
tential for traffic accidents. The presence of the center lane would improve
level of service for drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive.
Table 4.14-10 summarizes the level of service and delay on the worst move-
ment (the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive) under 2011 conditions
with the new center lane. Implementation of this improvement would improve
the level of service to an acceptable level under 2011 conditions without the
proposed project, with a total of approximately 3.1 vehicle-hours of delay on
the worst movement. However, with full buildout of the proposed project, the
level of service would degrade to an unacceptable level, with approximately 5.6
vehicle-hours of delay on the worst movement. While project buildout would
result in an unacceptable LOS F, same as the existing conditions, intersection
delays would be shorter with implementation of the center lane and full devel-
opment of the proposed project (5.6 total vehicle-hours of delay under sum-
mer PM peak hour conditions) than under existing conditions with no center
lane improvements and no project (11.3 total vehicle-hours of delay under
summer PM peak hour conditions). The level of service at this intersection
would nonetheless remain at an unacceptable level of service as it would ex-
ceed the Town standards by 1.6 total vehicle-hours of delay under summer PM
peak hour conditions.
FIGURE 4.14-7
GLENSHIRE DRIVE/DONNER PASS ROAD LEFT TURN ACCELERATION LANE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
600 120 Feet
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
4
3
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
0
GLE
N
S
H
I
R
E
DRI
V
E
/D
ON
N
E
R
PAS
S
ROA
D
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LO
S
WI
T
H
CEN
T
E
R
TUR
N
LAN
E
Ye
a
r
2
0
1
1
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
De
l
a
y
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
HC
M
2
0
1
0
M
e
t
h
o
d
–
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
G
a
p
T
i
m
e
s
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
De
l
a
y
(v
e
h
-
h
r
s
)
L
O
S
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
V
F
11
.
3
F
PM
W
i
t
h
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
V
F
20
.
0
F
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
33
.
5
N/
A
D
AM
W
i
t
h
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
4
4
.
4
N
/
A
E
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
L
a
n
e
b
67
.
3
3
.
1
F
PM
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
L
a
n
e
b 1
0
7
.
0
5
.
6
F
No
t
e
:
Bo
l
d
t
e
x
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
L
O
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d
.
a A
l
l
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
a
r
e
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
g
a
p
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
b A
l
l
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
w
i
t
h
c
e
n
t
e
r
l
a
n
e
a
s
s
u
m
e
1
-
c
a
r
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
m
e
d
i
a
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
,
Ta
b
l
e
5
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-44
Temporary off-site impacts associated with the provision of a center lane on Don-
ner Pass Road during Phase 1 of project construction would be considered to be
less than significant through implementation mitigation measures and mandatory
regulations described in other chapters of the 2012 Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure
HYDRO-1a through -1c and HYDRO-2a through -2c described in Chapter 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, recommends measures and Best Management Prac-
tices to stabilize soils and minimize erosion during the construction process. Man-
datory regulations described in Chapter 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the 2012 Draft
EIR, impacts to unknown cultural resources and human remains would be less than
significant as well. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 would reduce temporary impact
to local roadways through the preparation of a Construction Traffic Management
Plan to be prepared and approved by the Town’s Public Works Department prior
to Phase 1 of project construction.
With the new center turn lane, some level of development could occur before the
level of service threshold is exceeded. It is estimated that construction Phases 1
through the beginning of Phase 4 or about 45 percent of the Canyon Springs de-
velopment (including about 84 single-family lots) could be constructed before the
level of service threshold is exceeded. This would generate about 10 left turns from
Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road.
In addition to the potential mitigation measures discussed above, the impacts of the
implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension to be constructed east of
Bridge Street tying into a new T-intersection on Glenshire Drive (which is part of
the approved Railyard Master Plan Project) were considered. This roadway exten-
sion would substantially reduce the left-turning traffic volume from Glenshire
Drive onto Donner Pass Road, as drivers faced with long delays for making left-
turn movements from Glenshire Drive can be expected to shift their travel patterns
to instead use the Donner Pass Road Extension. As a result, the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is shown to operate within the level of ser-
vice thresholds with implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension. Note
that the level of service at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension inter-
section would continue to be acceptable with these additional left turn movements.
The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and it is included in the
Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating new devel-
opment within the Town to pay traffic impact fees. The project applicant would be
required to pay the current fee of $5,771 per single-family dwelling unit and $3,578
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-45
per multi-family unit,17 resulting in a total fee of approximately $1,121,651.18 How-
ever, according to Table CIR-6 in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circula-
tion Element, when a Category 3 Project (such as Canyon Springs) encounters an
existing unacceptable level of service on an arterial or collector road, that develop-
ment is allowed if either of the following are true:
Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as iden-
tified in General Plan Table CIR-5; or
Improvements to impacted roads and intersections are identified in the CIP,
fully funded, and scheduled for completion within three years.
