HomeMy Public PortalAbout5_AlternativesRevised_RDEIR5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-1
A. Introduction
The State CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs include the identification and evalu-
ation of a reasonable range of alternatives that are designed to reduce the signifi-
cant environmental impacts of the project while still meeting the general project
objectives. The State CEQA Guidelines also set forth the intent and extent of al-
ternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR. Those considerations are discussed
below.
B. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “An EIR shall describe a
range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evalu-
ate the comparable merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every con-
ceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of po-
tentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public
participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.
The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for exam-
ination and must publicly disclose it’s reasoning for selecting those alternatives.
There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be
discussed other than the rule of reason.”
1. Purpose
The alternatives evaluated in this EIR were developed with the intent of avoiding
or lessening significant effects of the project as identified in Chapter 4 of the 2012
Draft EIR and listed below.
2. Potentially Significant Project Impacts
The project impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation include the
following:
Air Quality – conflict with the goals and policies of the Town of Truckee’s
Particulate Matter AQMP, construction PM10 levels, Northern Sierra Air Qual-
ity Management District’s Level B threshold for PM10 levels.
Biological Resources – Sierra Nevada red foxes, nesting birds, and roosting
bats.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-2
Cultural Resources – archaeological resources and paleontological resources.
Geology and Soils – rupture of a known earthquake fault, landslides, loss of
topsoil and soil erosion, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lat-
eral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials – wildland fires.
Hydrology and Water Quality – reduce water quality through sedimentation
of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff.
Traffic and Circulation – increased vehicular delays during the AM and PM
peak hours, exceeding roadway capacity, construction trip generation, and
roadway design hazards.
All other impacts were found to be less than significant without mitigation.
3. Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:
Create a residential community compatible with adjacent neighborhoods in the
Town and Nevada County;
Provide additional affordable housing in the Town;
Provide low impact recreational opportunities (i.e. trails, trailheads, informal
parking areas, information/interpretive kiosks, and directional/way finding
signage) for future residents, surrounding neighbors and the public;
Protect open space areas that serve as native habitat and wildlife corridors;
Cluster development, and enhance and improve the existing on-site informal
trail network to avoid environmentally sensitive areas;
Complement the natural forest setting through project design and landscaping;
and
Achieve sustainable aspects of construction through green building practices.
4. Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Being Infeasible
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were
rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons
underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following is a discussion of alterna-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-3
tives that were considered and rejected, along with the reasons they are not includ-
ed in the analysis.
a. Off-Site Analysis
An alternate site with the same General Plan Land Use and Town Zoning designa-
tion of a size to accommodate 185 single-family residential was not found within
the Town limit; therefore, an off-site alternative was determined to be infeasible.
Additionally, an off-site alternative would not meet the project objectives and
would not necessarily reduce the potentially significant impacts associated with the
proposed project.
b. Alternate Land Use
Alternative land uses, such as open space/non-motorized recreational, commercial,
or institutional uses, were also rejected as being infeasible because they are not al-
lowed under the General Plan Land Use and Town Zoning designations for the
site. In addition alternate land uses would not meet the project objectives.
c. Higher Density Alternative
While it is not an infeasible alternative, an alternative to develop the allowed 213
lots was not analyzed. This alternative could increase the project’s impacts as the
increase of 28 lots over the proposed project could increase trip generation impacts
as well as the demand for public services and utilities. Therefore, this proposal
would not meet the intent of the alternatives analysis under CEQA, which evaluat-
ed alternatives that would reduce the significant environmental impacts of the pro-
ject while still meeting the general project objectives.
d. Rural Residential Alternative
An alternative considering development on the project site applying the General
Plan Land Use designation standards for Residential Cluster – 5 acres (RC-5) and
Rural Residential (RR) zoning district standards was considered. Under this pro-
posal 42 lots would be permitted on 213 acres of the project site designated for
residential development, which represents a 77-percent reduction in the number of
residential lots on the site. However, this alternative was considered infeasible as it
would increase the private development area by 49 percent from the proposed pro-
ject (107.29 acres compared to 213 acres) and would reduce the public open space
from 176.17 acres to 70.76 acres. In addition, this proposal would not achieve a
minimum density of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density under
current zoning.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-4
e. No Open Space Crossing
An alternative similar to Alternative C, but with no bridge over the main drainage,
was considered. Under Alternative C, the proposed roadway that connects the east-
ern and western sides of the project over the main drainage through the open space
area would be gated and restricted to use by emergency vehicles only. In contrast,
under this alternative considered there would no connection between the two
groupings of homes. Similar to Alternative C, public access to the development
would be from Edinburgh drive on the west and Martis Peak Road on the north.
Unlike Alternative C, emergency response vehicles would not be able to cross the
main drainage between the two groupings of homes. It is not considered to be ac-
ceptable for the fire department to only have one entrance to each of the groupings
of homes.
5. Overview of Selected Alternatives
The alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed project include:
Alternative A: No Project
Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 lots)
Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 lots)
Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 lots)
Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 lots)
Alternative F: Open Space Buffer (185 lots)
These alternatives were selected because of their potential to reduce the significant-
but-mitigable impacts of the proposed project. A discussion of each of the selected
alternatives is provided below.
Table 5-1 summarizes the comparative impacts of each of the alternatives com-
pared to the project.
TO
W
N
O
F
T
R
U
C
K
E
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
A
D
M
I
N
I
ST
R
A
T
I
V
E
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
T
O
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
5-
5
TAB
L
E
5-
1
ALT
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
IMP
A
C
T
S
COM
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
Im
p
a
c
t
A
r
e
a
EI
R
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
B
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
D
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
E
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
F
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
Dr
i
v
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
(1
8
5
l
o
t
s
)
No
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
(1
8
5
l
o
t
s
)
Me
d
i
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
(1
8
5
l
o
t
s
)
Re
d
u
c
e
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(88 lots) Open Space Buffer (185 lots)
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
L
T
S
++
=
+
+
+ =
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
LT
S
++
=
+
+
+ =
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
LT
S
/
M
++
+
+
+
+ =
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
LT
S
/
M
+
=
+
+
+ =
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
LT
S
/
M
+
=
=
=
+ =
Ge
o
l
o
g
y
,
S
o
i
l
s
a
n
d
S
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y
LT
S
/
M
++
=
=
=
= =
Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
G
a
s
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
LT
S
/
M
++
+
+
=
+ =
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
LT
S
/
M
+
=
=
=
= =
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
LT
S
/
M
++
=
=
+
+ =
La
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
LT
S
=
=
=
=
- - =
No
i
s
e
L
T
S
++
-
-
=
+ =
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
LT
S
=
=
=
=
= =
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
ea
t
i
o
n
L
T
S
+
=
=
=
+
=
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
LT
S
/
M
++
=
=
=
+ =
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
LT
S
++
=
=
=
= =
++
+ =
- -
-
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
a
r
ed
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Sl
i
g
h
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Si
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
op
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Sl
i
g
h
t
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
ed
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
ar
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-6
a. Assumptions and Methodology
The anticipated means for implementation of the alternatives can influence the
assessment and/or probability of impacts for those alternatives. For example, a
project may have the potential to generate significant impacts, but considerations in
project design may also afford the opportunity to avoid or reduce such impacts.
