HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment - Pollard MND 10-2014Jenna Endres
From: scott.tdd3 @gmail.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 4:03 PM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: Pollard Station
Ms. Endres,
I just returned from business travel to learn there is a recommendation for changes to this Hilltop Master Plan. We own
a resident in the Stonewood Condo's and are disturbed by the proposed change. I realize you were requesting
responses by the 23rd and hope you will still be able to include our opposition in your comments.
Thank you
Scott and Lil Thiede
Sent from my iPhone
11
Jenna Endres
From: Clyde Prestowitz <cprestowitz @econstrat.org>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:14 PM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: Pollard Station
Dear Ms. Jendres,
I am an the owner of one of the Stonewood Condominiums on Pine Cone Road and near the
proposed Pollard Station project. I was recently astonished to hear that this project is back
under possible consideration. I urge you to ignore, reject, deny it in the strongest possible
terms for two reasons. On the one hand the proposed project is at odds with the already
existing Hilltop Master Plan developed several years ago on the basis of extensive input from
the community. On the other hand, the project is being proposed by an entirely disreputable
developer whose defective work has resulted in extensive and expensive repairs at Stonewood
and who is refusing to honor a court order to pay damages to the Stonewood owners. It would
be a travesty in every way even to entertain his proposal. Please don't so. Sincerely, Clyde
Prestowitz.
1
Jenna Endres
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
October 23, 2014
Robin Reding <robinreding @aol.com>
Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:56 PM
Jenna Endres
Pollard Station Proposal
To Ms. Endres and the Truckee Planning Commission,
I own a condominium in the Stonewood complex and I am whole- heartedly opposed to the proposed building of
the Pollard Station Senior Center in the Historic area between Pine Cone Road and Old Brockway Road. When
I purchased my condo, I saw the plans for a beautiful, walk able shopping /dining and residential project for that
property. While I prefer the land remain as it currently exists, I could see the benefit to our community for a
well- thought out area with boutique shops and fine restaurants. If it had ever been expressed that a senior center
or other large living area was to be built next door, I wouldn't have purchased my condominium.
Pine Cone Road is a quiet, residential street. My bedroom faces Pine Cone Road and I am very concerned
about the increase in traffic, noise during construction and afterwards with resident's cars, delivery trucks,
ambulances (that tend to frequent senior complexes). Additionally, the noise from generators, air conditioners,
etc. that come along with large complexes, like Pollard, will create a constant hum in our quiet
neighborhood. The peace and tranquility that I so greatly value would be destroyed.
Nature's beauty is one of Truckee's greatest assets and best insurance for strong property values for the
future. Cutting down so many trees, building roads, increasing traffic flow, and a large number of structures for
Pollard Station is detrimental to our environment and will likely negatively affect property values for my
community. The night sky is truly remarkable in my neighborhood, I love to look up and enjoy the dark sky
full of twinkling stars. This too would be at risk with the light pollution from Pollard Station,
Finally, I wonder how the town of Truckee could be considering any project with this developer after the
unprofessional business practices they have already exhibited with regards to the poor construction and
defaulting on legal /financial obligations to the Stonewood community.
Sincerely,
Robin Reding
Stonewood Property Owner
Truckee, CA
Robin Reding
11
Jenna Endres
From. Kara <karatansey @yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:52 PM
To: lenna Endres
Cc: Henry Giano
Subject: Pollard Station Citizen Comments
Dear Ms. Endres,
We own a unit in the Stonewood Condominiums adjacent to the proposed Pollard
Station project.
We oppose this project for its negative impact on the quality of life for residents
and for its non - conformance to established development plans for the Town of
Truckee.
• The developer proposes to use Pine Cone Road for construction access.
Pine Cone Road is a small neighborhood street entirely inappropriate for
such use. When the project was first presented to us, via the Hilltop
Master Plan, the project was entirely residential in nature with an access
road from Brockway Road to the development site. Residential use (only)
with access from Brockway is an acceptable solution. Why should we
abandon the Hilltop Master Plan's vision, which was prepared with so
much effort and so much community input?
• Ongoing operations at a residential care facility are certain to generate
considerable noise from HVAC equipment, emergency vehicles, and
general traffic flow from workers and visitors, in excess of that expected
from the originally- envisioned residential development.
• Who is going to operate this senior living facility? The developer is just
that, a builder of buildings and infrastructure. There is no assurance that a
qualified operator would be interested in buying the project, or that the
economics would be attractive to such operator, or even that the facility
itself would meet regulatory standards.
• We expect and welcome development in our community. We also expect
our planning commissioners to respect the community input to the Hilltop
planning process that resulted in broad agreement to prohibit commercial
development in that area.
• The developer of Pollard Station is well known to owners in the
Stonewood Condominiums. He is the developer of our Stonewood
residential project as well. Over the years we have been forced to repair
and upgrade numerous construction defects and poor design decisions at
great expense. These include faulty fire sprinkler systems, inadequate
insulation, cracking foundation slabs, poor drainage, heaving pavement
due to inadequate base rock, and more.
• The Nevada County Superior Court awarded our homeowner's association
a judgment against this developer for construction defects on September
20, 2011. In the interim, he conveniently dissolved his development
1
corporation and left no forwarding address, essentially disappearing for
the purpose of serving legal papers for a few years. He recently contacted
us yet refuses to pay. Instead he offers to horse -trade a payment in
exchange for our support for his Pollard project. This does not bode well
for others who choose to do business with him.
Sincerely,
Kara and Henry Giano
Pine Cone Rd, Truckee
2
Jenna • -
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Endres,
Sammy I Soliman <sammy_i_soliman @whirlpool.com>
Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:51 PM
Jenna Endres
Pollard Station Comments -Mr. Mrs. Soliman
My wife and I are brand new owners at Stonewood as of April 1, 2014.
We invested almost a year, driving up almost every weekend from the Bay Area weighing the pros and cons of
So. Shore and No. Shore.
We honed in on Truckee because of the small town atmosphere, and the geniuses of the people we met. We did
not feel that anywhere else in the area. We looked at countless homes, until our agent brought us to
Stonewood.
Our search was over. It fit our needs perfectly because of location, serenity and sense of community. My wife
and I attended the Stonewood Home Owners Association meeting last weekend and heard for the first time of
the potential approval of Pollard Station next door.
The first thing that crossed my mind was we made a mistake and need to move.
We purchased at Stonewood because of it's tranquility, and specifically not to be close to facility like Pollard
Station.
If we knew that was part of the plan, we would have considered other options.
We are 100% opposed to that land being used for this type of facility and use.
I'm sure there other uses that would create revenue for the owner, city and county that would equitable for
everyone.
Sincerely,
Sam and JoyeceAnne Soliman
10147 Pine Cone Road
Truckee, CA 96161
510 -918 -4188
1
H 0 i
SAMMY I SOLIMAN MARKET MANAGER
T: (51o)g18 -4188 ( C: Whirlpool InsideAdvantage (800952 -2537 ( Whirlpool Corporation I wwiv.WhirlpoolCorp.eoin
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
NOTICE. Whirlpool Corporation e -mail is for the designated recipient only and may contain proprietary or otherwise
confidential information. If you have received this e -mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
original. Any other use or disclosure of the e -mail by you is unauthorized.
2
Jenna Endres
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jenna,
Richard Glovin <rmglovin @hotmail.com>
Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:01 PM
Jenna Endres
Bob Fittrer; Scott & Lil Thiede
Pollard Station
The Hilltop plan has addressed the issues of the Brockway area. There is no reason to change the plan at this
time. The only motive is a profit motive, and given the recent trends in the Truckee area, the development is
ill- conceived, and should not be built.
Richard Glovin
10117 Pine Cone Road, Truckee
Sent from Windows Mail
1
Jenna Endres
From: Alan Lattanner <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:31 PM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: Pollard Station Citizen Comments
Dear Ms. Endres,
We own a unit in the Stonewood Condominiums adjacent to the proposed Pollard Station project, being original
owners since December 2000. We are full -time Truckee residents
Previously, we submitted a detailed response to the developer's first attempt to build a major commercial
facility, namely a senior living center, which addressed both community and environmental concerns. Our
recommendation at that time was to reject the project application and the Town planners did so. It is both
surprising and disturbing to see this project reappear with only minor changes that do not address the major
concerns.
We oppose this project for its negative impact on the quality of life for residents and for its non - conformance to
established development plans for the Town of Truckee.
• The developer, proposes to use Pine Cone Road for construction access. Pine Cone Road is a small
neighborhood street entirely inappropriate for such use. When the project was first presented to us, via
the Hilltop Master Plan, the project was entirely residential in nature with an access road from
Brockway Road to the development site. Residential use (only) with access from Brockway is an
acceptable solution. Why should we abandon the Hilltop Master Plan's vision, which was prepared with
so much effort and so much community input?
• Ongoing operations at a residential care facility are certain to generate considerable noise from HVAC
equipment, emergency vehicles, and general traffic flow from workers and visitors, in excess of that
expected from the originally- envisioned residential development.
• Who is going to operate this senior living facility? The developer is just that, a builder of buildings and
infrastructure. There is no assurance that a qualified operator would be interested in buying the project,
or that the economics would be attractive to such operator, or even that the facility itself would meet
regulatory standards.
• We expect and welcome development in our community. We also expect our planning commissioners to
respect the community input to the Hilltop planning process that resulted in broad agreement to prohibit
commercial development in that area.
• The developer of Pollard Station is well known to owners in the Stonewood Condominiums. He is the
developer of our Stonewood residential project as well. Over the years we have been forced to repair and
upgrade numerous construction defects and poor design decisions at great expense. These include faulty
fire sprinkler systems, inadequate insulation, cracking foundation slabs, poor drainage, heaving
pavement due to inadequate base rock, and more.
• The Nevada County Superior Court awarded our homeowner's association a judgment against this
developer for construction defects on September 20, 2011. In the interim, he conveniently dissolved his
development corporation and left no forwarding address, essentially disappearing for the purpose of
serving legal papers for a few years. He recently contacted us yet refuses to pay. Instead he offers to
horse -trade a payment in exchange for our support for his Pollard project. This does not bode well for
others who choose to do business with him.
1
If Truckee wants a live -in facility for senior citizens, why not create a public strategy by the Town planners
with incentives to recruit professional health care companies to bid, thereby increasing the likelihood of a
successful long -term solution in a suitable location? From our point of view, the current Pollard Station Senior
Living Center project is just a developer who wants to sell buildings and, as we know, shut down his
corporation and disappear as soon as the money is in the bank!
Sincerely,
Alan and Norma Lattanner
2
Jenna Endres
From: ashtoncreativetahoe @gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 8:09 PM
To: lenna Endres
Subject: Pollard station
This
is way to much
of an
impact for this area, it would overcrowd the road ways even with proposed improvements,
and
disturb what is
now a
peaceful family neighborhood.
People live here to celebrate nature, please don't take away one of the few remaining precious areas near downtown.
My family and I say NO to this plan. Let's make smart choices for our amazing home.
Best regards,
Nicole and family
Sent
from
my
iPhone
Sent
from
my
iPhone
1
Jenna Endres
From: Ross Collins <rossecollins @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:59 AM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: Pollard Station Proposed Development
Jenna, it is our understanding that this development is a commercial development and is grossly inconsistent
with the Hilltop Master Plan. As an interested party, I object to this development and support its rejection by
the Town of Truckee. The original HMP should be followed and strictly adhered to as it represents the will of
this community and is consistent with the character and historical values of this neighborhood. Furthermore,
this developer, and any developer that involves the individuals or entities related to Fitch and Cook, should be
consider insolvent and ineligible until they satisfy any and all debts related to previous developments in this
community.