While the construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension is identified in the CIP,
it is not fully funded, nor is it scheduled for completion within three years. There-
fore, the level of service improvements to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection as a result of the Donner Pass Road Extension are not considered at
this time. Consequently, based upon this analysis and the physical constraints at
this location, project level of service impacts to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road intersection are considered significant.
ii. 2011 Intersection Queuing Impacts
Traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the storage capacity of turn lanes
or ramps, or that block turn movements at important nearby intersections or
driveways, can cause operational problems beyond those identified in the level of
service analysis. The 95th-percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations
where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems. The longest traffic queue
occurs at the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road
during the summer PM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length for this turn-
ing movement is calculated to be approximately 18 vehicles, including traffic from
the proposed project. Assuming a length of about 25 feet per vehicle, this equates
to a total queue length of about 450 feet, which would not affect any nearby inter-
sections or driveways.
The longest traffic queue length for drivers stopped on Dorchester Drive (West)
waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive occurs during the school AM peak hour. The
17 Traffic and Facility Impact Fees, Effective Date, February 1, 2014,
http://www.townoftruckee.com/about-us/forms-documents/folder-198, retrieved Septem-
ber 3, 2014.
18 (177 single-family homes multiplied by $5,771 equals $1,021,467) plus (28 multi-
family units multiplied by $3,578 equals $100,184) equals $1,121,651.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-46
95th-percentile queue length on this approach is approximately two vehicles (or
about 50 feet), with or without the proposed project. As the nearest driveway on
Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection, no operational
queuing problems are identified. Therefore, 2011 queuing impacts would be less
than significant.
iii. 2011 Turn Lane Warrants
Guidelines for adding turn lanes are provided in the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457 – Evaluating Intersection Improvements:
An Engineering Study Guide,19 as well as in the Guidelines for Reconstruction of
Intersections.20 Left-turn lane volume warrants are defined by volume thresholds of
opposing traffic versus advancing traffic, as well as the percentage of left-turns on
the advancing approach. Right-turn lane warrants are based on a graphical curve of
right-turning volumes versus total traffic in the travel lane.21
The need for left-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at the Western End of Dorchester Drive: Based upon the
2011 summer AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn
lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with Dorchester
Drive (West), with or without the project. The calculated 95th-percentile traf-
fic queue length on the eastbound left-turn movement is less than one vehicle.
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The traffic volumes at
the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection do not
warrant a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive under existing conditions, with
or without the project. Therefore, a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive is not
warranted at this location.
The need for right-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West): The right-turn lane warrant is
not met under 2011 conditions, with or without the project. Therefore, the ad-
dition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
19 Transportation Research Board, 2001. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 457 – Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide.
20 Caltrans, 1985. Guidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections.
21 The warrant charts are included in Appendix H of the Traffic Impact Analysis,
which is included in Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-47
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The right-turn lane
warrant is not met under 2011 conditions, with or without the project. There-
fore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Because a left-turn lane is warranted at Glenshire Drive at the western end of Dor-
chester Drive, turn lane impacts would be significant under 2011 conditions.
iv. 2011 Roadway Capacity
Roadway capacity is evaluated in order to determine whether a specific roadway
segment can accommodate existing and/or future traffic volumes. Different meth-
odologies can be employed to determine capacity, but generally, the calculation will
incorporate a series of factors including roadway facility type, evaluation period,
and level of service thresholds. The Town of Truckee roadway capacity standards
are based upon hourly traffic volumes, and the Nevada County roadway volume
criteria are based upon daily traffic volumes. According to the Nevada County General
Plan, a LOS C can be maintained on a two-lane major collector with an Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) of 8,800 or less and on a two-lane minor collector with an
ADT of 7,600 or less. The maximum allowable traffic volumes to obtain the level
of service thresholds applicable to the study roadway segments are shown in Table
4.14-11.
Table 4.14-11 also presents a comparison of 2011 traffic volumes with the perti-
nent level of service standard. The ADT volume along each study roadway segment
is estimated by applying an ADT-to-peak hour volume factor calculated from the
traffic counts, except for several local roadway segments. The volume factors range
from approximately 9.5 to 10.6. The traffic volumes along the local roadway seg-
ments of Edinburgh Drive, Regency Circle, and Courtenay Lane were estimated by
applying standard ITE trip generation rates to the number of dwelling units served.
As shown in Table 4.14-11, all study roadway segments currently operate within the
allowable traffic volume threshold and all study roadway segments are within the
allowable traffic volume threshold with implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, roadway capacity impacts under existing conditions would be less than
significant.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-48
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
1
20
1
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
to
O
b
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
8
7
0
5
8
2
9
,
2
2
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
6
2
1
4
2
2
6
,
4
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
3
9
2
2
5
5
4
,
0
8
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
2
8
7
1
5
5
2
,
9
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
3
0
2
1
5
5
3
,
0
1
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
3
1
7
1
6
5
3
,
1
6
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R
o
a
d
N
/
A
d N
/
A
d
N/
A
d 2
3
1
3
2
2
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
,
4
3
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
6
4
1
5
3
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
4
40
5
1
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
4
10
1
3
0
N
o
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
9
4
8
6
3
1
1
0
,
0
5
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
6
9
9
4
7
1
7
,
2
8
0
N
o
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
1
20
1
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-49
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
to
O
b
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
4
7
9
3
1
0
4
,
9
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
3
8
4
2
1
6
4
,
0
0
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
4
6
2
2
5
8
4
,
6
1
0
N
o
c
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
4
7
7
2
6
8
4
,
7
6
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
f
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
f D
8
9
0
-
-
2
8
0
1
7
7
2
,
6
5
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
,
4
3
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
6
41
5
3
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
5
4
40
5
1
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
4
10
1
3
0
N
o
No
t
e
s
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
AD
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
a
AD
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
A
D
T
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
-
ho
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
b
Lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
o
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
I
T
E
t
r
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
c
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
v
o
lu
m
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
s
.