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed
project and assumes that all applicable mitigation measures proposed for the pro-
ject would apply to each alternative. Impacts associated with the alternatives are
compared to project-related impacts and are classified as greater, less, or essentially
similar to (or comparable to) the level of impacts associated with the proposed
project.
The following analysis compares the potential significant environmental impacts of
five alternatives with those of the proposed project for each of the environmental
topics analyzed in detail in Chapter 4 of the 2012 Draft EIR.
C. Alternative A: No Project
1. Description
As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a “No Project” Alternative (Alter-
native A) and describes the effects of taking no action or not receiving project ap-
proval. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would not be constructed, and
the project site would remain in its current condition. As described in Chapter 3,
Project Description, the project site is generally undeveloped. A well-developed
network of unpaved roads and trails is distributed throughout the site. The project
site is accessed by surrounding subdivision residents through connecting trails and
experiences year-round unregulated and unauthorized use. In the winter, the site is
used by cross-country and backcountry skiers, snowshoers, and snowmobile users.
In other seasons the project site is used by hikers with unleashed dogs,1 mountain
bikers, equestrians, and off-road vehicle users. The only formal development on the
project site is the Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company’s overhead
1 According to Municipal Code, Title 8, Animal Control, Chapter 8.01, Humane
Animal Control, Section, 8.01.420, Animals Running At Large, it is unlawful for any person
owning or having possession, charge, custody, or control of any animal to cause, permit or
allow the animal to stray, run or in any other manner to be at large in or upon any public
street, sidewalk, park, school ground, or other public place, or upon any private place or
property without consent of the owner or person in control of such private place or proper-
ty.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-7
high-power transmission line and associated access road that spans the project site
in a southwest-northeast orientation for approximately 2,300 feet. In addition, a
well exists near the central portion of the project site on Assessor Parcel Number
49-020-20. The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative A are
described below and are compared to the proposed project.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative A, no grading, tree and vegetation removal, or new development
would occur on the project site and the existing aesthetic characteristics would re-
main unchanged. There would be no changes to the visual character and no new
sources of light and glare on the site. Therefore, this alternative would eliminate the
aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project. Overall aesthetics impacts
under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since no
development would occur on the site.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. However, as no trees would be removed under this
alternative, impacts to forestry resources would be less than those under the pro-
ject.
c. Air Quality
Project-generated fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with con-
struction activities at the site would not occur under this alternative; thereby, elimi-
nating the project’s significant-but-mitigable air quality impacts. Under Alternative
A, pollutant emissions associated with vehicle trips would not occur and emissions
associated with residential development would not occur. However, the unregulat-
ed and unauthorized snowmobile and off-road vehicle use could potentially con-
tinue, which would generate fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated
with these uses. Nonetheless, overall impacts to air quality would be likely be less
than those of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under this alternative the proposed project would not be developed and therefore,
no impacts to biological resources as a result of future development on the site
would occur. However, the unregulated and unauthorized recreational uses, which
include hikers, dog walkers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and off-road vehicles,
could potentially continue. These recreational uses, when unregulated, have the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-8
potential to modify habitat for identified special-status species and impact riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including federally protected wet-
lands. Alternative A would not result in development that would potentially inter-
fere or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites; however, the unregulated and unauthorized recreational uses
that occur on the site have the potential to disturb these biological resources. Al-
ternative A, same as the proposed project, would not be inconsistent with local
regulations pertaining to biological resources or conservation plans. Nonetheless,
overall impacts to biological resources would be less than those of the proposed
project under Alternative A because no development on the project site would
occur.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative A, no ground-disturbing activities would occur as a result of
future development on the site; however, the unregulated and unauthorized recrea-
tional uses that occur on the site have the potential to disturb the known and un-
known cultural resources on the site. Therefore, this alternative, similar to the pro-
ject, would have the potential to damage or destroy known and unknown archaeo-
logical resources or unknown paleontological resources and human remains. Under
this alternative the known cultural resource sites within the Town’s OS Zoning
District (Open Space) areas would not be permanently reserved under the protec-
tive conservation easement or dedication to the Town of Truckee/Truckee Donner
Land Trust that is included as part of the proposed project. However, since imple-
mentation of the project would disturb land area to a greater degree through exca-
vation and grading than the current uses, impacts to cultural resources would be
less than those of the proposed project under this alternative.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative A, no new development would occur on the site, which elimi-
nates the potential for damage to residential land uses from soil/geologic condi-
tions (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking; flooding; liquefaction, lateral spreading;
geologic and soil instabilities; soil erosion/loss of topsoil; expansive and corrosive
soils; and groundwater). Therefore, overall impacts from seismic hazards would be
less than those of the proposed project under Alternative A.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative A, no new development requiring grading, tree and vegetation
removal, and construction and landscaping improvements would occur on the site.
However, the unregulated and unauthorized snowmobile and off-road vehicle use
could potentially continue, which would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-9
associated with these uses. Nonetheless, this alternative would not result in the
same level of GHG emissions and would eliminate impacts related to a net increase
in GHG emissions and overall impacts would be less.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative A, no new development would occur on the site. Therefore, this
alternative would eliminate impacts related to introducing a residential development
in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards, potential high voltage transmission
line hazards, and impacts related to emergency evacuation. While the project site
would remain an area of high wildfire risk, because no residential land uses would
be developed on the site, the overall impacts related to wildfire hazards would be
less than those of the proposed project under Alternative A.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would eliminate the project’s less-than-significant and significant-
but-mitigable impacts to water quality as a result of the development of the project.
However, the existing areas of erosion within the ephemeral drainages would con-
tinue to occur from natural occurrences and as a result of the unregulated and un-
authorized recreational uses on the site. Nonetheless, under Alternative A, impacts
to hydrology and water quality are considered to be less than those under the pro-
posed project less land would be disturbed.
j. Land Use and Planning
Because Alternative A would not involve any new development the site would re-
main in its current condition. There are no land use conflicts under the proposed
project and current conditions, with the exception of unauthorized use of the site
for unregulated recreational activities. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative
A would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS (Resource Conserva-
tion/Open Space) and Town’s OS Zoning District (Open Space) as no develop-
ment is permitted on this portion of the project site. Therefore, under Alternative
A, impacts would be the same as those of the proposed project.
k. Noise
Because Alternative A would not involve any short-term noise from construction
nor long-term project noise from project operation, this alternative would eliminate
the project’s less-than-significant construction and long-term operational noise
impacts. Therefore, noise impacts under Alternative A would be less than those of
the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-10
l. Population and Housing
A would result in no residential uses on the project site. Alternative A would not
achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density
and Alternative A would not provide affordable housing. However, neither Alter-
native A nor the proposed project would displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town. As
such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the similar to those of
the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Alternative A would result in no new development of the project site and would
not change the type and frequency of fire and police protection services required.