Sincerely,
Ross and Renee Collins
10165 Pine Cone Road
Truckee, CA 96161
530 414 -0619
Ross Collins
Broker Associate
Chase International Truckee
DRE: 975621
Cell: (530) 414 -0619
Office: (530) 550 -2464
Fax: (530) 550 -7916
http:// rosscolIins .chaseinternational.com/
1
Jenna Endres
From: Goux <goux @ltol.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:56 AM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: Pollard station -a mistake
I feel that pollard station would be a big mistake.
The construction phase would be a huge burden to the people who live in Stone Wood and Ponderosa palisades town
homes along Pine cone rd.
The dust -noise and large truck traffic are not something that the nice quiet neighborhood should not be subject to.
Pine cone rd is an area where people walk for exercise- children play and with all of the heavy truck it would become a
very dangerous area!!!
Hill top really isn't an area for a senior center - it is a difficult walk to town and wouldn't it be better for it to be located
in a flat area and have better access for ambulances- fire trucks etc.?
I also would like to know what pollard station would become if it wasn't successful.
Would you want this in your neighborhood?
Thank you - -- Jay Goux
Sent from my iPad
1
Jenna Endres
From: Joe Fasano <joe_fasano @symantec.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:16 PM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: Pollard Station Project
Dear Ms. Endres,
I am the owner of a unit in Stonewood Condos.
My
opinion is that Truckee needs
to honor
the well thought out Hilltop Plan.
I feel that the Pollard Station Project does
not
honor this Plan. The Plan was
not for a
commercial development, and would ruin the residential area.
Regards,
Joe Fasano
1
Jenna Endres
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dearlenna,
rablin @sbcglobal.net
Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:57 PM
Jenna Endres
Pollard Station
As a homeowner of Stonewood, I oppose the Pollard Station Project. Why are they allowed to use our access on Pine
Cone Rd ? All other subdivisions that are new have had to start from scratch and put in their own roads and facilities.
Why are they the exception?
Sincerely
Nancy Rablin
10125 Pine Cone Road
Truckee, Ca. 96161
Sent from my iPad
1
Jenna Endres
From: Livia Argano <largano @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:55 PM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: STW Pollard Station
Dear Ms. Endres,
We own a unit in the Stonewood Condominiums adjacent to the proposed Pollard Station project.
We oppose this project for its negative impact on the quality of life for residents and for its non - conformance to
established development plans for the Town of Truckee.
Sincerely,
Livia & Maurizio Gavardoni
1
Jenna Endres
From: Barbara Muskat <bgmuskat @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:26 PM
To: Jenna Endres
Subject: STW Pollard Station comment
Dear Jenna Endres,
My husband and I are recent homeowners in the Stonewood Townhomes. We love the area but are frustrated
with having to pay for repairs on faulty work done by the original developer of Stonewood. Why would Truckee
hire this developer to build the Pollard Station facility when he left us with $200,000 in construction defects that
we have to pay for to repair properly? This person is not standing by his work. We support Alan and Norma
Lattanner's comments and letter to you. PLEASE DO NOT HIRE THIS DEVELOPER,
Sincerely,
Barbara and Judd Muskat
Stonewood -10139 Pine Cone Road
Jenna Endres
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Endres,
a22gMom @aol.com
Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:59 PM
Jenna Endres
fittrer @sbcglobal.net
Pollard Station Project /Stonewood Complex
We own a townhouse unit in the Stonewood complex located adjacent to the proposed Pollard Station project, and our
son lives full -time in the unit. We oppose the Pollard Station project.The project will radically change the planned
residential use for the Hilltop area as was set out in the Hilltop Master Plan and will change Pine Cone Road from a quiet
residential street into a busy access road for a major commercial operation.
We hope the objections of those of us who will be most impacted by the proposed development will be heard and that the
project will be rejected.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carrie and Colin Heran
1
MARGARET MOORE SOHAGI
NICOLE HOEKSMA GORDON
R. TYSON SOHAGI
LAUREN K. CHANG
ALBERT I. HERSON
THOMAS JACOBSON
ALISON L. KRUMBEIN
ANNE C.H. LYNCH
HELENE V. SMOOKLER
PHILIP A. SEYMOUR
:01M4411PF7�1�
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
11999 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049 -5136
TELEPHONE (310) 475-5700
FACSIMILE (310) 475 -5707
www.sohagi.com
October 23, 2014
VIA EMAIL AND U. S. MAIL
j endresgtownoftruckee. com
Jenna Endres
Town of Truckee Planning Division
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
1104 CORPORATE WAY
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95831
TELEPHONE(916)395 -4491
FACSIMILE (916) 395 -4492
Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Pollard Station Application
No. 12- 001 /MPA- DCA -DP- UP- TM -HDR
Dear Ms. Endres:
The Sohagi Law Group, PLC represents JAR- Hilltop, owners of 44 acres of land within
the Hilltop Master Plan area. Enclosed please find comments prepared by JAR- Hilltop's land
use planner and environmental professional, Mr. Lloyd Zola, Principal, Metis Environmental
Group, regarding the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") for the proposed
Pollard Station Project ( "Pollard Station" or "Proposed Project ").
As you know, JAR- Hilltop has been an active, committed partner to the Town in the long -term
planning of Hilltop. After some eight (8) years of workshops, public hearings, studies and
negotiations, the Town, its citizens and Hilltop property owners reached consensus on its future
vision for Hilltop, as set forth in the adopted Hilltop Master Plan ( "HMP "). The HMP promotes
an active and walkable residential, commercial and recreation - oriented village. Small residential
housing designed to retain trees and reflect the historical character of the Town accompanied by
an array of boutique lodging, restaurants, winter sports and summer hiking is the crux of the
HMP. To implement this theme, use and development restrictions were incorporated into the
HMP and agreed to by all concerned. A large -scale senior/ congregate care facility was never
envisioned for Hilltop and is clearly inconsistent with all aspects of the HMP. While JAR -
Hilltop does not question the need for senior /congregate care housing in Truckee, it is simply bad
land use planning to locate the proposed facility on Hilltop's resource -rich, north- facing slope,
far removed from medical and ancillary services.
The proposed MND is legally inadequate and fails to inform the Town's decision - makers
and public of the significant environmental impacts of developing Pollard Station on Hilltop.
The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") establishes a very low threshold for the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") — An EIR must be prepared when a fair
argument can be made based on substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment. In other words, if a project is not exempt and may cause a significant
effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. (Rominger et. al. v. County of
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Town of Truckee Planning Division
October 23, 2014
Page 2
Colusa (2014) 229 Cal.AppAth 690; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas
(1994) 29 CalAth 1597.)
There is ample evidence to date that the Proposed Project has the potential to
significantly impact the environment. By way of example, consider just a few of Pollard Station
potentially significant impacts:
• Destruction of 61% of the total trees onsite;
• Loss of scenic views in direct conflict with mitigation mandated by the Hilltop
Master Plan ( "HMP ");
• Extensive grading and construction of buildings and retaining walls that significantly
change in the visual character of the site;
• Introduction of a large -scale congregate care facility not currently permitted within
the Downtown Medium Density Residential District and contrary to the intent of the
HMP to create a "walkable neighborhood/village;
• Failure to incorporate the mandatory inclusionary and workforce housing
requirements into the Proposed Project; and
• Substantial additional traffic caused by the extension of Brockway that has not been
examined by the current traffic study.
The proposed MND also impermissibly relies upon outdated data as its baseline for
analyses. Biological studies dated 2003, 2004 noise measurements and a 2009 traffic study form
the basis of the impact analyses. No reading of CEQA supports the use of obsolete data. (Title
14 CCR § 15151; Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm. (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 1344.) The MND is legally deficient on these grounds alone.
Before proceeding with further consideration of this Proposed Project, the Town is
legally obligated to prepare and consider an EIR.
On behalf of JAR- Hilltop, we
appreciate
the
opportunity to comment on the proposed
MND and look forward to reviewing
an EIR for
the
proposed project.
Very truly yours,
MARGARET M. SOHAGI
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Enclosures
CC: Mayor Flora and Members of the Town Council (PFlora @townoftruckee.com)
Chair Beckman and Members of the Planning Commission
(HBeckman@townoftruckee.com)
Tony Lashbrook, Town Manager (TLashbrook @townoftruckee.com)
Andrew Morris, Town Attorney (AMorris @townoftruckee.com)
THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
Town of Truckee Planning Division
October 23, 2014
Page 3
W:\C\378 \001 \0033683 LDOC
Metis Environmental Group
437 Alcatraz Avenue
Oakland, CA 946o9
October 23, 2014
Ms. Jenna Endres
Town of Truckee Planning Division
1o183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
SUBJECT: Comments on the Proposed Pollard Station Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Ms. Endres:
Metis Environmental Group ( Metis) has been retained by JAR - Hilltop, owner of 43.86 acres of land within the Hilltop
Master Plan ( "Master Plan ") to review the proposed Pollard Station Project ( "Pollard Station" or "Proposed Project ") in
relation to (1) consistency with the Master Plan, (2)the potential project's environmental impacts, and (3) the adequacy
of the proposed Initial Study (IS) /Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The purpose of this letter is to provide r
comments on the Project's environmental impacts and proposed IS /MND. A copy of my resume is attached.
Based on my review of the Proposed Project and its proposed MND, as well as the Hilltop Master Plan, it is clearthat an
environmental impact report (EIR) needs to be prepared for Pollard Station for the reasons enumerated below.
I. An Environmental Impact Report Must be Prepared Because the Proposed Project Will Result in Significant
Impacts to the Surrounding Environment
A lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report ( "EIR "), not a mitigated negative declaration, if a fair
argument can be made, based on substantial evidence in the record that the Proposed Project will have a significant
impact on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15o64(g)(1)). This low threshold reflects the strong presumption
in CEQA for the preparation of environmental impact reports. (Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204
Cal.App.4th 187, 207.) A court can uphold an agency's "decision not to require an EIR only if there is no credible evidence
that the project may have a significant impact." (Rominger v. County of Colusa (zo14) 229 Cal.App.4th 690,720
[emphasis in original].)
a. Aesthetics impacts caused by the Project will be significant
1. The removal of the majority of existing trees from the site is a significant impact.
While the Proposed Project theoretically clusters development, open space is generally relegated to a narrow band
along the southwestern and southeastern corners of the site, with a large part of onsite open space provided in a
triangular area in the southwestern portion of the site that is too narrow to accommodate buildings. The placement of
PHONE WEB
951.207.9684 metis- env.com
415.828.4290
Page z
open space at the perimeter of the site and lack of view corridors through the site will create the appearance of the
lodge complex and other onsite structures as a solid mass of buildings broken only by onsite roadways when viewed
from offsite locations.
In addition, Pollard Station deviates from the following provision of the Master Plan.
Maintain mature tree clusters and preserve trees of 24 inches in diameter or greater. Such trees may be
removed when necessary or appropriate due to design of the project and where there are no practical
alternatives. (Hilltop Master Plan Section 6.F.1; Hilltop Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure 1a.)