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
ed
.
f
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
T
o
w
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
i
s
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
T
o
w
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
ec
t
,
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
ng
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-50
v. 2011 Local Residential Roadway Impacts
According to the 2025 General Plan Circulation Element Policy P2.2, the proposed
project would meet the adopted standard for impact on a local residential roadway
if the project does not increase traffic on a local road by more than 1,000 ADT or
if the project increases traffic on a local road by more than 1,000 ADT but the in-
crease in ADT is less than 50 percent, and the provisions of Circulation Element
Policy P2.4, which calls for improving the connectivity throughout the Town’s
roadway network, through roadway improvements, while minimizing environmen-
tal, circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts, can be met.
The increase in traffic on the local roadways as a result of the proposed project
would not impact the traffic volumes on local roadway segments from Somerset
Drive to Edinburgh Drive given that the Edinburgh access point would be gated
for emergency access only. Therefore, the proposed project meets the adopted
standard for impacts to local residential roadways within the Town limit.
Martis Peak Road is a privately-maintained road outside the Town of Truckee Lim-
its. However, the relatively short segment of Martis Peak Road that provides access
to the project site is subject to the Town’s thresholds. This roadway segment has a
total pavement width ranging from 20 to 23 feet. In 2011 with the project, Martis
Peak Road would have an ADT volume exceeding 2,000 vehicles, and it would
function as a Collector roadway. According to Town standards, a Collector road-
way should provide 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders. As the existing
pavement width along Martis Peak Road does not accommodate 12-foot travel
lanes, the segment of Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the proposed
main project access point would not meet Town standards with the project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the adopted standard for impacts
to local residential roadways and impacts local roadways under 2011 conditions and
impacts would be significant.
vi. Construction Impacts
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR, the project
is proposed to be constructed in eight phases. The construction schedule for the
new residences is dependent upon market demand, and full buildout of the project
is anticipated to take at least 20 years. Phase 1 is expected to generate the greatest
amount of construction traffic, as it is the phase with the largest number of lots
(37) and the longest length of roadway (approximately 1.36 miles) to be construct-
ed.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-51
Table 4.14-12 provides an analysis of the construction related traffic that is ex-
pected to be generated over the course of a peak day during Phase I activities. The
analysis is based upon a number of assumptions included in the project Traffic Im-
pact Analysis, which is included as Appendix I of the 2012 Draft EIR.
As shown in Table 4.14-12, construction Phase 1 is expected to generate approxi-
mately 388 one-way passenger-car-equivalent trips over the course of a busy con-
struction day, with about 96 exiting trips occurring during the PM peak hour of
commuter traffic. In comparison with the proposed development traffic, the num-
ber of inbound trips during the PM peak hour would be less during construction,
but a similar amount of exiting traffic would occur(the project would generate
about 93 exiting trips, compared to about 96 during construction). Consequently,
the traffic impacts during construction Phase 1 are similar to that under full
buildout of the proposed project.
All study intersections and roadway segments are expected to operate at an ac-
ceptable level of service during the construction phases, except the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, which as previously discussed is at unac-
ceptable levels under existing conditions. If any project construction traffic accesses
the site to/from the west via the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection
before implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension, this would exacerbate
an existing level of service deficiency and construction impacts during Phase 1
would be significant.
vii. Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit
As discussed further below the project would provide 4.5 miles of publicly accessi-
ble trails and no mass transit services are currently located in the project area.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for desig-
nated roads or highways.
There is no applicable congestion management program. Therefore, no impacts
would occur.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-52
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
2
CON
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
TRI
P
GEN
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ph
a
s
e
1
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
L
o
t
s
Total
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Ho
m
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
--
12
--
12
5
16
--
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
--
1.
2
--
1.
2
1.
2
--
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
6
10
8
10
4
13
141
On
e
-
W
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
–
P
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
2
2.
5
2
2.
5
2.
5
--
On
e
-
W
a
y
T
r
i
p
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
–
T
o
t
a
l
12
25
16
26
0
33
346
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
C
a
r
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
2.
5
1
2.