Alternative A would not directly contribute any school-aged children to the Tahoe-
Truckee Unified School District. Alternative A would not generate the greatest
users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children); therefore, impacts
to schools and parks would be less than the proposed project. Overall impacts to
public services would be less than those of the proposed project.
While the proposed project’s features that would increase the permitted and lawful
recreational opportunities in the Town (i.e. 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system
and recreation center) and the 176.17 acres of open space that would be perma-
nently reserved by protective conservation easement or dedication to the Town of
Truckee/Truckee Donner Land Trust would not occur under Alternative A, the
introduction of new users of recreational amenities in the Town and surrounding
area would not occur; therefore, overall impacts to recreation would be less than
that of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative A, no new development on the site would occur. As such, no
new traffic trips would be generated and no traffic impacts as a result of develop-
ment on the project site would occur. Overall impacts to transportation and traffic
would be less than those of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative A, no new development on the project site would occur and
there would be no changes to demand for sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal
services, natural gas, or electricity. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and service
systems would be less than those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-11
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative A, the proposed project would not be constructed and therefore
this alternative does not meet any of the project objectives.
D. Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative B would be essentially the same as the proposed project with the excep-
tion of providing open, unrestricted access to the site from Edinburgh Drive, west
of the project. With the Edinburgh Drive access open, this alternative is expected
to result in an increase of vehicular trips on the local roadways in the Glenshire
subdivision, including Edinburgh Drive, Somerset Drive, Courtenay Lane, Regency
Circle, Rolands Way, Dorchester Drive, Wellington Way, Oxford Circle, Canter-
bury Lane, and Wiltshire Lane. Based on the layout of the site, it is assumed that 85
percent of trips made to/from points west of Glenshire would use the Edinburgh
Drive access, and the remaining 15 percent of these trips would use Martis Peak
Road. All other aspects of the project would be the same as those described in
Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR. A site plan of this alterna-
tive is shown in Figure 5-1.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal and new development
with landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics. Overall,
impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project since development would be exactly the same.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation
removal, and new development and landscaping improvements would occur on the
site in the same manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore,
this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Overall, impacts to agricultural and
forestry resources under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-12
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative B, air quality impacts would occur at the same level as those of
the proposed project. Thus, this alternative would generate the same degree of fugi-
tive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with construction activities at the
site. Additionally, under Alternative B, the same number of new traffic trips would
be generated and Alternative B would generate pollutant emissions associated with
long-term operation of a residential development. However, this alternative would
generate fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region during the summer PM
peak hour, which would result in relatively lower air quality impacts. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative B. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
less-than-significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, con-
struction and operational air quality impacts under Alternative B would be less than
that of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to biological re-
sources. Furthermore, all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed
project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to biological re-
sources. Overall, impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be the
same as those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative B, the ground-disturbing activities would be exactly the same as
those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or
reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to human remains. All mandatory
regulations and mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate
or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown archaeological
resources or unknown paleontological resources. Overall, impacts to cultural re-
sources under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE B (EDINBURGH DRIVE OPEN ACCESS) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-15
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative B, new development would occur on the site in the same man-
ner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate
the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to soil/geologic condi-
tions (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction, lateral spreading,
and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation measures that are applicable to
the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative
B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to
fault rupture, geologic and soil instabilities and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall,
impacts to geology and soils under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. However, the open access at Edinburgh Drive
would result in less VMT generated. Thus, this alternative would generate less net
increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed project. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts from
GHG emissions under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed
project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associ-
ated with the development of the project with respect to the high voltage transmis-
sion line hazards in the project area would be less than significant; accordingly, the
same would be true for Alternative B. Further, all mitigation measures that are ap-
plicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore
Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts related to introducing a residential development in an area with a high risk
of wildfire hazards. Under Alternative B, with the Edinburgh access open, more
project trips would tend to use surface streets to access locations to the west.
Therefore, under an emergency evacuation situation, more vehicles would exit the
site to the west. However, as under the proposed project, intersections between the
project site and major points west and east, including State Route 267 and Inter-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-16
state 80, would operate under acceptable traffic conditions. Therefore, traffic con-
gestion under Alternative B would not be expected to interfere with emergency
evacuation. Overall, impacts from hazards under this alternative would be the same
as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would have the same sig-
nificant-but-mitigable water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and
off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the development on the site.
All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be
applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the
project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts
to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative B, a residential development would occur on the project site in
the same manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative B would
meet the intent of the General Plan land use designations for RES (Residential) 0.5
to 1 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) land use designations or the Town’s RS-1.0
Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre). Furthermore,
Alternative B would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6 land use designation,
which requires a planned development that links access, open space areas, and in-
frastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the proposed project,
Alternative B would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS
Zoning District.
Under Alternative B the residential land uses on the site would be consistent with
the overall intent of the General Plan land use designations and the Town’s zoning
districts for the site. Alternative B would achieve a minimum density of at least 50
percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative B would provide afforda-
ble housing units consistent with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allo-
cation for new residential developments (i.e. eight lots.) As such, impacts related to
policy consistency and land use compatibility would be considered the same as
those of the proposed project under Alternative B.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-17
k. Noise
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative B, the infrastructure construction
would span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the proposed 185
housing lots would span approximately 20 years. However, the traffic patterns
would be changed and more traffic would be distributed on local roadways when
compared to the proposed project. While the Draft EIR found that only the road-
way segment from Martis Peak Road east of Glenshire Drive would experience an
increase in project-related traffic noise levels, and as noted in the Traffic Impact
Analysis, no local roadways would experience an equivalent volume of traffic; the
increase of trips on local roadways is considered a substantial change. Therefore,
this alternative would result in the same less-than-significant construction impacts,
but potentially greater operational noise impacts compared to the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, this alternative would achieve a minimum density of at
least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density and provide affordable housing.
However, neither Alternative B nor the proposed project would displace substantial
numbers of existing housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth
in the Town. As such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the
same as those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative B would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative B
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative B would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District and would also gener-
ate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children);
therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative B would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system and
recreation center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would be the
same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public
services and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-18
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative B, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generat-
ed. However, unlike the proposed project, under Alternative B the two proposed
vehicular access points at Martis Peak Road to the north of the project site and
Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site would both provide unrestricted
access.
As analyzed in the Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included in Appen-
dix I of the 2012 Draft EIR and the 2014 Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Ad-
dendum prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., this alternative would
generate the same number of trips; however, the Edinburgh Drive access would
present many additional possible route choices. The addition of the Edinburgh
Drive route lessens the travel time advantage of using the Hirschdale
Road/Interstate 80 route for trips to/from the west. Therefore, with the Edin-
burgh access open, more project trips would tend to use surface streets to access
locations to the west.