The proposed Pollard Station Project is inconsistent with this important policy and fails to implement the required
mitigation measure set forth in the Master Plan MND. (See also, Lincoln Place Tenants Assoc. v. City of Los Angeles
(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491.)Such failure to implement a required Master Plan MND mitigation measure results in a
significant visual impact. Although the Project site plan has been revised to consolidate more of the site's open space
area, open space has been largely relegated to the western margin of the site, and the number of existing trees to be
removed by the development remains significant at 6:L%(285 out of 470 total trees on- site). The current development
proposal would remove S9 %, of the large trees (24" diameter and greater) onsite. Page 53 of the IS /MND states that
the Project "has undergone numerous design changes many of which were aimed at saving as many mature trees as
possible," but, in truth, the IS /MND provides no evidence as to those changes and provides no demonstration that
these changes actually saved mature trees. In fact, the current version of Pollard Station removes more large trees (24"
diameter and greater) than did the previous version of the Project, increasing the destruction of these larger trees from
56% to 59 %.
The IS /MND incorrectly states that the Master Plan MND did not "separately consider the impact of tree removal or add
any mitigation measures relative to tree removal." However, on page 8 of the Master Plan IS /MND, the following text
appears:
"Trees - There may be some significant visual impacts associated with potential tree removal and the grading
proposed for the project. A preliminary grading plan has not yet been completed, as there are multiple
property owners involved in the Master Plan. Mass pad grading can result in the removal of all vegetation and
could create substantial cuts and fills between various uses. If mass pad grading were utilized in the northerly
(front) portion of the Master Plan area, these impacts would be highly visible from Brockway Road and other
public vantage points. The unnecessary removal of significant trees along the ridge will harden the view of
buildings along the ridge. These potential impacts from the wholesale removal of trees in development areas
and the removal of trees along the scenic ridge may be significant. Mitigation Measure 1a will substantially
restrict the removal of trees 24 inches or greater along the ridge, and buildings, driveways, and parking areas
will need to be designed to preserve these trees. Mitigation Measure 1b, by prohibiting mass pad grading and
restricting initial grading to each individual lot for the driveways and building pads, will substantially reduce the
amount of tree removal, limit the amounts of cuts and fills between the buildings, with the exception of the lots
Page 3
proposed to
utilize shared
driveways.
These mitigation measures will reduce aesthetic impacts resulting from
tree removal
to a less than
significant
level."
The current IS /MND proposes the destruction of 59% of the largertrees and 61% of all trees onsite. This neither avoids
nor substantially reduces the loss of trees originally proposed as required, nor is it consistent with Master Plan
Mitigation Measure 1a. If the Proposed Project is pursued, this destruction of trees would result in a significant,
unavoidable adverse aesthetics impact that needs to be addressed in an EIR. The IS /MND attempts to downplay the
proposed removal of trees, including largertrees, by noting that all future developments within the Master Plan area
would also result in the removal of trees. However, the proposed loss of 59% of the largertrees and 61% of all trees
onsite cannot be determined to be less than significant on this basis. Such a statement is more appropriate to a
statement of overriding considerations as part of the explanation as to why the significant loss of onsite trees would be
acceptable to the community rather than in the proposed IS /MND.
Mitigation Measure 1a of the Master Plan MND requires individual site development plans to "maintain mature tree
clusters (unless a licensed silviculturalist recommends thinning to improve tree stand vigor and health)," and to
"preserve trees with diameters at breast height of 24 inches or greater." Hilltop Master Plan Mitigation Measure 1a
permits i4 inches or greater diameter trees to be "removed when necessary or appropriate due to the design of the
project and when there are no practical or reasonable methods to preserve such trees." The Proposed Project stands in
sharp contrast to this requirement because it proposes destruction of mature tree clusters, yet the proposed IS /MND
presents no evidence that a licensed silviculturalist has recommended thinning to improve tree stand vigor and health.
Additionally, the IS /MND does not demonstrate the necessity or appropriateness of removing the majority of such trees
on the Project site, nor does the IS /MND address whether there are practical or reasonable methods to preserve more
than only 31% of the largertrees onsite. Asa result, there is no basis for the IS /MND's determination that impacts
related to tree removal are less than significant.
The proposed IS /MND also attempts to weaken the Master Plan policy by ignoring the mitigation measures put in place
to preserve mature trees by misleadingly stating that the Project need only "strategically retain mature trees where
possible to help soften the appearance of the large building both onsite and from the downtown vantage point." Again,
such reasoning is inconsistent with Master Plan Mitigation Measure 1a, and is more appropriately part of a statement of
overriding considerations following recognition that there are no "practical or reasonable" methods to preserve more
than 41% of the onsite trees with diameters of 24 inches or greater. Thus, an EIR should be prepared so that the full
potential for significant impacts resulting from the removal of the trees can be examined.
To properly determine whether there are "practical or reasonable" methods to preserve more than the proposed 19%
of the 24 inches or greater diameter trees within a lodge site and more than 41% of such trees onsite, feasible
alternatives to the proposed design must be considered. The IS /MND contains no information regarding any design
revisions that may have been considered since the prior plan was proposed. Thus, it is not possible to know whether
there is a viable alternative that would result in the removal of fewer trees.
Mitigation Measure 1a
in the Aesthetics section of the Pollard Station IS /MND prescribes
that
additional trees
are to be
planted on -site and /or
offsite property to replace those lost due to development, using a
1.5:1
ratio. However,
this
Page 4
mitigation measure fails to set forth definitive standards for implementation of the measure. Specifically, the measure
should identify the diameter size(s) of the replacement trees so that the real residual impact after implementation of
the mitigation measure can be substantiated. Without such information, a determination cannot be made that the
mitigation measure would be effective in reducing impacts to aesthetic resources. For instance, if small sized
replacement trees are used, it would take many years for them to reach maturity such that the proposed visual
remediation of removing the existing trees would have no realistic mitigating effect. Any time -delay of replacement
trees from the proposed mitigation measures or other new landscaping needs must be acknowledged before project
approval and factored into the impact analysis and significance conclusion through the appropriate medium, an EIR.
This proposed mitigation measure on page 23 of the IS /MND ambiguously references an allowance of off -site tree
planting "as part of future development plans or within five years, whichever occurs first." The actual timing of this
mitigation measure must be identified. Any potential, reasonably foreseeable off -site locations that may be used for
replacement tree planting should be discussed and analyzed in more detail in an EIR to determine whether such off -site
tree replacement would have any effect on the visual impacts of tree removal from the Pollard Station site, as well as
for disclosure of the whole of the action under CEQA. CEQA requires that any potential physical effects of prescribed
mitigation actions be considered and documented as well as those of the project components (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15226.4 (a)(z)(D)). If such offsite tree planting is to be provided as mitigation forthe impacts of Pollard Station,
the environmental analysis should also include a provision for the permanent preservation of such trees. Without such
preservation, there is no assurance that trees planted as mitigation for Pollard Station's impacts will ever grow to
maturity and provide realistic impact mitigation.
While the Hilltop Master Plan acknowledges that proposed development within the Master Plan area would
unavoidably remove existing trees, Pollard Station would result in destruction of the more onsite trees (82% of the
larger trees within the lodge site and 59% of the larger trees onsite) than was originally contemplated in 2009. The
MND does not examine potential feasible alternatives to the design that could substantially reduce the tree loss.
Without this examination, Hilltop Master Plan Mitigation Measure sa cannot be implemented, and the public and
decision- makers cannot know whether there are feasible alternative designs and densities that would meet the
majority of the project objectives. An EIR is therefore needed for a full disclosure of potential avoidance and /or
substantive reduction of this significant impact of tree removal, both from aesthetic and biological resource aspects.
2. Land Use Impacts Caused by the Project will be Significant
The proposed Pollard Station Project lies within the Master Plan area and is required to adhere to the Master Plan, as
well as to the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Truckee General Plan. The currently Proposed Project
is a re -hash of a previous development proposal for the project site for which a proposed Initial Study /Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS /MND) was circulated for public review and comment in 2009. The prior proposal was
inconsistent with the Master Plan and the current proposal remains inconsistent with the Master Plan. The applicant
again requests exceptions or amendments to the Master Plan, including: (1.) amendment of the Downtown Medium
Density Residential District ( "DRM District "), to include senior citizen /disabled congregate care housing in addition to
medium density residential use; (2) adding senior citizen /disabled congregate care housing as a residential use in the
Page 5
DRM District, subject to a conditional use permit; and (3) modifying the comprehensive historic interpretation program
requirements to apply to the first development project within the Master Plan area that contains historic building
resources.
1. Significant impacts
may result from the
introduction
of a proposed use
that is
outside of the stated purpose
of the DRM District
and not included as
a permitted use in the adopted
Hilltop
Master Plan.
The applicant proposes to amend the Master Plan to include senior housing uses that are not currently permitted for
the subject property. The Master Plan states thatthe purpose of Downtown Medium Density Residential (DRM)
District within which Pollard Station is located is to "provide land for medium density residential units and their
accessory uses." Although a portion of the Proposed Project is consistent with this purpose, the imposition of
specialized care facilities which require employees to be onsite are not, resulting in a potentially significant land use
impact that cannot be ignored even if changes are made to the adopted list of permitted uses. A potentially significant
land use impact results from the Project's proposed amendment to the Master Plan that would add congregate care,
assisted living, and memory care facilities as permitted uses within the DRM District. In addition to congregate care,
Pollard Station proposes assisted living and memory care units, which add health care and z4 -hour oversight for
persons needing assistance with the activities of daily living. Overall, the proposed Pollard Station Project introduces a
commercial /institutional use to an area intended in the Hilltop Master Plan, Truckee General Plan, and Truckee zoning
ordinance for residential use. Congregate care, assisted living, and memory care facilities involve health care and other
services that are not typical accessory uses in medium density residential areas because they require the 24/7 presence
of onsite employees, and involve commercial deliveries, resulting in development beyond the currently stated purpose
of the DRM District and inconsistent with the medium density residential character envisioned for the subject property.
While the DRM District could theoretically be amended to accommodate these additional uses, the potentially
significant land use impacts of changing the DRM District's purpose to include large -scale care facilities should be
addressed in an EIR. Specific analysis should be provided in an EIR to address the potentially significant land use
impacts of allowing for development of multiple care facilities in an area intended to "provide land for medium density
residential units and their accessory uses," and the resulting significant aesthetic impact of changing the intended
residential character of the area.
z. The Proposed Project fails to implement required inclusionary and workforce housing requirements, nor
does the IS/MND address the potential impacts of doing so.
The Pollard Station Project is also inconsistent with the Master Plan requirement that each development within the
Master Plan area meet the inclusionary and workforce housing requirements of the Truckee Development Code
(Chapter 18.216). Section 18.3.4.04o B requires that "Fifteen percent (15 %) of all new dwelling units in a residential
development project shall be affordable units which shall be constructed and completed not later than the related
market rate units."