5
1
1
--
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
C
a
r
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
T
r
i
p
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
30
25
40
26
0
33
388
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
E
x
i
t
i
n
g
i
n
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
10
%
28
%
10
%
28
%
28
%
--
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
P
e
a
k
-
H
o
u
r
E
x
i
t
i
n
g
T
r
i
p
s
3
7
4
73
9
96
No
t
e
:
T
h
e
2
8
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
s
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
is
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
n
e
-
w
ay
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
t
r
i
p
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
7
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
de
p
a
r
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
T
a
b
l
e
2
4
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-53
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
The airport closest to the project site is the Truckee Tahoe Airport, located approx-
imately four miles to the west-southwest of the project site. The project would not
result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; therefore, no impact
would occur.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dan-
gerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
i. Intersection Corner Sight Distance
The addition of project traffic at the Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Drive/
Whitehorse Road intersection could result in hazardous driving conditions due to
the current limited sight distance conditions.
a) Martis Peak Road Looking West and East Along Glenshire Drive
The driver sight distance survey prepared for the project found that the corner
sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive
was adequate as it exceeds 330 feet applicable corner sight distance (measured at a
10-foot setback from the edge of the travel lane) at 30 miles per hour and the cor-
ner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the east along Glenshire
Drive, roughly 425 feet, is also adequate. Therefore, no driver sight distance defi-
ciencies are identified on the Martis Peak Road approach and impacts would be less
than significant at this location.
b) Whitehorse Road Looking West Along Glenshire Drive
Whitehorse Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195 feet,
which does not meet the Town’s 330-foot requirement (see Figure 4.14-8). The
corner sight distance at this location is limited by the existing embankment and
vegetation on the northwest corner of the intersection, as well as by the horizontal
and vertical curvature along Glenshire Drive. The corner sight distance improves as
the driver on Whitehorse Road approaches the edge of the travel lane on Glenshire
Drive. Measured 10 feet back from the edge of the traveled way, the corner sight
distance is approximately 195 feet, and when measured from a 5-foot setback the
corner sight distance increases to approximately 255 feet; however, these values do
not achieve the Town’s 330-foot requirement and impacts to drivers on White-
horse Road would be potentially significant.
100feet
FIGURE–
ExistingDriverSightDistanceatWhitehorseApproachtoGlenshireDrive
SightDistanceforDriverssoutheast-
boundonWhitehorseDrivelooking
northeastonGlenshireDrive=170feet.
Constrainedbyutilityboxandvegetation.
SightDistanceforDriverssoutheast-
boundonWhitehorseDrivelooking
southwestonGlenshireDrive=195
feet.Constrainedbyhorizontaland
verticalcurvatureonGlenshireDrive.
FIGURE 4.14-8
WHITEHORSE ROAD/GLENSHIRE DRIVE INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-55
The corner sight distance at this location could be improved by modifying the ex-
isting embankment on the northwest corner of the intersection. However, such an
improvement would likely require the acquisition of right-of- way from the single-
family parcel located on this corner. Town standards indicate that “where restric-
tive conditions do not allow compliance with the specified sight distance require-
ments, the Town Engineer may approve a reduction of the corner sight distance to
the minimum stopping sight distance as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual.” According to Caltrans standards, at a 30-mile-per-hour design speed, the
minimum stopping sight distance is 200 feet. Measured stopping sight distance for
drivers approaching along Glenshire Drive from the west is 210 feet measured to
an object six inches in height, and at least 255 feet to a vehicle turning into the
eastbound through lane. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided
for eastbound drivers along Glenshire Drive to see and react to a driver pulling out
from Whitehorse Road. Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersec-
tion during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving im-
pacts at this location would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
warranted.
c) Whitehorse Road Looking East Along Glenshire Drive
The corner sight distance from Whitehorse Road looking to the east along Glen-
shire Drive is roughly 170 feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330-foot corner
sight distance requirement. To the east of the intersection Glenshire Drive curves
to the north and then back to the south. When looking east from Whitehorse Road,
a driver can see a portion of the road, but as it turns to the north it disappears from
sight and reappears into the driver’s sight as it curves back to the south. The corner
sight distance at this location is limited by an existing utility box in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection, as well as by existing vegetation. If the existing utility
box and vegetation were removed, then the corner sight distance to the east would
be improved to roughly 580 feet, thereby meeting minimum corner sight distance
requirements. However, the stopping sight distance along Glenshire Drive east of
Whitehorse Drive (measured along the travel lane) is over 500 feet, as the existing
utility box does not block the driver sight line along the traveled way. Therefore,
adequate stopping sight distance is provided. If a driver makes a right turn from
Whitehorse Road without an adequate gap, a vehicle traveling on Glenshire Drive
westbound would have adequate stopping sight distance to react and come to a
stop. Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year
period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving impacts at this location
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-56
ii. Roadway Segment Hazards
The Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road roadway segment has an average
accident rate (from 2006 to 2010) about two times the State and County average
rates for similar facilities. The injury and fatal accident rate is also higher than the
State and County average rates for similar facilities. However, the severity of the
accidents is relatively minor overall, given that no fatalities were reported, and two-
thirds of the accidents resulted in property damage only (no injuries). Furthermore,
while one-third of the accidents occurred under icy/snowy road conditions, which
represents a relatively small proportion of the overall winter, each of these acci-
dents involved a single vehicle, and there were no injuries.