Under Alternative B, similar to the proposed project, all traffic impacts would gen-
erally be the same as that of the proposed project including impacts to local road-
ways.2 Figures 5-2 through 5-5 show the net project and total PM peak hour trips
in 2011 and 2031 under this alternative. With the Edinburgh Drive connection
open to general traffic, the Alternative B is expected to result in an increase of up
to approximately 89 PM peak-hour one-way trips and 840 average daily traffic
(ADT) in 2011, and 91 PM peak-hour trips and 860 ADT in 2031 on the local
roadway segments in the project study area. As this increase is less than 1,000
ADT, Alternative B would meet the Town’s adopted standard for impacts on local
residential roadways, so long as the provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4
can be met. As discussed in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the 2012
Draft EIR, the project would be consistent with this policy. Alternative B would
also be consistent with this policy as it would improve connectivity throughout the
Town's roadway network, through roadway improvements, while minimizing envi-
ronmental, circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts. Furthermore, with
Edinburgh Drive open, a slightly lower level of project traffic would use the Glen-
shire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road intersection; however, the haz-
ardous conditions are existing conditions; therefore, the conclusions regarding
driver sight distance would not be affected.
2 Alternative B analysis is provided in detail in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is
provided in Appendix I of this 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
17
34
0 41
14
-2
-1
430
46 0
0
014 37
00 0
0
0
0
101
36
430
1257
1
11
6
100
0
52
51
0 23 2
0 0 41
0
-1
17
0
-2
103
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
11
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2011 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-2
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
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./
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
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
12
21
-3
0 12
13
-2
-1
46
16 45
0
013 35
00 0
5
3
0
97
31
320
1464
1
13
7
110
0
50
52
0 17 2
0 0 30
0
-1
17
0
-2
104
24
0 0 26
34
18
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
Negativenumbersreflecttheshiftinexisting
trafficvolumesthatwouldusethenewprojectroadways.
NOTE:
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2031 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
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
238
140
199
368 396
41
3897
195
279
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.
89
22
5
77
121 133
0
016 45
95 7
2
2
12
254
181
13727
86128
67
60
41 101 54
33 60 110
21
129
21
21
123
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.
2011 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-4
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
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
379
47
221 461
54
53120
264
368
205
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.
126
34
7
97
163
167
0
016 43
98 112
40
15
144
217
168
15227
120208
54
117
51 179 32
84 24 147
29
131
23
21
123
113
945
38 45 161
272
381
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.
2031 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-5
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-23
Therefore, overall impacts to transportation and traffic under Alternative B would
be similar to those of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative B, the same demand for utilities and services would occur as that
of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and service systems
would be the same as those of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be constructed in the exact same
way as that of the proposed project. However, the gated emergency only vehicular
access point at Edinburgh Drive would provide unrestricted access. Therefore,
Alternative B would meet all of the project objectives.
E. Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative C would be similar to the proposed project with the exception of pro-
ject access and lot cluster design. Under Alternative C, the proposed roadway that
connects the eastern and western sides of the project through the open space area
would be gated and restricted to use by emergency vehicles only. Consequently,
access to the development would be from Edinburgh drive on the west and Martis
Peak Road on the north. The west side would include 64 lots (compared to 100 lots
under the proposed project) and the north side would include 121 lots (compared
to 85 lots under the proposed project). The 121 lots on the northern side would be
smaller than the proposed project, resulting in the same development area. The
west side would have fewer lots under Alternative C and the overall building area
would be reduced; however, all buffers between the Glenshire area to the west
would be the same as the proposed project. All other aspects of the project would
be the same as those described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft
EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown in Figure 5-6.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
with landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project, albeit slightly less on the west side due to
the reduced lots. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the pro-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-24
ject’s less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics. Overall, impacts to aesthetics un-
der this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since devel-
opment would be less on the west side.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative C, slightly less tree removal
would occur due to less development occurring on the west side. Therefore, this
alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts
to agricultural and forestry resources, but it would reduce the impacts. Overall,
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources under this alternative would be less
than those of the proposed project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as that of the proposed project. Less tree removal would occur on the west
side due to fewer lots. Thus, this alternative would generate the same degree of
fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with construction activities at
the site. Additionally, under Alternative C, the same number of new traffic trips
would be generated resulting in similar criteria pollutants emission as the proposed
project. However, this alternative would generate fewer VMT in the region during
the summer PM peak hour due to the open access point at Edinburgh Drive, which
would result in fewer emissions. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-
mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction impacts would be the same as
the proposed project and operational air quality impacts would be less than that of
the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE C (NO OPEN SPACE CROSSING) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-6
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-27
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in generally the same man-
ner that would occur under the proposed project, with less development occurring
on the west side. It is possible that fewer trees would be retained on the smaller lots
in the northern portion of the project site. While future traffic would not routinely
cross the open space corridor located in the middle of the site, no impacts were
identified in the Draft EIR that would be reduced by prohibiting such access.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-
significant impacts to biological resources. Furthermore, all mitigation measures
that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C;
therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-
mitigable impacts to biological resources. Overall, impacts to biological resources
under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative C, the ground-disturbing activities would be generally the same
as those of the proposed project with less development occurring on the west side.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-
significant impacts to human remains. All mandatory regulations and mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown archaeological resources or unknown
paleontological resources. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under this alterna-
tive would be the same as those of the proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative C, new development would occur on the site in the same man-
ner as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the west side. It
is possible that increased grading would occur under this alternative due to the
smaller lot sizes on the northern portion of the project site, because the smaller lots
would require a reduced length to transition driveways into the lots to the finish
floor elevation. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the proposed pro-
ject’s less-than-significant impacts related to soil/geologic instabilities (i.e. seismici-
ty and ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and expansive and
corrosive soils). All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate
or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic
and soil instabilities, and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology
and soils under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-28
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the west side,
which would consequently reduce the VMT generated. Thus, this alternative would
generate slightly less net increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed pro-
ject. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also
be applied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce
the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall,
impacts from GHG emissions under this alternative would be less than those of
the proposed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
that of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associat-
ed with the development of the project with respect to the high voltage transmis-
sion line hazards in the project area would be less than significant; accordingly, the
same would be true for Alternative C. Further, all mitigation measures that are ap-
plicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C; therefore
Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts related to introducing a residential development in an area with a high risk
of wildfire hazards. Under Alternative C, as under Alternative B, with the Edin-
burgh access open, more project trips would tend to use surface streets to access
locations to the west. Therefore, under an emergency evacuation situation more
vehicles would be expected to exit the site to the west. However, as under the pro-
posed project, intersections between the project site and major points west and
east, including State Route 267 and Interstate 80, would operate under acceptable
traffic conditions. Therefore, traffic congestion under Alternative C would not be
expected to interfere with emergency evacuation. Overall, impacts from hazards
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative C, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction and land-
scaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same general level as
that of the proposed project, but with fewer lots on the west side. It is possible that
increased grading would occur under this alternative due to the smaller lot sizes on
the northern portion of the project site, because the smaller lots would require a
reduced length to transition driveways into the lots to the finish floor elevation.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-29
However, this alternative would have generally the same significant-but-mitigable
water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and off-site watercourses
and urban runoff associated with the development on the site. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts to hy-
drology and water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative C, a residential development would occur on the project site in
the same manner as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the
west side. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the similar land use impacts
compared to those of the proposed project. The closed access point between the
two development areas could promote connectivity between the two residential
areas within Canyon Springs and maintains connection to the adjacent residential
areas within Glenshire. For these reasons, the impacts related to policy consistency
and land use compatibility would be considered the same as those of the proposed
project compared to Alternative C.
k. Noise
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the west side.