Section 18.214.08o A of the Town's Development Code states that an " inclusionary housing plan shall be submitted
with the land use and development permit application for residential development projects." The inclusionary housing
plan is to be "reviewed as part of the land use and development permit application and shall be approved prior to or
" . . - .
c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e l a n d u s e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n . " N o s u c h h o u s i n g p l a n i s i d e n t i f i e d
a s p a r t o f t h e p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e I S / M N D . W h i l e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 2 1 4 . o 8 o B o f t h e T o w n ' s D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e p e r m i t s
a n a p p l i c a n t f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t t o s u b m i t a " R e q u e s t f o r D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f C o m p l y i n g w i t h
I n c l u s i o n a r y H o u s i n g R e q u i r e m e n t s " p r i o r t o s u b m i t t a l o f a l a n d u s e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e p r o j e c t
d e s c r i p t i o n f o r t h e I S / M N D d o e s n o t r e f e r t o s u c h a r e q u e s t b e i n g m a d e . I f s u c h a r e q u e s t h a s b e e n m a d e , t h e p r o j e c t
d e s c r i p t i o n f o r t h e I S / M N D s h o u l d s t a t e s o . I f n o s u c h r e q u e s t h a s b e e n m a d e , e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r e s i d e n t i a l
d e v e l o p m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n f o r P o l l a r d S t a t i o n s h o u l d b e s u s p e n d e d u n t i l s u c h t i m e a s t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f e i t h e r
D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 1 8 . 2 1 4 . o 8 o A o r B h a v e b e e n c o m p l i e d w i t h .
T h e i n c l u s i o n o f r e q u i r e d i n c l u s i o n a r y a n d w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g a s p a r t o f t h e P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w o u l d h a v e p r o f o u n d
e f f e c t s o n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s e s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e p r o p o s e d I S / M N D . I f i n c l u s i o n a r y o r w o r k f o r c e
h o u s i n g i s t o b e p r o v i d e d i n a d d i t i o n t o c u r r e n t l y p r o p o s e d u s e s , i m p a c t s o f s u c h h o u s i n g w o u l d n e e d t o b e a d d e d t o
t h e e v a l u a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e I S / M N D . I f w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g i s t o b e p r o v i d e d , e v a l u a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o s c h o o l s , t r a f f i c , a i r
q u a l i t y , a n d G H G w o u l d a l s o n e e d t o b e r e v i s e d t o r e f l e c t t h e n o n - a g e r e s t r i c t e d n a t u r e o f s u c h w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g .
A l t h o u g h t h e H i l l t o p M a s t e r P l a n a l l o w s p r o p e r t y o w n e r s t o w o r k t o g e t h e r t o p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y a m o u n t o f
w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g w i t h i n t h e H i l l t o p M a s t e r P l a n p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n o f c o m m e r c i a l l a n d u s e s t h a t w i l l g e n e r a t e t h e
n e e d f o r a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g , P o l l a r d S t a t i o n w i l l c r e a t e o n s i t e e m p l o y m e n t i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r a s w o u l d o t h e r
c o m m e r c i a l u s e s w i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g a n y w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s n o m e n t i o n o f i n t e n d e d c o l l a b o r a t i o n
w i t h t h e o t h e r H i l l t o p M a s t e r P l a n p r o p e r t y o w n e r s t o c o n t r i b u t e t h e n e c e s s a r y u n i t s o n o t h e r p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e
m a s t e r p l a n a r e a . I f t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p r o p o s e d P o l l a r d S t a t i o n P r o j e c t i s t o c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h o t h e r H i l l t o p M a s t e r P l a n
p r o p e r t y o w n e r s t o l o c a t e w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g e l s e w h e r e w i t h i n t h e M a s t e r P l a n a r e a , t h e p r o p o s e d I S / M N D n e e d s t o
d i s c l o s e p o t e n t i a l l o c a t i o n s a n d e v a l u a t e t h e i m p a c t s o f s u c h w o r k f o r c e h o u s i n g a t t h o s e l o c a t i o n s . O v e r a l l ,
i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e o v e r a r c h i n g M a s t e r P l a n a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e c o u l d c a u s e d i f f e r e n t o r a d d i t i o n a l p r i m a r y a n d
s e c o n d a r y e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t h a t m a y n o t h a v e b e e n a n a l y z e d i n t h e H M P M N D .
b . N o i s e I m p a c t s C a u s e d b y t h e P r o j e c t w i l l b e S i g n i f i c a n t
T h e M N D f a i l s t o a d d r e s s s l e e p d i s t u r b a n c e , p h y s i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s , a n d a n n o y a n c e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s i n g l e e v e n t n o i s e
s o u r c e s s u c h a s e m e r g e n c y v e h i c l e / a m b u l a n c e s i r e n s , w h i c h s h o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e n o i s e a n a l y s i s , s i n c e a s e n i o r
h o u s i n g p r o j e c t w o u l d b e a n t i c i p a t e d t o h a v e a g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l a s s i s t a n c e r e q u e s t s t h a n t h e
t y p i c a l f a m i l y - o r i e n t e d h o u s i n g c o n t e m p l a t e d i n t h e M a s t e r P l a n . T h e n o i s e a n a l y s i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e I S / M N D ,
h o w e v e r , o n l y a d d r e s s e s v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c n o i s e f r o m a u t o m o b i l e s a n d s u p p l y t r u c k s .
W h i l e t h e I S / M N D s t a t e s t h a t o n s i t e h u m a n a c t i v i t y w o u l d b e " m u c h l e s s t h a n a c o n v e n t i o n a l n o n - a g e r e s t r i c t e d
d e v e l o p m e n t , " t h e I S / M N D a l s o f a i l s t o n o t e t h a t s e n i o r s i n a g e - r e s t r i c t e d h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s a r e t y p i c a l l y m o r e "
s e n s i t i v e t o n o i s e t h a n t y p i c a l r e s i d e n t s o f n o n - a g e r e s t r i c t e d h o u s i n g .
T h e I S / M N D s t a t e s t h a t t h e o n - s i t e e m e r g e n c y
p o w e r
g e n e r a t o r , H V A C u n i t s , a n d
o t h e r n o i s y o p e r a t i o n a l e q u i p m e n t
w o u l d b e c o n t a i n e d i n s i d e s t r u c t u r e s ; h o w e v e r ,
t h e r e
a r e n o t t h e r e
d o n o t a p p e a r
t o b e a n y e n f o r c e a b l e r e q u i r e m e n t s
Page 7
to that effect. These specifications should be clearly required as conditions of approval to ensure the adequacy of the
noise analysis presented in the IS /MND.
The statement in the IS /MND on page 86 that noise generated by service delivery trucks backing up into the service
entry/garage are not expected to exceed the Town of Truckee's noise standards is not substantiated by noise modeling
calculations or other technical evidence pertaining to vehicle backup alarms relevantto the proposed site design and
location of offsite noise - sensitive uses. The analysis under item std regarding the potential for substantial temporary
or periodic ambient noise increases in the project vicinity is not substantiated by a quantified noise analysis and focuses
on noise impacts across the property line. Because of the Proposed Project's phasing, residents will be living onsite
while construction activities are still ongoing. In addition, specific maximum noise levels from specific construction
equipment are known, and onsite noise levels during construction and the extent to which Town noise standards will be
exceeded at onsite residential uses during later development phases can be estimated. Thus, there is no factual basis
for concluding that construction noise impacts will be less than significant. The analysis conclusion of less than
significant relies on the requirement of the project to adhere to the noise limits and permitted timing of activities in the
Town's Noise Ordinance. Accordingly, the potential significant noise impacts of the Proposed Project should be
analyzed in an EIR.
II. The Analysis and Methodology in the IS /MND Use Improper Baselines and Fail to Provide the Public and
Decision Markers with the Information Needed to Adequately Assess Potentially Significant Impacts to the
Environment
a. The Analysis of Aesthetics Impacts is Incomplete
s. The visual simulations study is incomplete and fails to provide an adequate baseline for determining the
significance of potential impacts to aesthetics.
The IS /MND, page 27 states "the project site is intermittently visible to downtown Truckee (approximately z,600 feet
away) and High Street (2,400 feet away)." Neither of these vantage points are mapped and shown, nor is the one visual
simulation of the site from downtown Truckee included on page 17 shown graphically. The visual simulation included in
the proposed IS /MND is of poor quality and based on a Google Earth "street view." No information is provided to
determine the extent to which this street view accurately simulates human vision, nor is information provided as to how
project site development was spliced into the graphic. It is also unknown what assumptions were made for project site
landscaping, including how many years of growth were assumed for proposed landscaping, and whether any of the
proposed offsite tree replacement is included in the simulation. Inclusion of any proposed offsite tree replacement in
the simulation would be inappropriate since locations for planting of such trees has not been determined.
In order to provide an adequate project- specific visual impact analysis of the proposed development forthe CEQA
document, several appropriate public vantage points (views) should have been selected from which the project site is
seen, including vantage points from downtown Truckee and from High Street. Instead, only one view from an
unidentified location purportedly in the downtown area was provided. A full description along with graphic illustrations
Remo
of each view must be provided, with an impact analysis (existing setting and project buildout computer - generated
simulations provided) for each of the selected views of the site.
The discussion on page 24 of the IS /MND regarding the HPAC's consideration of the Project's "aesthetics from key
locations throughout downtown" and "from the two downtown viewpoints at Commercial Row and High Street," and
that the "visual simulations assess views from three different spots along Brockway Road, south and slightly southeast
of the project site" were not included in the IS /MND. Instead, only the single view simulation that was included, using
Google Earth aerial mapping, showing existing and retained trees on and off -site as essentially camouflaging an outline
of project dimensions. If the IS /MND intends to rely on the visual simulations viewed by the HPAC, these simulations
should be included in the IS /MND and subjected to public review and comment.
Visual impact simulations need to first depict existing site conditions /setting, and then depict the site from the same
vantage points as they would look following removal of the majority of trees from the site, grading and construction of
retaining walls and 3.5+ Proposed Project buildings, and other topographic and site modifications, both after the first
phase with the lodge complex and infrastructure, and at full project buildout. For example, visual simulations are
needed to substantiate the discussion under Grading and Tree Removal that the Proposed Project design now uses
"cutting into slopes and stepping down buildings at hillside edges to reduce visual impacts." Such visual simulations are
needed to depict the actual effects the Proposed Project design and provide substantial evidence as to whether
"cutting into slopes and stepping down buildings at hillside edges" will actually. "reduce visual impacts" to less than
significant.
The visual impact analysis purportedly addresses the proposed extension of Brockway Road to the proposed new
roundabout location, the roundabout, and the extension of Pine Cone Road. However, the analysis does not address
the visual impacts of a large roundabout itself. In addition, the visual impacts of other phase I infrastructure
improvements that now included in the Project, (i.e., the extension of the Truckee River Legacy Trail and stairway from
the Legacy Trail to Brockway Road) are not analyzed. The discussion of the extension of Pine Cone Road driveway into
the northerly condominiums (Grading and Tree Removal section) states thatthe driveway extension would provide on-
grade first floor access entry to those units; however, there is no assessment of the visual impacts of that infrastructure
component.
Because the Pollard Station proposal is the first development application within the Hillside Master Plan area, the visual
simulations should also analyze cumulative effects of Pollard Station and future adjacent developments within the
area. Without complete visual modeling analysis, realistic aesthetic impacts of proposed development cannot be
known, and the conclusions in the IS /MND that impacts will be less than significant cannot be substantiated.
2. The Overall Aesthetics Impact Conclusion section on page 24 that "the impact to the historic district and
historical resources on the balance of the Hilltop is minimized due to the relative distance from such
features" is not addressed and substantiated in the section's analysis.