This roadway segment has a steep grade of about nine percent. The existing travel
lane width is striped to accommodate two 11-foot travel lanes with an outside fog
line22 and the actual asphalt roadway is 24 to 25 feet wide in all locations. Paved
and unpaved shoulder widths are generally 2 to 4 feet wide. Both Nevada County
and Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot travel lanes with
4-foot shoulders, and maximum grade of eight percent. Therefore, while this seg-
ment of Glenshire Drive is deficient with respect to the current County standards
for this type of roadway in some areas, it essentially meets the required design
standards. It should be noted that Glenshire Drive met the standards that were
applicable at the time it was constructed. As the County standards have been up-
dated over the years, most of the rural County roadways do not meet the current
County standards.
In 2008, Nevada County installed several hundred feet of guardrail along the por-
tion of the roadway segment approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak
Road/Glenshire Drive intersection, and rehabilitated the pavement on the Nevada
County section of Glenshire Road in 2009. As previously stated, the Nevada
Community Development Agency Department of Public Works’ investigations on
this road show a majority of crashes occurred in 2006 and 2007 and were concen-
trated in a 500 foot area approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak Road
intersection. While the guardrail and pavement improvements were not specifically
intended as safety projects, according to the Nevada Community Development
Agency Department of Public Works, both improvements have contributed to
overall improved roadway conditions at this location. The Nevada Community
Development Agency Department of Public Works found that accident rates at
this location have been reduced since these improvements have been installed. This
22 A fog line is the line painted on a road (usually bright white) that marks the edge
of the legally drivable portion.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-57
is consistent with the County’s findings that crash rates typically drop after a pave-
ment improvement project, either due to the improved pavement surface or the
improved striping associated with pavement projects.23
While the accident rate along this roadway segment is higher than State and County
averages, it would be speculative to try and predict potential traffic impacts based
on variables such as icy/snowy road conditions or illegal driving behaviors such as
speeding or using handheld electronics (e.g. smart phones) while driving. It is driver
responsibility to comply with the law and exercise safe driving practices such as
slowing down, leaving more distance between vehicles and avoiding sudden stops
and quick direction changes in icy/snow conditions, which are often the cause of
accidents. Additionally, in rural communities throughout California, including
Truckee and the area surrounding the project site, the incident of vehicular and
wildlife collisions is an expected and unpredictable hazard.
Although the proposed project would result in an increase of up to 1,600 daily one-
way trips, including 160 peak-hour trips, on this roadway segment, which when
compared to existing conditions, equates to about a 50-percent increase in the total
peak-hour traffic volume, the 2008 and 2009 roadway improvements, as described
above, have reduced potential hazards at this roadway segment. Therefore, poten-
tial hazardous driving impacts related to the additional vehicle trips of the proposed
project at this roadway segment would be less than significant.
e. Result in inadequate emergency access.
While Glenshire Drive and Martis Peak Road currently serve the project area, new
internal access roads would be created on the project site. The privately owned and
maintained internal roadway system would provide residential and emergency vehi-
cle access. Vehicles would circulate through the project area using the internal
roadway system and main entrance point off Martis Peak Road approximately 690
feet south of its intersection with Glenshire Drive. As noted in the Chapter 3, Pro-
ject Description, and shown on Figure 3-5 of the 2012 Draft EIR, emergency ac-
cess would be provided by creating a secondary access point to the project off of
Edinburgh Drive located on the western border of the project site. Fire lanes and
turning radii would be designed to meet the standards of the TFPD so as to be
adequate for emergency response vehicles. Roadways would be designed with all
23 Written correspondence from Steve Castleberry, Director, Nevada County De-
partment of Public Works, to Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Associate, Town of Truckee, Feb-
ruary 13, 2013.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-58
weather surfaces and would be capable of supporting emergency vehicles up to
40,000 pounds. Consistent with General Plan Policy SAF-P4.7, the project’s final
site plans would be reviewed by the TFPD for adequate emergency access, site
design for maintenance of defensible space and use of non-materials prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Furthermore, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, project construction
Phase 1 would include the construction of the connecting roadway between the
project’s main access point and the secondary emergency access point at Edinburgh
Drive prior to the completion of the proposed homes. Therefore, considering the
completion of this connecting road between the project’s two access points and
roadways built to Town and TFPD standards the project would provide adequate
emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safe-
ty of such facilities.
The project is consistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P4.1 and CIR-P10.2, which
requires transportation systems to be planned and constructed in conjunction with
significant development projects, including roads, trails, bikeways, and other im-
provements, to provide links to the existing transportation network, and implement
the network of trails and bikeways described in the TBMP. The project would cre-
ate internal roads that would interface at various points on the project site and
would connect to Edinburgh Drive and Martis Peak Road. As described in detail in
Chapter 3, Project Description, and Chapter 4.13, Public Services and Recreation,
of the 2012 Draft EIR, the project includes a 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail sys-
tem. Consistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P10.5, the proposed trail network
includes public access points that utilize existing trail alignments to provide connec-
tivity to the surrounding community and adjacent open spaces for permitted and
lawful use of on-site trails by the public. Similar to surrounding residential areas,
the project would not include sidewalks. The project’s proposed 4.5-mile trail sys-
tem exceeds the new pedestrian facilities beyond those identified in the TBMP con-
sistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P10.3.