Under Alternative C, the infrastructure construction would span an eight-year peri-
od and the overall buildout of the proposed 185 housing lots would span approxi-
mately 20 years. However, the traffic patterns would be changed and more traffic
would be distributed on local roadways when compared to the proposed project.
While the Draft EIR found that only the roadway segment from Martis Peak Road
east of Glenshire Drive would experience an increase in project-related traffic noise
levels, and as noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis, no local roadways would experi-
ence an equivalent volume of traffic; the increase of trips on local roadways is con-
sidered a substantial change. Therefore, this alternative would result in the same
less-than-significant construction impacts, but greater operational noise impacts
compared to the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, Alternative C would achieve a minimum density of at least
50 percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative C would provide af-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-30
fordable housing. However, neither Alternative C nor the proposed project would
displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and would not induce
unanticipated growth in the Town. As such, overall impacts to population and
housing would be the same as those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative C would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative C
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative C would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District and would also gener-
ate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children);
therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative C would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system and
recreation center, and would provide more open space than under the proposed
project. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational services would be the same as
those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public services
and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative C, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generat-
ed. However, unlike the proposed project, under Alternative C the two proposed
vehicular access points at Martis Peak Road to the north of the project site and
Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site would both provide unrestricted
access and the road that crosses the open space area through the center of the site
would be gated for emergency vehicle use only. Although the west side of the de-
velopment would contain fewer lots than the proposed project, vehicle trips on
local roadways would be higher due to the unrestricted access. ADT is projected to
increase by 995 average daily trips.
As described above, similar to Alternative B, the site access patterns would be af-
fected by the change in access options. Under Alternative C, traffic impacts would
be similar to the proposed project trips, which is under the Town’s standard re-
garding local road impacts threshold of “not more than 1,000 ADT” under existing
and future conditions. Therefore, transportation and traffic impacts under Alterna-
tive C would be similar to those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-31
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative C, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and the same demand for sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal
services, natural gas, or electricity would occur. It is possible that reduced lot sizes
would allow for less flexibility for solar orientation in building design. Overall, im-
pacts to these utilities and service systems would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative C, the proposed project would be constructed in generally the
same way as that of the proposed project and therefore, would meet all of the pro-
ject objectives.
F. Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 lots)
1. Description
Alternative D would reduce the lot size for each of the 185 proposed residential
lots, which would decrease the overall development area and increase the open
space area from that of the proposed project. Under Alternative D, the residential
lots would be designed to be consistent with the Medium Density Residential Clus-
ter standards outlined in Table LU-7, Cluster Development Types and Applicable
Land Use Designations, in the Land Use Element of the 2025 General Plan. As
such, the residential lots would cover approximately 54 acres (approximately 3 to 4
dwelling units/acre) and public open space areas would cover approximately 230
acres, an increase of 54 acres of open space from that of the proposed project. The
development area would be reduced approximately 50 percent (53.8 acres versus
107.6 acres). In general, all other aspects of the proposed development under Al-
ternative D would be essentially the same as the proposed project in Chapter 3,
Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown
in Figure 5-7.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-32
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would be lower than the proposed
project and public open space areas would cover approximately 230 acres, an in-
crease of 54 acres of open space from that of the proposed project (230 acres ver-
sus 176.17 acres). Similar to the proposed project, the proposed residential lots
would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not be developed on
hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines. Subsequently, no views
of the site from high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson
Range would be adversely impacted. Under Alternative D, no development would
occur within the proposed open space area and the increased open space areas
would provide additional screening of the residential lots; therefore, adjacent resi-
dential land uses and users of the publicly accessible trails network and open space
would not be subject to blocked views of scenic resources, same as the proposed
project. The visual buffer ranging from 100 to 300 feet between the proposed
homes and the existing adjacent homes would be the same as the buffer under the
proposed project. The Draft Design Guidelines prepared for the project would also
apply to the development under Alternative D.
This alternative would not eliminate the project’s less-than-significant impacts to
aesthetics, but would slightly reduce the impacts as fewer tree and vegetation re-
moval would occur and open space would be increased. Overall, impacts to aes-
thetics under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since
the overall development area would be reduced.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would
be reduced by 50 percent and the open space would be increased by 54 acres. Simi-
lar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide the same restoration
opportunities as the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not elimi-
nate the project’s less-than-significant impacts to agricultural and forestry re-
sources, but it would reduce the impacts. Overall, impacts to agricultural and for-
estry resources under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed pro-
ject.
ALTERNATIVE D (MEDIUM DENSITY CLUSTER) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-7
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-35
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative D, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
with landscaping improvements would occur on the site; however, the reduced
development area would result in less overall grading than the proposed project.
Additionally, the same number of new traffic trips would be generated, and Alter-
native D would generate pollutant emissions associated with long-term operation
of a residential development. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative D. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-
mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction and operational air quality
impacts under Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would be reduced by 50 percent and
the open space would be increased by 54 acres. Fewer trees would be retained be-
cause all the lots on the project site would be smaller and more clustered than un-
der the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would
provide the same restoration opportunities as the proposed project. Alternative D
would also provide the same level of recreational and open space amenities. How-
ever, unlike the proposed project, the close proximity of the houses would create a
wall effect, which could reduce the ability of resident wildlife species to move
throughout the project site. Nonetheless, this alternative would reduce the project’s
less-than-significant impacts and significant-but-mitigable impacts to biological
resources since the overall development area would be less when compared to the
proposed project, and the same restoration opportunities would occur. All mitiga-
tion measures that are recommended for the proposed project would also be ap-
plied to Alternative D as necessary; therefore Alternative D would result in less-
than-significant impacts to biological resources, same as the proposed project.