Without analysis, the validity of this conclusion cannot be verified.
b. Discussion of Air Quality Impacts za -id is Incomplete
" . . -
T h e P o l l a r d S t a t i o n t r a f f i c s t u d y u n d e r e s t i m a t e s t h e n u m b e r o f p r o j e c t t r i p s t h a t w o u l d a c t u a l l y b e g e n e r a t e d b y t h e
P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t . A c c o r d i n g l y , e s t i m a t e s o f a i r q u a l i t y i m p a c t s b a s e d o n t h a t t r a f f i c s t u d y u n d e r e s t i m a t e a i r p o l l u t a n t
e m i s s i o n s . P a y m e n t o f a n i n - l i e u f e e t o p r o v i d e f o r a l 0 0 % o f f s e t o f r e - e n t r a i n e d r o a d d u s t d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e
m i t i g a t i o n f o r g e n e r a t i n g 1 . 4 . 7 t o n s o f d u s t a n n u a l l y . A d e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w t h e f e e w i l l b e u s e d , i n c l u d i n g c o m m i t m e n t
t o a p r o g r a m o f a c t u a l p h y s i c a l m i t i g a t i o n m u s t b e i n c l u d e d .
T h e r e n e e d s t o b e a c l e a r s t a t e m e n t o f i m p a c t s r e l a t i v e t o s i g n i f i c a n c e t h r e s h o l d s f o r e a c h c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d p r o j e c t
o p e r a t i o n s e m i s s i o n s a n d p l a n c o n s i s t e n c y . A c o n c l u s i o n r e g a r d i n g l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e r i p o r t o i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f
m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s m u s t b e s t a t e d f o r I m p a c t s 2 a - 2 d , p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r ( p a g e s 3 5 a n d 3 6 ) . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e
d e s c r i p t i o n o f P M 1 0 e m i s s i o n s s t a t i n g t h a t s u c h e m i s s i o n s " f a l l w i t h i n t h e A t h r e s h o l d " d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a c o n c l u s i o n
r e g a r d i n g t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f i m p a c t s a s r e q u i r e d b y C E Q A .
W h i l e t h e I S / M N D s t a t e s t h a t n o w o o d s t o v e s w i l l b e p r o v i d e d a s p a r t o f t h e P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t , n o m e n t i o n i s m a d e o f
w o o d - b u r n i n g f i r e p l a c e s o r w h e t h e r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f w o o d - b u r n i n g f i r e p l a c e s c o u l d g e n e r a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t o f
f i n e p a r t i c u l a t e s . I f w o o d - b u r n i n g f i r e p l a c e s a r e b e i n g p r o h i b i t e d , a s i s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e i n p u t s t o t h e C a l E E M o d m o d e l ,
i t s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f w o o d c o m b u s t i o n . M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e M M - 2 d p r o h i b i t s w o o d s t o v e s , b u t
m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f w o o d - b u r n i n g f i r e p l a c e s . T h e I S / M N D s h o u l 6 c l a r i f y w h e t h e r w o o d - b u r n i n g f i r e p l a c e s w o u l d b e
p e r m i t t e d w i t h i n t h e P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t , a n d p r o v i d e a n a l y s i s o f t h e i r i m p a c t s i f t h e y a r e t o b e p e r m i t t e d . I f w o o d -
b u r n i n g f i r e p l a c e s a r e p r o h i b i t e d f r o m t h e P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t , M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e M M - 2 d s h o u l d b e r e v i s e d .
c . T h e A n a l y s i s o f B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s I m p a c t s i s B a s e d o n O u t d a t e d I n f o r m a t i o n a n d t h u s E s t a b l i s h e s
a n I m p r o p e r B a s e l i n e
T h e b i o l o g i c a l h a b i t a t b a s e l i n e / e n v i r o n m e n t a l s e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a n d d a t a i n t h e I S / M N D m u s t b e c u r r e n t i n o r d e r t o
a d e q u a t e l y a n a l y z e t h e p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f P o l l a r d S t a t i o n ' s i m p a c t s . T h e I S / M N D ( p g . 2 ) s t a t e s t h a t t h e M a s t e r
P l a n M N D ( z o o 8 ) w a s r e l i e d u p o n f o r t h e d i s c u s s i o n s o f b i o l o g i c a l , c u l t u r a l a n d n o i s e i m p a c t s . T h u s , t h e b i o l o g i c a l
r e s o u r c e s s t u d i e s u p o n w h i c h t h e p r o p o s e d M N D f o r P o l l a r d S t a t i o n r e l i e s a r e 1 1 - y e a r o l d s u r v e y s w e r e o r i g i n a l l y
c o n d u c t e d i n 2 0 0 3 ( E c o s y n t h e s i s ) f o r t h e M a s t e r P l a n s t u d y a r e a . A n u p d a t e d b i o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s s i t e r e c o n n a i s s a n c e
i s n e e d e d t o c o n f i r m t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e 1 1 - y e a r o l d s u r v e y s t o d e s c r i b e c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s b e f o r e c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g
t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f i m p a c t s c a n b e e v a l u a t e d a n d c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h o s e i m p a c t s c a n b e
s u b s t a n t i a t e d .
T h e w e t l a n d s s t u d i e s a r e a l s o o u t d a t e d . A l t h o u g h t h e P o l l a r d S t a t i o n I S / M N D r e f e r e n c e s a P r e l i m i n a r y D r a i n a g e
A n a l y s i s a n d W e t l a n d M i t i g a t i o n P l a n p r e p a r e d i n 2 o 1 1 a n d u p d a t e d i n 2 0 1 2 , t h e r e p o r t i n c l u d e d i n t h e P r o j e c t M N D
a p p e n d i c e s o n t h e T o w n w e b s i t e i s d a t e d z o 1 o . A t a m i n i m u m , c u r r e n t s i t e r e c o n n a i s s a n c e n e e d s t o b e u n d e r t a k e n t o
c o n f i r m t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d i n t h e f o u r - y e a r o l d w e t l a n d s s u r v e y a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e c u r r e n t b a s e l i n e . I n
a d d i t i o n , w e t l a n d s m a p p i n g ( j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e l i n e a t i o n ) o n t h e a d j a c e n t p a r c e l c o n t a i n i n g w e t l a n d s h a b i t a t m u s t b e
u p d a t e d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f a n y g r a d i n g a n d o t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t s . I n t u r n , t h e w e t l a n d s m i t i g a t i o n p l a n m u s t
r e f l e c t u p d a t e d m a p p i n g o f w e t l a n d s a n d w a t e r s o f t h e U . S . a n d C a l i f o r n i a w i t h i n t h e M a s t e r P l a n b o u n d a r y . M i t i g a t i o n
M e a s u r e 3 . b s h o u l d b e r e v i s e d t o r e f l e c t a n y u p d a t e d w e t l a n d b a s e l i n e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d m i t i g a t i o n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n .
Page
so
Page 41 of the
IS /MND references
Appendix A,
which "incudes the special status
plant species
potentially occurring on
the Hilltop site.
However, no such
appendix A
is provided on the town's website
as part of the
Pollard Station MND.
Discussion of impacts 3a and 3b: The proposed MND fails to address the potential impacts from operation /long -term
use of the Project on biological resources. Even though no sensitive species or habitats were found on the project site
in 2003, the original survey is outdated, and the Project's operational impacts must be discussed. Secondary or indirect
effects of Proposed Project construction activities (dust generation, noise, surface drainage alteration, potentially
hazardous materials, etc.) as well as during long -term project operations on adjacent property resources were also not
analyzed. While the analysis contained in the IS /MND addresses the potential impacts to biological resources from the
proposed extension of Old Brockway Road, other Master Plan Phase I infrastructural improvements (trail extension,
stairway, roundabout at Brockway Road /new Old Brockway) must also be analyzed for potential biological impacts.
Discussion of Impact 3e does not conclude whether the Proposed Project conflicts with the tree preservation policies
F.s and F.2 ofthe Master Plan and the related mitigation measures in the Master Plan MND. As discussed above,
Pollard Station deviates from the following provision of the Master Plan:
Maintain mature tree clusters and preserve trees of 24 inches in diameter or greater. Such trees may be...
removed when necessary or appropriate due to design of the project and where there are no practical
alternatives. (Hilltop Master Plan Section 6.F.1; Hilltop Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure 3.a.)
Mitigation Measure sa in the Aesthetics section should also be referenced as it pertains to reduction of biological
resources impacts related to tree removal, comments on that measure herein notwithstanding.
d. The Cultural Resources Survey is Outdated and thus Establishes an Improper Baseline
A current records check for prehistoric and historic site information should be conducted to update the prior 2003
cultural resources database for the Master Plan study area, pursuant to standard CEQA analysis protocol. Any potential
secondary or indirect impacts on cultural resources must be addressed.
Any direct or indirect impacts to cultural resources in the locations of the off -site infrastructure improvements besides
the extension of Old Brockway Road need to be analyzed to substantiate a conclusion that the Project as now proposed
would have a less than significant impact.
Impact 4b pertains to archaeological resources and the brief analysis discussion states that no archaeological resources
were identified in the prior research and studies. However, Mitigation Measure 4.a seems to be a catch -all for any
discovered "paleontological resources, or cultural, or unusual amounts of stone, bone or shells..." during construction
activity. There is no analysis of Initial Study Checklist questions 4c (Paleontological Resources) or 4d (Human Remains).
These two impact issues need to be analyzed to ascertain whether the proposed development would have any
potentially significant effects. Mitigation measures need to be prescribed for each of the types of cultural resources
(historic, archaeological, paleontological and Native American remains). Without a complete CEQA analysis of each of
Page
ss
these issues, the IS /MND does not substantiate its conclusion that "With the addition of MM 4.a, the project will not
have a significant impact on Cultural Resources."
As noted in Comment 5 under Aesthetics above, the IS /MND Cultural Resources section does not address the potential
project impacts to the Historic District area from proposed development of the entire Pollard Station development, and
in particular, the building mass /grading and tree removal in the Lodge complex /Phase I area. The IS /MND provide a
summary of discussion at the HPAC, but does not include the materials reviewed by the HPAC.
e. The Discussion of Forest Resources Does Not Analyze Impacts or Reach a Significance Conclusion
Mitigation Measure 5.a inappropriately relies on issuance of a permit by another agency as mitigation. Issuance of such
a permit onto itself does not reduce or eliminate physical impacts on a sensitive resource. If a significant impact would
result that requires mitigation, the IS /MND needs to provide for enforceable measure(s) to reduce or eliminate physical
impacts.
f. The Discussion of Geology and Soils Impacts is Incomplete
No Regulatory Setting section (Uniform Building Code, Town Development Code and other applicable state and local
design requirements mentioned later in impact discussions) is provided as it is for other environmental topics. The
analysis of impacts does not specifically address off -site infrastructural improvement areas (road extensions,
roundabout, trail extension, stairway) for geotechnical or soils related adverse effects. As a result, significance
conclusions cannot be drawn for the whole of the action.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions are Inadequate Analyzed
a. The greenhouse gas emissions analysis and its conclusion are inappropriately based on a "plan to plan"
analysis.
The IS /MND incorrectly states that a project can be evaluated for greenhouse gas emissions by determining whether
the project will "generate less vehicle miles traveled compared to `development as usual, "' using a standard (non -
senior) multi - family development for comparison. The correct term in relation to analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
is "business as usual" (BAU), which is defined as conditions that would exist in the future without any local, state, or
project - related actions taken after the baseline year (sggo) to reduce GHG emissions. The correct method to analyze
the significance of GHG emissions from the Proposed Project would involve comparing GHG emissions from (s) the
currently proposed Pollard Station Project with(2)the same project as it would have been developed in sggo.