While there are no bicycle lanes currently proposed as part of the project, the pro-
posed publicly accessible trail system would connect to the Town’s proposed recre-
ational trail corridor as identified in the TBMP generally crossing the project site in
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-59
an east and west direction.24 The vehicular roadway network would include signage
to instruct drivers to be aware of cyclists and to share the road.
General Plan Policy CIR-P4.2 requires planning for land use and transportation
systems in new growth areas that provides opportunities for residents, employees,
and those without vehicles to accomplish many of their trips by walking, bicycling
or using transit. While the project is a permitted land use consistent with General
Plan land use designations (RC/OS and RES) and zoning districts (OS and RS-1.0)
it is located on the eastern border of the Town limit and is not located in close
proximity to basic commercial services. Future residents would have access to the
Dial-A-Ride bus service in the provided throughout the greater Truckee area.
However, it is likely future residents of the project, similar to those of the sur-
rounding Glenshire area, would rely on “trip-chaining”25 to reduce trips as opposed
to alternate modes of transportation. Therefore, future residents of the project
would be primarily automobile dependent as the project is not in close proximity to
basic commercial services and the project would not be consistent with this policy.
Nonetheless, when considering the project’s rural location and overall consistency
with the General Plan and the TBMP as identified above, the project would not
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The addition of the 2031 project-generated turning movement volumes to the
“2031 without project” intersection volumes yields the “2031 with project” vol-
umes that are shown in Figure 4.14-9 and Table 4.14-13.
Furthermore, as previously described this Revised Draft EIR includes cumulative
2031 summer PM peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes under the
2011 TransCAD model that were developed for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersections for the pro-
posed project. Adding the Canyon Springs project-generated traffic volumes to the
24 Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeway Master Plan Appendix D, Exhibit 1, Existing
and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network, Section 42, as of May 17, 2007.
25 Due to the relatively long travel distance from Glenshire to the rest of the Truckee
community, “trip chaining” (making multiple stops as part of a single external round-trip
from the residential area) would occur resulting in reduced vehicular trips.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-60
updated “2031 without project” volumes at the two intersections yields the “2031
with project” volumes shown in Figure 4.14-9.
a. 2031 Level of Service Impacts
All study intersections were evaluated to determine operational conditions under
future 2031 traffic volumes.26 Table 4.14-14 summarizes the results for future 2031
conditions without the project. In comparison with existing 2011 conditions, the
level of service at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection would im-
prove to an acceptable level (LOS F with less than 4 vehicle-hours of delay on the
worst approach) in the future peak hours, due to the addition of the Donner Pass
Road Extension. The level of service is expected to degrade by one level at some of
the other study intersections in the future, due to growth in background traffic.
However, as indicated in Table 4.14-14, all study intersections would operate within
the applicable level of service thresholds in 2031 with the proposed project. There-
fore, 2031 level of service impacts would be less than significant.
b. 2031 Intersection Queuing Analysis
As previously described, traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the stor-
age capacity of turn lanes or ramps, or that block turn movements at important
nearby intersections or driveways, can cause operational problems beyond those
identified in the level of service analysis. Similar to existing conditions, the 95th-
percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations where queuing could po-
tentially cause traffic problems in 2031. The traffic queue lengths for the left-turn
movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road during the summer PM
peak hour are expected to decrease in the future, due to the implementation of the
Donner Pass Road Extension. The longest traffic queue length for vehicles stopped
on Dorchester Drive (West) waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive occurs during
the AM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length on this approach is approxi-
mately three vehicles in 2031 without the proposed project. Assuming 25 feet per
vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of about 75 feet. As the nearest drive-
way on Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection, no opera-
tional problems are identified without the proposed project. Therefore, queuing
impacts would be less than significant.
26 The output from each of the LOS calculations for the study intersections is pro-
vided in Appendix F of the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included in Appendix I of the
2012 Draft EIR. The output from the level of service calculations for the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersections
in included in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, which is included in Ap-
pendix B of this Revised Draft EIR.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
225
510
358
50
221 449
47
42120
264
318
153
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
113
36
8
51
147 122
0
03 8
98 112
35
12
144
120
137
12027
106144
53
104
51 162 30
84 24 117
29
132
6
21
125
9
921
38 45 135
238
363
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE
0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2014.
FIGURE 4.14-9
2031 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-62
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
3
20
3
1
TRA
F
F
I
C
VOL
U
M
E
S
DUR
I
N
G
AM
A
N
D
SCH
O
O
L
PM
PEA
K
HOU
R
S
WIT
H
PRO
J
E
C
T
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Total
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
15
1
-
-
4
7
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
1
5
0
1
3
2
1
8
5
-
-
1
,
1
7
5
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
7
2
-
-
2
3
9
1
5
6
96
-
-
-
-
2
6
6
8
0
9
0
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
48
-
-
1
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
3
1
8
9
1
1
8
-
-
2
6
2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
66
0
9
7
1
3
0
1
8
7
8
9
3
5
3
4
3
8
6
4
0
3
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
--
-
-
-
-
7
5
-
-
1
5
7
2
1
1
2
3
4
-
-
-
-
1
6
2
3
8
8
7
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
23
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
7
3
9
8
9
4
-
-
2
8
6
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
43
0
6
2
6
0
1
3
1
2
6
2
7
6
1
0
5
8
1
1
7
4
7
7
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
2
.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.14-63
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
4
20
3
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Ty
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
With Projecta
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
6
.