Overall, impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be slightly less
than those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative D, the ground-disturbing activities would be less than those of
the proposed project, which reduces potential impacts to cultural resources. How-
ever, because the potential for the discovery of unknown human remains, unknown
archaeological resources and/or unknown paleontological resources would still
exist during the construction phase, Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce
the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown
cultural resources. However, all mandatory regulations and mitigation measures
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-36
that are recommended for the proposed project would also be applied to Alterna-
tive D as applicable; therefore, impacts to unknown cultural resources would be the
same as those of the proposed project. Furthermore, similar to the proposed pro-
ject, no construction would occur on the areas within the project site with known
cultural resources; therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be the same as
those of the proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative D, new development would occur on the site in generally the
same manner as that of the proposed project, albeit on a smaller area (53.8 acres
versus 107.6 acres). It is possible that increased grading would occur under this
alternative due to the reduced lot sizes on the entire site, because the smaller lots
would require a reduced length to transition driveways into the lots to the finish
floor elevation. The reduction in the development area does not have any bearing
on the existing geologic setting of the project site or project area. Therefore, this
alternative would not eliminate the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts
related to soil/geologic instabilities (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking; flooding;
liquefaction, lateral spreading; and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation
measures that are recommended for the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative D as applicable; therefore Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce
the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and soil
instabilities and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology and soils
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative D, the development area would be reduced by approximately 50
percent (53.8 acres versus 107.6 acres); however, this would not reduce the amount
of overall development. Accordingly, this alternative would generate the same net
increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed project. Similar to the pro-
posed project, design features to reduce energy consumption would be incorpo-
rated, and Alternative D would be required to conform to applicable plans and
policies related to energy conservation and solid waste reduction, and would not
conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing
GHG emissions. Nonetheless, Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce the
project’s less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts
from GHG emissions under this alternative would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-37
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative D, the development area would be reduced by 50 percent from
that of the proposed project; however, the introduction of 185 residential lots
would occur on the site, which is considered to have a high risk of wildfire hazards.
Therefore, wildfire hazards would be the same as those of the proposed project.
This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associated with the development of
the project with respect to the high voltage transmission line hazards in the project
area would be less than significant; accordingly, the same would be true for Alter-
native D. Further, all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed pro-
ject would also be applied to Alternative D; therefore Alternative D would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to intro-
ducing a residential development in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards.
Overall, impacts from hazards under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative D, new development would occur on the site in generally the
same manner as that of the proposed project, albeit on a smaller area (53.8 acres
versus 107.6 acres). However, it is possible that increased grading would occur un-
der this alternative because the smaller lots would require a reduced length to tran-
sition driveways into the lots to the finish floor elevation. Alternative D would im-
plement the same waterway setback standards that are applied to the proposed
project, and all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative D. Therefore, similar to the proposed project,
any significant water quality impacts under Alternative D would be reduced to less-
than-significant levels. However, the reduction in the development area would re-
duce the potential for water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and
off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the development on the site.
Therefore, overall impacts to hydrology and water quality under this alternative
would be less than those of the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative D, a residential development would occur on the project site in
the same manner as that of the proposed project, but on a reduced area (53.8 acres
versus 107.6 acres). Therefore, Alternative D would meet the intent of the General
Plan land use designations for RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre land use designa-
tions or the Town’s RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1
du/acre). Furthermore, Alternative D would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6
land use designation, which requires a planned development that links access, open
space areas, and infrastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-38
proposed project, Alternative D would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS
and Town’s OS Zoning District.
Alternative D would achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of the max-
imum allowed density, and Alternative D would provide affordable housing units
consistent with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allocation for new
residential developments (i.e. eight lots). Under Alternative D, a trail would connect
to the Town’s proposed recreational trail corridor as identified in the Town of
Truckee Trails & Bikeways Master Plan. Furthermore, Alternative D would preserve
approximately 230 acres of public open space. Overall, impacts related to policy
consistency and land use compatibility under Alternative D would be considered
the same as those of the proposed project.
k. Noise
Under Alternative D, similar to the proposed project, the same number of new
homes would occur on the project site, and therefore the same number of trips
would be generated. Under Alternative D, the infrastructure construction would
span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the proposed 185 housing lots
would span approximately 20 years. Therefore, this alternative would result in the
same less-than-significant construction and operational noise impacts as those of
the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative D would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, would achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of
the maximum allowed density would provide affordable housing. However, neither
Alternative D nor the proposed project would displace substantial numbers of ex-
isting housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town.
As such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative D would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative D
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative D would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District. Furthermore, Alter-
native D would also generate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-39
(families with children); therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same
as the proposed project.
Alternative D would also include the same publicly accessible trail system and rec-
reation center and would provide more open space than under the proposed pro-
ject. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational services would be the same as
those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public services
and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative D, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generated
under both 2011 and 2031 conditions. As with the proposed project, vehicular ac-
cess at Edinburgh Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only. All mitiga-
tion measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative D; therefore Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to transportation and traffic. Overall, im-
pacts to transportation and traffic under this alternative would be the same as those
of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative D, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and like the proposed project the same demand for sewer, water
supply, solid waste disposal services, natural gas, or electricity would occur. It is
possible that reduced lot sizes would reduce flexibility for solar orientation in build-
ing design. Overall, impacts to these utilities and service systems would be the same
as those of the proposed project.
p. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Alternative D would meet all of the project objectives given the similarity to the
proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-40
G. Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative E is a reduced density development that proposes the number of lots to
be reduced by 53 percent compared to the proposed project (88 lots compared to
185 lots) over the proposed development area of 107.59 acres. Under this alterna-
tive the development area would essentially be the same as the proposed project;
however, the lot sizes would be larger than those of the proposed project. Alterna-
tive E would result in one dwelling unit per 1.2 acres. All other development as-
pects of Alternative E would be the same as those of the proposed project de-
scribed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft EIR. A site plan of this
alternative is shown in Figure 5-8.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative E, fewer homes would be constructed and housing lots would
be larger than those of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the
lots would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not be developed on
hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines. Subsequently, no views
of the site from high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson
Range would be adversely impacted. Under Alternative E, no development would
occur within the proposed public open space area and the public open space areas
would provide screening of the residential lots; therefore, as with the proposed
project, adjacent residential land uses and users of the publicly accessible trails net-
work and public open space would not be subject to blocked views of scenic re-
sources. Development areas and visual buffers ranging from 100 to 300 feet be-
tween the proposed homes and the existing adjacent homes would be the same as
the proposed project. The Draft Design Guidelines prepared for the project would
also apply to the development under Alternative E.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to aesthetics, but would slightly reduce the area of disturbance, including
trees and vegetation. Overall, impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be
less than those of the proposed project since the development would be reduced
from that of the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE E (REDUCED DENSITY) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying.