2. Project - related greenhouse gas emissions are underestimated since project - related trip generation is
underestimated.
The impact discussion under Item 7a states, "[s]enior restricted projects have a much lower traffic generation factor
than traditional development projects." As discussed below, the traffic study upon which the IS /MND is based
undercounts the Project's traffic generation. The condominium units outside of the lodge complex should not be
defined as part of the continuing care complex, but should be classified as senior adult housing (attached), which has a
Page
12
higher trip generation than a continuing care facility recognizing that residents of senior attached housing are more
likely to have an automobile than residents within the independent living component of a continuing care facility. Thus,
trip generation for Pollard Station should be recalculated in the zo13 Hilltop /Reynolds /Pollard traffic study along with
technical analyses that depend on the trip generation cited in that traffic study.
3. Impacts of proposed fuel modification activities appear to not be addressed.
A fuel modification plan is mentioned as part of the Pollard Station Action Plan in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
section (pg. 68/69 of the MND). This fuel modification plan is, however, not described in the Project Description, nor is
any information provided as to what the plan proposes (e.g., location, dimensions, vegetation thinning and other
modification components). It is therefore unknown whether the analysis of impacts provided in the IS /MND includes
analysis of impacts associated with any proposed fuel modification. For example, would fuel modification activities
result in any tree removal, visual impacts, biological resources, air quality, or GHG impacts in addition to what is
currently analyzed in the IS /MND? The fuel modification area and proposed fuel modification activities need to be
described, and the impact of such activities need to be analyzed as to any impacts on existing vegetation and habitat
and other issues throughoutthe IS /MND.
4. The statement at the bottom of page 66 of the IS /MND that "the HMP does not include definitive
policies or standards requiring building features to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy
consumption" is not accurate.
As stated on page 6 -3, Hilltop Master Plan Policy D3 states, "If a Town Council has not adopted a Town Climate Action
Plan or similar policies and standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the time of approval of a project land use
application, the project shall incorporate measures and modifications into all buildings, including single family
residences and multi - family residences, to increase the energy efficiency of buildings by a minimum of 2o% above and
beyond Title i4 building standards in effect at the time of building construction." While this requirement is included as
Mitigation Measure 2.e of the IS /MND, no evidence is provided to substantiate a conclusion that impacts as mitigated
would be less than significant.
5. No "climate action program" has actually been prepared for Pollard Station as is discussed in the
IS /MND.
The discussion under item 7b on page 67 of the IS /MND, states that the applicant has prepared a climate action
program for the Proposed Project; however, while an "Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment has been
provided as part of the IS /MND no "Climate Action Program is actually available."
6. The effectiveness of project "design components" to reduce GHG emissions has not been
demonstrated.
Page 68 discusses a
Pollard
Station Action Plan with a list of design
components. It is unclear whether these two
documents are one
and the
same; however, only an undated GHG assessment appears to exist. In addition, the
effectiveness of the
design
components identified starting on page
68 of the IS /MND has not been demonstrated.
Page
13
The first component— minimize site disturbance — is based solely on the amount of open space being retained, which is
described on page 68 as being "52 percent of the site to remain in a pervious vegetated state." By comparison, the lot
coverage table on page 7 of the IS /MND identifies only 24 percent of the site remaining in open space, while 28 percent
of the site will be dedicated to landscaping. Thus, fully 76 percent of the site will be disturbed by construction activities,
since areas proposed for landscaping will be cleared of existing vegetation prior to the introduction of new landscaping.
The GHG assessment does not indicate whether construction emissions were based on 76 percent of the site being
disturbed during site grading.
The second component — solar orientation — provides no more information than the project will comply with current
building codes. While "proper placement of windows" is mentioned as contributing to reducing energy use by 30 to 40
percent, no analysis is undertaken regarding window placement for buildings within the Proposed Project site.
The IS /MND identifies a number of "Design Guidelines" in addition to the Town's guidelines that would reduce GHG
emissions. No analysis is undertaken as to the actual effect such guidelines might have on GHG emissions to
substantiate such a reduction. In addition, the IS /MND states that these additional guidelines are "represented by the
applicant to be incorporated into site, landscaping and architecture, sustainable design concepts and green building
practices." In the absence of enforceable requirements for implementation of these guidelines and substantiation as to
their actual effectiveness, the applicant's representation should not be cited as demonstration of less than significant
impacts. For example, even if "space to accommodate recycling facilities" is provided, such space will not have any
effect on GHG emissions unless actual recycling activities over and above those assumed in the CalEEMod model are
undertaken.
Much effort is made in discussion of traffic, air quality, and GHG analyses of the Proposed Project being a senior
community, including a continuum of care. Given the anticipated age of residents and the provision of housing for
seniors needing ongoing assistance with daily living requirements, it is doubtful that the Master Plan vision of a
"walkable environment" with "interconnecting bicycle and pedestrian trails" would have much effect on reducing
vehicle trips, particularly during winter months.
The IS /MND includes a provision of a mailbox cluster as a means of reducing vehicle miles travelled; however, no
evidence exists that residents would otherwise drive to pick up their mail.
The Fuel Modification Plan listed on page 69 would have no real effect on project - related GHG emissions.
7. Impacts of required fuel modification activities need to be evaluated.
Discussion under impact item 8f (wildland fire risk) states that fuel clearance around structures and along driveways is
required by TFPD ordinances and regulations, and that those standards will be applied at time of land use development
application approval. However, it does not appear that such fuel modification activities have been included in the
evaluation of tree removal and biological resources impacts, site grading and disturbance, visual impacts, and air
quality /GHG construction emissions. CEQA requires thatthe "whole of the action" be evaluated.
Page
14
B. The Air Quality and GHG Assessment undercounts construction emissions since construction emissions
resulting from off -site infrastructure is not included.
No analysis of GHG emissions is provided in the Air Quality & G H G Assessment for the proposed construction of the
extension of Brockway Road to the proposed new roundabout location, the roundabout itself, the extension of Pine
Cone Road, or the construction impacts of other phase I infrastructure improvements now included in the project, (i.e.,
the extension of the Truckee River Legacy Trail and stairway from the Legacy Trail to Brockway Road).
h. Hydrology and water quality studies are incomplete.
Mitigation Measure 9b, requiring preparation of a comprehensive grading and drainage study is a mitigation measure
of the Master Plan MND. Item 1 of this measure requires the existing and project storm water runoff from the project
site to town facilities along Brockway Road and Palisades Drive be analyzed to determine whether existing drainage
facilities have adequate capacity. This information should have been provided as part of the preliminary drainage
studies conducted for the current development plan and analyzed in the Project IS /MND. The timing for the measure
requires completion of this analysis at the "time of common infrastructure improvement plan and future project
submittal." This measure and its requirements were appropriate at the master plan document level, but now that the
first development plan application has been submitted, analysis of runoff should include 1) evaluation of impacts to
,town facilities along Brockway Road and Palisades Drive, 2) discussion of temporary and permanent erosion control
methods to be employed, and 3) evaluation of required dewatering for project construction. The dewatering plan
component of Mitigation Measure 9b should specify all feasible avoidance of drainage into the off -site wetland as the
priority, notjust rely on permits from responsible agencies to mitigate impacts.
The noise analysis is incomplete and lacking critical baseline information.
The Noise analysis for the Proposed Project states that "an ambient noise study has not been conducted for the Project
Site." Instead, the analysis states that "The General Plan undertook a comprehensive noise monitoring survey to
document noise generated by predominate transportation sources that affect Truckee." (MND, page 84.) The MND,
however, fails to provide the noise levels contained in the General Plan for existing conditions (only projected 2025
conditions are provided). Without baseline information against which to compare future with - project noise levels, the
MND cannot adequately assess whether the Proposed Project would have a significant impact on the environment.
The MND also fails to mention that the noise measurements were a result of a "noise monitoring survey completed in
May 2004. "1 Even if this decade -old information had been provided, ten -year old noise measurements cannot
reasonably be assumed to have been unchanged or represent a current baseline.
The Town's General Plan also requires preparation of noise analyses and acoustical studies for Pollard Station. General
Plan Policies 2.2 and 2.3 state:
'Town of Truckee, General Plan Noise Technical Appendix,, page 1. Available online at:
http://www.townoftruckee.com/home/`showdocument?id=:L 267
Page
15
Require preparation of a noise analysis /acoustical study, which is to include recommendations for
mitigation, for all Proposed Projects which may result in potentially significant noise impacts to nearby
noise sensitive land uses such as residences.
Require preparation of a noise analysis /acoustical study, which is to include recommendations for
mitigation, for all proposed development within noise - impacted areas that may be exposed to levels
greater than "normally acceptable.
The Pollard Station Project site is in general proximity to noise measurement location LT -3 in the Town's General Plan
EIR Noise Appendix (Table 3, Figure 1). Location LT -3 was measured at 67 dBA CNEL in 2004. As acknowledged on
page 10 of the MND, the Project is adjacent to residential areas. As acknowledged in Table 6 of the MND, residential
noise levels between 65 -75 dBA CNEL are considered "Normally Unacceptable." Consequently, a noise study should
have been performed, including disclosure of baseline noise conditions in 2014. This is particularly important since
seniors are typically more sensitive to noise than the general population.
Also, future noise levels should be updated. The traffic study prepared for Pollard Station uses 2033 for the future
cumulative analysis year. The Pollard Station noise analysis should be the same analysis year.
j. The IS /MND Inadequately Analyzes Potential Traffic Impacts and Utilizes an Improper Baseline
x. The traffic study upon which the IS /MND undercounts the Project's traffic generation.
The condominium units outside of the lodge complex should not be defined as part of the continuing care complex, but
instead be classified as senior adult housing (attached), which has a higher trip generation than a continuing care
facility recognizing that residents of senior attached housing are more likely to have an automobile than residents
within the independent living component of a continuing care facility.
The traffic study prepared for Pollard Station states that the Project is "proposed to consist of various levels of senior
residential living." A total of 126 units are proposed, consisting of condominium units and a Lodge with independent
living units, assisted living units, and memory care units. The Trip Generation manual lists several types of senior or
retirement homes, including ITE Land Use Code 255: Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)." The traffic
study describes a Continuing Care Retirement Community as
[A] land use that provides multiple elements of senior adult living. CCRCs combine aspects of independent
living with increased care, as lifestyle needs change with time. Housing options may include various
combinations of senior adult (detached), senior adult (attached), congregate care, assisted living and skilled
nursing care aimed at allowing the residents to live in their community as their medical needs change. The
communities may also contain special services such as medical, dining, recreational and some housing -
detached (Land Use 251), senior adult housing- attached (Land Use 252), congregate care facility (Land Use
253), assisted living (Land Use 254) and nursing home (Land Use 62o) are related uses.
Page
16
Because of the disparity between traffic generation for a CCRC use (0.16 PM peak trips /dwelling unit), a congregate
care facility (0.17 PM peak trips /dwelling unit), and senior adult housing- attached (0.25 PM peak trips /dwelling unit), the
traffic study should justify the use of the lowest possible trip generation rate available. The appropriate trip generation
methodology would have been to use the CCRC rate (0.16 PM peak trips /dwelling unit) for the units within the lodge
complex, which more resembles the CCRC use in its mix of independent living and other types of senior housing, and
the senior adult housing- attached rate (0.25 PM peak trips /dwelling unit) for the proposed condominium units, which
more realistically describes the units outside of the lodge complex.