1
C
O
V
F
Fb
16
.
6
C
O
V
F
Fb
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
E
x
te
n
s
i
o
n
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
7
.
3
A
1
3
1
.
9
Fb
9.
5
A
1
8
2
.
4
Fb
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
5
A
1
8
.
5
C
5
.
9
A
2
3
.
0
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
8
.
6
A
8
.
7
A
9
.
3
A
9
.
6
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
6
A
1
0
.
4
B
4
.
4
A
1
3
.
1
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
9
.
7
A
1
9
.
0
C
1
1
.
8
B
2
7
.
9
D
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
St
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
1
A
1
2
.
5
B
6
.
7
A
1
4
.
0
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
3
A
9
.
9
A
5
.
9
A
1
0
.
2
B
Su
m
m
e
r
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
8
.
5
C
4
9
.
6
E
1
8
.
5
C
4
9
.
7
E
Sc
h
o
o
l
A
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
8
.
0
A
1
7
.
7
C
8
.
3
A
2
0
.
1
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
5
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
7
A
7
.
9
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
2
.
5
A
9
.
4
A
5
.
8
A
1
0
.
6
B
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
4
20
3
1
INT
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-64
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
y
p
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Delay (sec/veh)LOS
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
Si
de
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
7
.
0
A
1
7
.
0
C
7
.
2
A
1
9
.
6
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
All
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
4
A
7
.
5
A
7
.
8
A
7
.
8
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
9
A
9
.
3
A
4
.
8
A
1
1
.
4
B
a
As
s
u
m
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
b
Th
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
pp
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
L
O
S
F
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
4
t
o
t
a
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
d
e
l
a
y is unacceptable. As the total delay
fo
r
t
h
i
s
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
4
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
,
t
h
e
L
O
S
i
s
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
OV
F
=
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
.
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
i
n
di
c
a
t
e
s
a
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
ul
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
3
a
n
d
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
,
T
a
b
l
e
4
.
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-65
c. 2031 Turn Lane Warrants
As discussed above under 2011 conditions, the need for left-turn lanes was evaluat-
ed at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at the Western End of Dorchester Drive: Based upon the
2011 AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn lane is
warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with Dorchester Drive
(West), with or without the project under future conditions. The calculated
95th-percentile traffic queue length on the eastbound left-turn movement is
less than one vehicle.
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The traffic volumes at
the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection do not
warrant a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive under future conditions, with or
without the project. Therefore, a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive is not
warranted at this location.
The need for right-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West): The right-turn lane warrant is
not met under future conditions, with or without the project. Therefore, the
addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The right-turn lane
warrant is not met under future conditions, with or without the project. There-
fore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Because a left-turn lane is warranted at the Glenshire Drive at the western end of
Dorchester Drive, turn lane impacts would be significant under 2031 conditions.
d. 2031 Roadway Capacity
Table 4.14-15 presents a comparison of 2031 roadway volumes with the pertinent
standards. The ADT volumes for 2031 conditions were estimated using the same
methodology as the 2011 volumes described above. As shown, all study roadway
segments are expected to operate within the allowable traffic volume threshold,
with or without implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, roadway ca-
pacity impacts at future buildout would be less than significant.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
4
-
6
6
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
5
20
3
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
t
o
O
b
t
a
i
n
LO
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
1
,
0
9
1
6
8
6
1
1
,
5
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
8
5
5
5
8
2
8
,
9
0
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
5
6
0
3
6
0
5
,
8
3
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
3
0
4
1
6
7
3
,
1
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
3
0
4
1
5
5
3
,
0
3
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
5
3
2
2
6
8
5
,
3
0
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R
o
a
d
N
/
A
d N
/
A
d N
/
A
d 2
6
1
5
2
5
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
2
1
7
1
5
8
2
,
0
6
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
2
4
5
5
9
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
0
44
5
7
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
6
12
1
5
0
N
o
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
1
,
1
2
2
7
1
0
1
1
,
8
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
9
3
4
6
3
2
9
,
7
2
0
N
o
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
TAB
L
E
4.
1
4
-
1
5
20
3
1
ROA
D
W
A
Y
LEV
E
L
O
F
SER
V
I
C
E
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
(CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
)
4.14-67
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
t
o
O
b
t
a
i
n
LO
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
a
k
-
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
a,bLOS Threshold Exceeded?