FIGURE 5-8
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3000 600 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-42
Back of 5-8
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-43
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative E, the overall development area
would be the same as that of the proposed project, but the development on indi-
vidual housing lots would be reduced from that of the proposed project; therefore,
fewer trees would likely be removed and less land disturbance would occur when
compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative
would provide the same restoration opportunities and amenities. Accordingly, this
alternative would reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to agricultural
and forestry resources. Overall, impacts to agricultural and forestry under this al-
ternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative E, less fugitive dust and other criteria pollutant emissions associ-
ated with construction activities at the site would be generated. Additionally, under
Alternative E, the development of 88 housing units would generate lower traffic
volumes overall and therefore fewer air emissions associated with long-term opera-
tion of a residential development. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E. Therefore, this alternative
would slightly reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-mitigable
impacts to air quality, but would not eliminate the impacts. Overall, construction
and operational air quality impacts under Alternative E would be less than that of
the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative E, the overall development area would be the same as that of the
proposed project, but the development on individual housing lots would be re-
duced from that of the proposed project. Therefore, less land disturbance would
occur when compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project this
alternative would provide the same restoration opportunities and amenities. Ac-
cordingly, this alternative would reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts
or significant-but-mitigable impacts to biological resources. All mitigation measures
that are recommended for the proposed project would also be applied to Alterna-
tive E as applicable; therefore Alternative E would result in less-than-significant
impacts to biological resources, same as the project. Overall, impacts to biological
resources under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-44
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative E, the ground-disturbing activities would be generally the same
as those of the proposed project since the overall development area would be the
same. Therefore, this alternative would be a slight improvement to the proposed
project. All mandatory regulations and mitigation measures that are recommend for
the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E as applicable; therefore
Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts to unknown archaeological resources or unknown paleontological re-
sources. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be less
than those of the proposed project, because of less ground disturbance.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative E, new development would occur on the site in the same man-
ner as that of the proposed project albeit with fewer residential lots (88 lots com-
pared to 185 lots). However, as with any development on the site, the reduction in
the development area does not have any bearing on the existing geologic setting of
the project site or project area. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the
proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to soil/geologic conditions.
All mitigation measures that are recommended for the proposed project would also
be applied to Alternative E as applicable; therefore Alternative E would not elimi-
nate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geo-
logic and soil instabilities and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geol-
ogy and soils under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed
project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative E, the development area would be the same as that of the pro-
posed project; however, homes would be constructed resulting in fewer GHG
emissions than those of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project de-
sign features to reduced energy consumption would be incorporated, and Alterna-
tive E would be in conformance with applicable plans and policies related to energy
conservation and solid waste reduction, and would not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Nonethe-
less, Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts related to GHG emissions, but overall, impacts from GHG emissions un-
der this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative E, the development area would be the same as that of the pro-
posed project, but fewer homes would ultimately be constructed (88 lots versus 185
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-45
lots) than the proposed project and the introduction of residential lots in an area
considered to have a high risk of wildfire hazards would occur. Therefore, wildfire
hazards would be the same as those of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found
that potential impacts associated with the development of the project with respect
to the high voltage transmission line hazards in the project area would be less than
significant; accordingly, the same would be true for Alternative E. Further, all miti-
gation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied
to Alternative E; therefore Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the pro-
ject’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to introducing a residential develop-
ment in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards. Overall, impacts from hazards
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative E, the overall development area would be the same as that of the
proposed project, but less development would occur (88 lots compared to 185
lots). Accordingly, the overall grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new con-
struction and landscaping improvements would be less than that of the proposed
project. Alternative E would implement the same waterway setback standards that
are applied to the proposed project, and all mitigation measures that are applicable
to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E. Therefore, this
alternative would reduce the potential for water quality impacts from the sedimen-
tation of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the
development on the site same as the proposed project. Overall, impacts to hydrol-
ogy and water quality under this alternative would be less than those of the pro-
posed project since less development would occur.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative E, a reduced density residential development is proposed. There-
fore, Alternative E would meet the intent of the General Plan land use designations
for RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre land use designations or the Town’s RS-1.0
Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre). Furthermore,
Alternative E would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6 land use designation,
which requires a planned development that links access, open space areas, and in-
frastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the proposed project,
Alternative E would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS
Zoning District. However, Alternative E would not achieve a minimum density of
at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density.
As with any development on the project site, a minimum 15 percent affordable
housing allocation for new residential developments would be required under Al-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-46
ternative E. Under Alternative E, a trail would connect to the Town’s proposed
recreational trail corridor as identified in the Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan. Furthermore, Alternative E would preserve 176.17 acres of public open
space, as under the proposed project. Overall, since Alternative E would not meet
the minimum density standards, impacts would be considered greater than those of
the proposed project.
k. Noise
Under Alternative E, fewer new homes would occur on the project site and there-
fore fewer vehicle trips would be generated. Under Alternative E the infrastructure
construction would span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the pro-
posed 88 housing lots would span approximately 20 years, same as the proposed
project. Therefore, while this alternative would result in the same less-than-
significant construction and operational noise impacts as those of the proposed
project, the overall noise impacts would be less due to fewer vehicle trips and less
overall construction.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative E would result in residential uses on
the project site. As noted above, Alternative E would not achieve a minimum den-
sity of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density, but would provide af-
fordable housing as required. However, neither Alternative E nor the proposed
project would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and
would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town. As such, overall impacts to
population and housing would be the same as those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative E would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required albeit less than that of the proposed project, and impacts to
these services under Alternative E would be the similar to those of the proposed
project. Alternative E would result new residential housing and therefore, would
directly contribute to the population of school-aged children that could attend the
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District. Alternative E would also generate the
greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children); therefore,
impacts to schools and parks would be the similar to that of the proposed project.
Alternative E would also include the publicly accessible trail system and recreation
center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would be the same as those
under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public services and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-47
recreation would generally be the less when compared to those of the proposed
project as fewer residential lots are proposed.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative E, less residential development on the project site would occur
and as such, fewer new traffic trips would be generated under both 2011 and 2031
conditions. Because the mitigation measures that are recommended for the pro-
posed project are required to improve existing deficiencies to which the addition of
any new trips would result in significant impact, the mitigation measures would also
be applied to Alternative E as applicable; therefore Alternative E would not elimi-
nate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to transporta-
tion and traffic. Overall, impacts to transportation and traffic under this alternative
would generally be the less than those of the proposed project since fewer trips
would be generated.
3. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas
and Electricity)
Under Alternative E, less residential development on the project site would occur
and therefore less demand for sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal services,
natural gas, or electricity would occur. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and ser-
vice systems would be the less than those of the proposed project.
4. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative E, the proposed project would be constructed in a similar man-
ner as that of the proposed project, but with fewer residential lots. Therefore, Al-
ternative E would meet all of the project objectives.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-48
H. Alternative F: Open Space Buffer (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative F would result in less development in the southeast corner of the pro-
ject site when compared to the proposed project. Development under this alterna-
tive would provide an increased buffer between the development area and the open
space in the southeast corner of the project site. As such, the public open space
areas would cover 180.8 acres, an increase of approximately 4.6 acre of open space
from that of the proposed project. In general, all other aspects of the project would
be the same as those described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the 2012 Draft
EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown in Figure 5-9.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal and new development
with landscaping improvements would generally occur on the site in the same
manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to aesthet-
ics. Overall, impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be the same as those
of the proposed project since development would be the same with the exception
of one less acre of development in the southeast corner of the project site.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by devel-
opment on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation
removal, and new development and landscaping improvements would occur on the
site in the same manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore,
this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Overall, impacts to agricultural and
forestry resources under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
ALTERNATIVE F (OPEN SPACE BUFFERS) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-9
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-51
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative F, air quality impacts would occur at the same level as those of
the proposed project. Thus, this alternative would generate the same degree of fugi-
tive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with construction activities at the
site. Additionally, under Alternative F, the same number of new traffic trips would
be generated and Alternative F would generate pollutant emissions associated with
long-term operation of a residential development. All mitigation measures that are
applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F. There-
fore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-
significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction
and operational air quality impacts under Alternative F would be the same of the
proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new development
and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same manner that
would occur under the proposed project. However, under this alternative, the over-
all development footprint would be reduced by approximately 4.6 acres in the
southeast corner of the project site. This would provide an additional open space
buffer between the future homes and the undeveloped land in the southeast corner
of the site. In addition, the portion of the publicly accessible trail system would be
re-routed to avoid direct access to the southeast corner of the project site, which
includes the large pebble meadow. Consistent with Town Policies regarding preser-
vation of open space, maintaining the southeastern portion of the subject property
as open space would provide protection for the pebble meadow habitat and would
preclude introduction of any barriers to wildlife movement.
Therefore, this alternative would further reduce the project’s less-than-significant
impacts to biological resources by providing additional open space for sensitive
biological habitat. Furthermore, all mitigation measures and project design features
that minimize impacts to wildlife corridors and resident wildlife species that are
applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F; therefore
Alternative F would further reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts
to biological resources. Overall, impacts to biological resources under this alterna-
tive would be similar to those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative F, the ground-disturbing activities would be similar to those of
the proposed project, albeit at a slightly reduced area. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to human
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-52
remains. All mandatory regulations and mitigation measures that are applicable to
the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F; therefore, Alternative
F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to
unknown archaeological resources or unknown paleontological resources. Overall,
impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those of the
proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative F, new development would occur on the site in generally the
same manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to
soil/geologic conditions (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation measures that
are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F;
therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-
mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and soil instabilities, and soil ero-
sion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology and soils under this alternative
would be the same as those of the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at generally the same
level as those of the proposed project. Under this alternative, slightly more grading
and vegetation removal would occur to realign the publicly accessible trail in the
southeast corner of the site. Thus, this alternative would generate about the same
net increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed project. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Al-
ternative F; therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts from
GHG emissions under this alternative would be the same of those of the proposed
project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associ-
ated with the development of the project with respect to the high voltage transmis-
sion line hazards in the project area would be less than significant; accordingly, the
same would be true for Alternative F. Further, all mitigation measures that are ap-
plicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative F; therefore,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-53
Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable
impacts related to introducing a residential development in an area with a high risk
of wildfire hazards. Overall, impacts from hazards under this alternative would be
the same as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative F, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction
and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same level as
those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would have the same sig-
nificant-but-mitigable water quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and
off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated with the development on the site.
All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be
applied to Alternative F; therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the
project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts
to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative F, a residential development would occur on the project site in
generally the same manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative F
would meet the intent of the General Plan land use designations for RES (Residen-
tial) 0.5 to 1 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) land use designations or the Town’s
RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre). Further-
more, Alternative F would be consistent with the Overlay Area 6 land use designa-
tion, which requires a planned development that links access, open space areas, and
infrastructure between the properties. In addition, similar to the proposed project,
Alternative F would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS
Zoning District.
Under Alternative F, the residential land uses on the site would be consistent with
the overall intent of the General Plan land use designations and the Town’s zoning
districts for the site. Alternative F would achieve a minimum density of at least 50
percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative F would provide afforda-
ble housing units consistent with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allo-
cation for new residential developments (i.e. eight lots). As such, impacts related to
policy consistency and land use compatibility would be considered similar to those
of the proposed project under Alternative F.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-54
k. Noise
Under Alternative F, similar to the proposed project, the same number of new
homes would occur on the project site, and therefore the same number of trips
would be generated. Under Alternative F, the infrastructure construction would
span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the proposed 185 housing lots
would span approximately 20 years. Therefore, this alternative would result in the
same less-than-significant construction and operational noise impacts as those of
the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative F would result in residential uses on the project
site and as noted above, would achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of
the maximum allowed density and provide affordable housing. However, neither
Alternative F, nor the proposed project would displace substantial numbers of ex-
isting housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town.
As such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as those of
the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative F would result in new development of
the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and police protec-
tion services required; therefore, impacts to these services under Alternative F
would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative F would result in the same
amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as that of the proposed project,
and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-aged children
that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, and would also gen-
erate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children);
therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative F would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system and
recreation center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would be the
same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to public
services and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative F, the same amount of residential development on the project
site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be generated
under both 2011 and 2031 conditions. As with the proposed project, vehicular ac-
cess at Edinburgh Drive would be restricted to emergency vehicles only. All mitiga-
tion measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative F; therefore, Alternative F would not eliminate or reduce the project’s
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-55
significant-but-mitigable impacts related to transportation and traffic. Overall, im-
pacts to transportation and traffic under this alternative would be the same as those
of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas and
Electricity)
Under Alternative F, the same demand for utilities and services would occur as that
of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and service systems
would be the same as those of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative F, the proposed project would be constructed in the same way as
that of the proposed project, but would preserve and additional acre of open space
and slightly re-route the publicly accessible trail system. Therefore, Alternative F
would meet all of the project objectives.
I. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project
and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that
an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a
selection to be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the
alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant im-
pacts. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational
procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets
the goals or needs of the Town. The project under consideration cannot be identi-
fied as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Additionally, in accordance with
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the Environmentally Superior
Alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environ-
mentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
As discussed in the analysis above, Alternative D (Medium Density Cluster: 185
lots) and Alternative E (Reduced Density Alternative: 88 lots) would result in less
development than that of the proposed project and would therefore reduce the
less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics and agricultural and forestry resources.
Alternative D and E would also reduce the significant-but-mitigable impacts to air
quality, biological resources, and hydrology and water quality. However, Alternative
E would also reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts to noise and public
services, and the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to cultural resources,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS REVISED DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-56
greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation and traffic due to the reduced num-
ber of lots. For these reasons, Alterative E is considered the Environmentally Supe-
rior Alternative. Alternative E would meet the project objectives, decrease the
overall development area and increase the open space area from that of the pro-
posed project and, with 185 lots, would achieve the minimum density of at least 50
percent of the maximum allowed density.