Trip generation for Pollard Station should be recalculated in the 2013 Hilltop /Reynolds /Pollard traffic study along with
technical analyses that depend on the trip generation cited in that traffic study.
2. The current traffic study did not analyze impacts on the proposed roundabout.
The IS /MND states that the most recent traffic study (July 1, 2013) "did not evaluate the current Pollard Station
proposal to construct the roundabout." (IS /MND, page 93.) As a result, no conclusions can be drawn about traffic
impacts related to the roundabout or the adequacy of its proposed design to accommodate future traffic from Pollard
Station and cumulative projects. Since the Pollard Station Project proposes construction of the roundabout, the traffic
study must analyze this project component. Although the IS /MND states that the 2009 traffic study for the HMP is
assumed to be still applicable, even with lower regional background traffic," the Master Plan MND traffic analyzed
cumulative traffic for 2025, whereas the current traffic study analyzes cumulative traffic impacts in 2033. CEQA
requires analysis of the whole of the action. Thus, traffic analysis for the Proposed Project should have included
analysis of the roundabout and not relied on a traffic study prepared to analyze conditions in a different analysis year.
All Phase I circulation improvements being proposed along with the Project must be included in the traffic analysis to
ascertain as accurately as possible the Project's circulation impacts with Project components. The necessity to have a
combination of two traffic studies (prepared 2009 and 2013, suing cumulative analysis years of 2025 and 2033) as
substantiation for mitigation of traffic impacts to less than significant analysis is awkward at best, and leaves in doubt
the accuracy of the impact conclusions and mitigation measures for future circulation system operations at the
acceptable levels of service.
3. One of the significance thresholds cited in the IS /MND for transportation (queue length) is addressed in
the traffic study, but not carried forward into the IS /MND.
Page 91 of the IS /MND notes that "although the Town has not adopted thresholds of significance for acceptable
queuing lengths, the HMP and therefore each project will have a significant traffic impact if the length of vehicle queues
forthe 951h percentile queue length extends into an adjacent intersection or blocks the southern driveway in the Martis
Valley commercial center." No analysis in provided in the traffic study prepared for Pollard Station as to impacts on
queuing lengths.
4. The discussion of Other Public Facilities is incomplete in that it does not address road maintenance.
The IS /MND states that "the cumulative impact on the town's maintained road system will be less than significant
through payment of a road mitigation fee and roadway improvements as discussed in the Transportation/Traffic
Page
17
discussion contained within this Initial Study." No discussion is found in the Traffic section pertaining to road
mitigation fees for routine maintenance.
k. The Discussion of the Impacts to Utilities and Service Systems is Insufficient
1. Analysis of the adequacy of wastewater facilities to serve the Proposed Project is based on outdated
and incomplete information.
The IS /MND must evaluate impacts related to the required extension of the existing 8 -inch sewer line. The statement
regarding the TSD having adequate capacity does not clarify whetherthere is capacity in the existing sewer line, nor
does it address any impacts of extending that sewer line. The analysis of wastewater treatment, states that the existing
treatment plant was expanded in 2oo6, and that "up to this point, the plant operated at 8o percent of its existing
capacity of 7.4 mgd during peak summer -flow periods." The proposed IS /MND does not provide current information on
treatment plant capacity, not does it discuss whether Pollard Station in combination with cumulative future growth
would have sufficient treatment capacity at the current time and foreseeable future. While the IS /MND notes that the
TSD stated it had adequate capacity and that it could serve the Proposed Project pursuant to applicable standards, the
statement referred to in the proposed IS /MND is based on a September 2009 letter from the District. No indication is
provided as to whether the five -year old statement made by the District remains true today.
2. Discussion of storm wa terfacilities to serve the Proposed Project is does not address the impacts of
constructing newfacilities.
The information for impact item 16c regarding stormwater drainage facilities or need for expansion of facilities states
only that new facilities will be designed to meet Town and LRWQCB design standards, and does not any address
physical impacts of construction of lines of retention ponds as is stated on page 99. In addition, offsite storm drains and
retention basins are not included in the discussion off -site infrastructure features in the biological resources section on
pages 39 -40.
3. The discussion of water supply (Item 16.d) is incomplete in that it does not actually discuss water
supply.
Although Item 16.d asks whether the Project would "have sufficient water supply available," the discussion that follows
only addresses the infrastructure system, not availability of sufficient water supply for the proposed development. A
strong body of CEQA case law has clearly established that a water supply analysis is required. (See, for example,
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182) The MND should provide
information
regarding the water
supply
source along with
evidence to support the less than significant conclusion that
there would
be adequate supply
for the
proposed Pollard
Station Project.
y. The discussion of solid waste management is incomplete in that it does not address landfill capacity.
On page
loo, Items 16.f and 16.g asks whether the
Proposed Project is
"served
by a
landfill will sufficient permitted
capacity
to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs and
comply
with
Federal, State and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste." While the IS /MND concludes that impacts will be less than significant, the
analysis states only that solid waste will be transported to a landfill in Lockwood, Nevada. No information is provided
regarding the permitted capacity of the Lockwood landfill. There is, therefore, no basis for concluding that the landfill
would have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the Proposed Project or that impacts would,
in fact, be less than significant.
I. The Discussion of Recreational Impacts is Incomplete
The Pollard Station IS /MND states that the Master Plan MND addressed all recreational facilities within the Master Plan
area and no significant impacts were identified. However, the off -site recreation improvements that the Project plans
to construct are not addressed in the impact analysis of item 14b of the Pollard Station IS /MND. The Recreation and
other relevant sections in the Master Plan MND do not specifically address the physical impacts of these recreational
improvements. The potential impacts of constructing the extension of the Truckee River Legacy Trail along the
northerly project boundary, the sidewalk along Brockway Road from the proposed new roundabout to River Road, and
the stairway connecting the Legacy Trail to Brockway Road must be addressed in the Pollard Station IS /MND.
m. The IS /MND Fails to Properly Address Cumulative Impacts Caused by the Project
In the Section titled "Matory [Sic] Findings of Significance," the MND asks, "Does the project have impacts that are
cumulatively considerable ?" The discussion that follows the checklist for Mandatory Findings of Significance simply
refers to other sections of the proposed MND, and provides no supporting evidence to conclude "Less Than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated." Most public agencies either rely upon cumulative methodology that is based upon
growth' projections or a list of cumulative projects. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1).) Although the discussion on
page 1o1 attempts to rely on the analyses provided for specific resources areas, the IS /MND provides no cumulative
analysis for many of the resource areas addressed in the IS /MND. For example, there is no discussion of cumulative
impacts for Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Forest Resources, Geology and Soils, Green House
Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Population and
Housing, Public Services (with the exception of "Other public facilities "), Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems.
For example, the analysis of wastewater treatment, does not discuss whether the Project in combination with
cumulative future growth would have sufficient treatment capacity. Similarly, there is no analysis of whether there
would be sufficient water supplies with project and cumulative development.
III. The IS /MND Proposes Inadequate Mitigation Measures
a. Mitigation Measure MM-9a Improperly Defers Mitigation
Mitigation Measure g.a simply calls for preparation of a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan as part of a required
NPDES permit. The measure does not set forth any enforceable mitigation requirements, such as performance
standards to implement in such a plan.
Page
1g
b. The Statement Made in Relation to School Impacts that "Should Age Restrictions be Removed
from the Project in the Future, State Mandated Mitigation Fees Will be Required in Accordance
with Government Code Section 65995" Raises Questions as to the Project's Actual Intent
If the applicant were to subsequently propose having Pollard Station's age restriction removed, much more than just
payment of school fees should be required. If removal of proposed age restrictions is possible, traffic, air quality, GHG,
noise, public services and facilities, and other impacts found to be less than significant in the IS /MND would be far
greater than was analyzed, and payment of school fees would fall far short of adequate mitigation. If there is a
potential for removal of Pollard Station's age restriction in relation to school impacts, such potential needs to be
discussed in relation to the potential for removal of Pollard Station's age restriction for all issues throughout the
IS /MND. If there is no such potential, the statement that "should age restrictions be removed from the project in the
future, State mandated mitigation fees will be required in accordance with Government Code Section 65995" should be
removed from the IS /MND
c. The Traffic Mitigation Measures Prepared For The Pollard Station IS /MND Inappropriately
Reference Different Analysis Years Than Those Addressed In The Project Traffic Study
The Hilltop Master Plan MND traffic analysis
used 2025 as its buildout year, while
the subsequent project
traffic
analyses for Pollard Station used 2033 as the
buildout year. Mitigation measures
set forth in the IS /MND
refer to
mitigation for 2025 conditions rather than the 2033 traffic conditions evaluated in the July 203.3 traffic study. Given the
age of the Master Plan traffic study, the IS /MND should revise the 203.3 current traffic study forthe Project to include
the roundabout that is proposed as part of the Pollard Station Project as well as appropriate traffic generation rates,
and use that more recent study as the basis for analysis and mitigation of traffic impacts. In addition, separate traffic
analyses for each project construction phase is needed to determine the timing for implementation of required
improvements
The IS /MND notes that technical studies (air quality, greenhouse gas, traffic) were prepared by the applicant. Whether
these applicant - prepared studies were peer reviewed by technical experts on behalf of the Town and represent the
independent judgment of the Town should be disclosed.
Other, minor comments on the MND include:
® References on pages 76 and 77 to Mitigation Measure ga are in error and should be gb.
® Table 6 appears to have a typo in the far right column heading, and should read "Clearly Unacceptable."
For the reasons
presented above, on behalf of JAR - Hilltop, owner of 43.86 acres of land within the Hilltop Master Plan,
we respectfully
request that the Town prepare an EIR for the
proposed Pollard
Station Project.
Sincerely,
Page
zo
Lloyd Zola
Principal
Metis Environmental Group
437 Alcatraz Avenue
Oakland, CA 946o9
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, Urban Studies,
1974
California State University, Los
Angeles
P i
w
As a consulting planner, Lloyd provides expertise in resolution of complex planning,
environmental, and development issues; development feasibility analyses; general
plans and public policy formulation; public participation programs; environmental
documentation; and the coordination of environmental, project design, and policy
formulation and implementation.
Lloyd has been retained as an expert witness, assisting cities in defense of adult
business ordinances, hillside ordinances, inverse condemnation, and religious land use
claims.
Lloyd's planning expertise has evolved through the preparation of general plans,
specific plans, commercial /industrial development projects, and related environmental
documents as a private consultant, public agency planner, and private development
company project manager. He has considerable experience in "environmental
strategy," assisting in the coordination of development design with up -front
environmental analysis and mitigation. Lloyd has a unique ability to organize and
manage public participation programs and consensus building efforts, and is a trained
mediator. He has managed environmental analyses for large -scale residential
commercial /industrial, recreation, and public works projects, as well as public
community planning projects.
Awards
® Outstanding Planning Award— Small Jurisdiction: Sixth Street Specific Plan.
Awarded by the Inland Empire Section, American Planning Association.
® Outstanding Planning Award— Small Jurisdiction: Ojai General Plan Land Use
and Circulation Elements. Awarded by the California Chapter, American
Planning Association.
® Outstanding Planning Award— Large Jurisdiction: California Speedway and
Speedway Business Park. Awarded by the Inland Empire Section, American
Planning Association.
® Outstanding Planning Award — Comprehensive Planning: Calabasas General
Plan. Awarded by the Los Angeles Section, American Planning Association.