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
6
4
8
4
1
6
6
,
7
5
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
-
-
4
0
0
2
2
8
4
,
1
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
Ro
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
4
6
4
2
5
8
4
,
6
3
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
-
-
7
,
6
0
0
6
8
3
3
6
2
6
,
8
1
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
f
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
f D
8
9
0
-
-
2
8
3
1
7
9
2
,
6
8
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
2
1
7
15
8
2
,
0
6
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
an
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
2
45
5
9
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
6
0
44
5
7
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
5
0
0
-
-
1
6
12
1
5
0
N
o
No
t
e
s
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
AD
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
a
AD
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
A
D
T
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
-
ho
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
b
Lo
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
o
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
I
T
E
t
r
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
c
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
d
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
v
o
lu
m
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
s
.
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
ed
.
f
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
T
o
w
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
i
s
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
T
o
w
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
ec
t
,
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
ng
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
2
0
1
2
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
Ta
b
l
e
1
4
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-68
e. 2031 Local Residential Roadways Impacts
Similar to existing conditions, the increase in traffic on the local roadways as a re-
sult of the proposed project under 2031 conditions would not impact the traffic
volumes on local roadway segments from Somerset Drive to Edinburgh Drive giv-
en that the Edinburgh access point would be gated for emergency access only. Fur-
thermore, as described under 2011 Local Roadway Impacts, the segment of Martis
Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the proposed main project access point
would not meet Town standards with the project. Therefore, the proposed project
would not meet the adopted standard for impacts to local residential roadways and
impacts would be significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact TRANS-1: The Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection exceeds
the level of service thresholds during the PM peak hour in 2011 without the pro-
posed project. Implementation of the proposed project would exacerbate an exist-
ing deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in increased vehicular delays
during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: The project applicant shall construct a center
turn lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be
made from Glenshire Drive. The turn lane shall be constructed during Phase
1 of project construction and prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. If
the two-stage left-turn lane is constructed prior to Canyon Springs Phase I
construction, the project applicant shall pay its fair share portion of the cost.
The Town Engineer shall not approve a Parcel Map or Final Map that would
result in the creation of more than a total of 84 single-family lots and eight af-
fordable housing lots within the project unless (i) the completion of the Don-
ner Pass Road Extension is identified in the Town’s Capital Improvement
Plan, fully funded, and scheduled for completion within three years of any
Parcel or Final map that would bring the recorded lot total above 84; or (ii) all
of the following criteria are met:
A minimum of five years have elapsed since the final approval of the pro-
ject by the Town Council;
A minimum of 30 single-family homes have been constructed and certifi-
cates of occupancy issued by the Town Building Division;
The project applicant provides an updated traffic analysis of the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection using the existing Town-approved
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-69
traffic analysis model and the trip generation numbers from the occupied
single-family homes within the project;
The updated traffic analysis demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity at
the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection to accommodate the
additional requested units while remaining in compliance with General Plan
Circulation Element Policy P2.1 (maintain LOS E for the intersection and
any individual turning movement, not cause a cumulative vehicle delay of
four vehicle hours).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact TRANS-2: The segment of Martis Peak Road that provides access to the
project site is subject to the Town’s thresholds and would have an ADT volume
exceeding 2,000 vehicles, and it would function as a collector roadway. This road-
way segment has a total pavement width ranging from 20 to 23 feet and does not
meet the adopted standard for impacts to local residential roadways and impacts
local roadways under 2011 conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: The project applicant shall widen the segment
of Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the project’s main entrance
to provide 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders during Phase 1 of project
construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRANS-3: Based upon the AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an
eastbound left-turn lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with
Dorchester Drive (West), with or without the project under 2011 and 2031 condi-
tions.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3: Install an eastbound left-turn lane along Glen-
shire Drive at its intersection with Dorchester Drive (West) during construc-
tion Phase 1 of the proposed project. The turn lane shall provide approximate-
ly 50 feet of storage length. If the left-turn lane is constructed prior to Canyon
Springs Phase I construction, the project applicant shall pay its fair share por-
tion of the cost.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-70
Impact TRANS-4: Construction trips added to Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road or the eastbound left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with
the western end of Dorchester Drive intersection would exacerbate these already
deficient intersections.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a: A Construction Traffic Management Plan
(CTMP) shall be prepared and approved by the Town’s Public Works De-
partment prior to Phase 1 construction of the project. The CTMP shall be up-
dated and approved by the Town prior to the start of each construction phase
The CTMP shall include the following:
An on-site staging and materials storage plan.
Haul routes and general procedures for managing traffic, including tempo-
rary traffic advisory signage to be posted along construction routes at least
one month in advance of construction to alert traffic, pedestrian, and bicy-
clists about the upcoming construction traffic.
Public notification materials, which may include information post cards to
be distributed to adjacent residents and/or e-mail alerts to interested parties
about the upcoming construction traffic. Notification materials shall be dis-
tributed up to one month in advance of upcoming construction activities.
Training materials for construction workers, which shall include information
on haul routes, speed limits, location of flaggers, wildlife awareness and oth-
er relevant safety information. Training materials shall be updated as road-
way and other surrounding area conditions change.
A construction monitoring plan to identify traffic congestion, safety con-
cerns regarding truck, vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts and to adjust
the CTMP as needed.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b: Construction traffic shall not be permitted to
exceed the Town's level of service standards at the Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive intersections and construc-
tion traffic shall not travel to and from the project site using the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection during the AM or PM peak hour.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.