PHONE WEB
951.207.9684 metis - env.com
415.828.4290
Page 2
® Distinguished Leadership Award: Awarded by the Inland Empire Section,
American Planning Association.
Principal, Metis Environmental Group,
Oakland, CA
2014 - Present
Responsible for preparation of environmental evaluations and documentation
pursuant to CEQA; Specific Plan and ordinance preparation; and assistance with local,
regional, state, and federal permitting and entitlement processes. Serving as project
director or project manager of large, complex community and environmental planning
projects.
Sr. Vice President, Community Development Practice Leader,
Environmental Science Associates,
Los Angeles, California
2010-2014
Responsible for organization development, strategic planning, and training for ESA's
Community Development program, including development of comprehensive plans
for entire communities, coastal planning, and site planning for individual properties;
environmental evaluations and documentation pursuant to CEQA, NEPA, and other
agency regulations; entitlement processing; and assistance with local, regional, state,
and federal permitting and entitlement processes. Serving as project director or
project manager of large, complex community and environmental planning projects.
Environmental Sciences Business Class Manager, West Region Director of
Community Planning,
HDR, INC.,
Riverside, California
20OS - 2010
Responsible for management and preparation of planning and environmental
documents for large, complex land development and infrastructure projects. Also
responsible for organization development and strategic planning for HDR's
Community Planning program throughout the western United States.
Principal /Associate /Project Manager, LSA Associates, Inc.,
Riverside, California
1994-2005
Responsible for management and preparation of planning documents for complex
Page 3
planning programs, including multi - jurisdictional planning efforts, community -wide
General Plan efforts, and site - specific development plans. Served as project manager
of the award - winning Ojai General Plan Land Use and Circulation General Plan
Elements. Also served as project managerfor the California Speedway and adjacent
business park on the former site of the Kaiser steel mill in Fontana, California.
President, Planning Network,
Rancho Cucamonga, California
1983-1994
In addition to administrative responsibilities, responsible for overall project strategy
and quality control, design and implementation of public participation programs, and
presentations before administrative and legislative bodies. Directly prepared all or
portions of planning documents and reports of unusual complexity, including General
Plans, specific plans, and performance standards for new development. Served as
project manager of general plans, specific plans, and environmental impact reports.
Prepared hillside development guidelines for the cities of Lancaster, Hemet, and
Calabasas as part of General Plan update programs. Served as project manager for the
preparation of commercial /industrial specific plans covering several thousand acres of
land in the cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Palmdale, and Fontana.
Project Manager /Director of Planning, L. D. King Engineering,
Ontario, California
198o-1983
Responsible for management and preparation of planning documents, including
specific plans and environmental impact reports. As Director of Planning, supervised
staff of six project managers, planners, and graphic technicians. Prepared analysis and
provided expert testimony for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation
as part of the adjudication of water rights along the Colorado River, including
determination of those lands within the reservation which were "practicably irrigable"
(could be commercially farmed).
Project Manager, Covington Technologies,
Fullerton, California
1979 -198o
Responsible for securing entitlements for residential developments ranging in size
from 10 to 1,28o acres, including specific plans, tentative and final tract maps,
infrastructure improvement plans, and building permits. Supervised and administered
the contracts of civil engineers and other consultants.
Page 4
Senior Planner /Planner ll, Riverside County, California
1976-1979
Prepared and later supervised the preparation of area general plans as part of the
County's overall general plan program. Prepared a manual for department use on the
methodology for area general plan formulation. Responsible for review and
recommendations on general plan amendments being processed by the County.
Served as staff to the County Open Space Resources Committee whose responsibility
was to review and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the
creation, enlargement, and cancellation of agricultural preserve contracts pursuant to
the Williamson Act.
Planner/, San Joaquin County, California,
1975-1976
Responsible for preparation of the Safety, Seismic Safety, and Scenic Highways
elements of the County General Plan. Conducted detailed studies and provided land
use recommendations for portions of the Land Use Element, which were later
incorporated into the plan. Prepared analyses of proposed state legislation affecting
agricultural land preservation.
Junior Planner, City of Concord, California
1974 -1975
Prepared a citywide neighborhood analysis to be used for evaluating Community
Development Block Grant requests. As part of this analysis, conducted a demographic
and land use analysis of the City to identify residential, commercial, and industrial
planning areas and their distinguishing characteristics.
CEQA Documentation for Residential I Commercial ( Mixed -Use Communities
Brisbane Baylands, Brisbane CA. Lloyd directed preparation of the environmental
impact report forthe proposed development of a 733 -acre brownfield site. The project
is highly controversial, and would more than double the population and
commercial /business park square footage of this small community south of San
Francisco. Under Lloyd's direction, the EIR addresses a complex development proposal
forthe Baylands, including four development scenarios at an equal level of detail,
along with additional alternatives at a lesser level of detail. The project analyzed in the
EIR also includes a proposed water transfer agreement between the City, Oakdale
Irrigation District and two other agencies, as well as construction of an onsite recycled
Page 5
water facility. The site consists of a former rail yard and landfill, requiring extensive
remediation and a landfill closure plan, the impacts of both of which are also
addressed in the EIR. In addition to preparation of the EIR, Lloyd assisted the City
determine the project's approval process and define the relationship between the
complex planning and environmental review processes. Lloyd also conducted
community outreach related to the EIR, including a series of four EIR presentation
workshops and three presentations to various community groups.
Mariner's Village, Marina del Rey, CA. Lloyd is directing preparation of an EIR for
renovation of an existing apartment project within Marina del Rey, including
expansion of existing onsite commercial uses and development of a 92 -slip anchorage.
Trees within the existing apartment complex function as a rookery for great blue
herons and double- breasted cormorants, creating numerous conflicts within the
apartment complex. Key issues include balancing the apartment complex's
environmental functions with its livability and addressing impacts related to boating
safety and in -water recreation resulting from construction and operation of the
proposed anchorage.
Old Towne La Verne Specific Plan EIR, La Verne, CA. Lloyd served as the Project Director
forthe EIR for the Old Town La Verne Specific Plan, which comprises approximately
is5 -acres and includes Old Town La Verne, the University of La Verne, a portion of the
Los Angeles County Fairplex property, the new Metro Gold Line Station, and existing
industrial and service uses located along First Street and Arrow Highway.
Ontario Mills, Ontario, CA. Lloyd served as the project manager and primary author for
preparation of the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report for development of
the s.o million square foot Ontario Mills mall and surrounding properties at the
junction of the 1 -3.o and 1 -z5 freeways.
CEQA Documentation for Public Policy Documents
Pleasanton Climate Action Plan and General Plan Update EIR, Pleasanton, CA. Lloyd
provided senior leadership and directed preparation of an EIR to support a Climate
Action Plan (CAP) and Housing Element update to reduce community -wide
greenhouse gas emissions and help settle two separate lawsuits. Lloyd was
responsible for ensuring consistent approaches to the CAP and CEQA documentation
for the CAP and Housing Element, and was instrumental in defining the General Plan
Amendmentto increase housing availability as the common element that allowed the
City to prepare a single EIR for both the CAP and Housing Element.
Riverside County Integrated Project, Riverside County, CA. Lloyd served as the
environmental director for this large -scale planning and environmental documentation
program, overseeing a sS.o million CEQA /NEPA documentation program. He was
responsible for overall direction and coordination of four related environmental
documents, including preparation of an integrated environmental and planning
database for Riverside County, the EIR for Riverside County's comprehensive General
Plan update (for which he also served as project manager), an EIR /EIS for a multi -
species habitat conservation plan (MSHCP) covering the western portion of the County
(including incorporated cities), and CEQA /NEPA documents for two intra- county
transportation corridors.
City of Glendora, Hillside Ordinance Analysis, Glendora, CA. Under contract to the City,
Lloyd managed preparation of environmental and planning evaluations of a proposed
Initiative Ordinance. The evaluation generally followed the outline of the City's CEQA
Checklist and was prepared in a manner that was easily understandable by the non-
technical reader, and included a summary matrix that lent itself to easy public
distribution. In preparing the report, Lloyd worked closely with the City Attorney's
office and Glendora's Planning and Engineering staff to ensure that the report was
factually accurate and non - biased. He presented the report to the City Council in a
public session attended by over zoo citizens, and the report was distributed to citizens
throughout the city.
City of Los Angeles Special Reorganization, Los Angeles, Ca. Following applications for
special reorganizations of the City of Los Angeles to create new cities in the San
Fernando Valley, Hollywood, and Harbor areas out of existing lands within the City of
Los Angeles, LAFCO determined that EIRs for these special reorganization proposals
would be required. Mr. Zola served as the project director for three EIR documents,
including assisting the EIR project manager define issues related to the proposed
reorganization in a mannerthat could be evaluated for potential environmental
impacts, conducting the public scoping session forthe proposed EIRs, and providing
environmental expertise at the public hearing for the proposed Hollywood
reorganization.
Wal -Mart, Sam's Club, Various Locations, CA. Mr. Zola has been involved in land
planning and environmental documentation for several Wal -Mart and Sam's Club
projects, including projects in Lancaster, San Jacinto, Santa Fe Springs, Glendora and
Riverside.
CEQA Documentation for Public Facilities
Coronado Lifeguard Public Safety Service Building EIR, Coronado, CA. Subsequent to a
court ruling that the City's Mitigated Negative Declaration was inadequate, Lloyd was
retained to direct preparation of an EIR for the proposed construction of a Lifeguard
Page 7
Public Safety Service Building. The Lifeguard Services Building was the third and final
component of a program of beach facilities improvements undertaken by the City of
Coronado under its Beach Facilities Master Plan. The EIR was successfully prepared
and certified without legal challenge.
City of Delano, Wastewater Treatment Plant MND, Delano, CA, Project Manager. Lloyd
assisted the City of Delano with the proposed expansion of its existing municipal
wastewater treatment facility by preparing environmental documentation pursuant to
the provisions of CEQA and NEPA. The City proposed to expand the capacity of its
existing facility by approximately 8.8 million gallons per day to provide wastewater
capacity for current and future residents until over a zo -year period.
Entertainment Venues
Auto Club (formerly California) Speedway / Conversion of the Kaiser Fontana Steel Mill,
Fontana, CA. Lloyd served as the consultant project manager for planning, technical
studies, and entitlement efforts for the initial development of the Auto Club
Speedway, a two -mile super speedway adjacent to the City of Fontana. The project
involved redevelopment of the abandoned Kaiser Fontana steel mill. In this effort, he
was responsible for ensuring the timely completion of project architectural and
engineering design; as well as water, sewer, traffic, noise, and air quality technical
studies. He also prepared and processed planned development documents for the
speedway. The project was awarded as an Outstanding Project by the Inland Empire
Section of the American Planning Association for attention to the early identification
and resolution of project issues, which resulted in completion of the design and
entitlement process, including preparation of an EIR by San Bernardino County in less
than 14 months. Following project approval, Lloyd supervised preparation of the
traffic management plan for the io5,000 spectator capacity facility. Lloyd was
subsequently retained by the speedway to assist in modifications of noise standards
from nuisance -based standards to health -based standards and to provide permitting
for permanent operation of a drag strip facility originally constructed pursuant to a
temporary use permit. In addition to entitlements for the speedway, Lloyd also
prepared the specific plan to convert the mill's former warehouses into a modern
business park, including redesign and environmental studies for reconfiguration to
increase the capacity of the Etiwanda Avenue interchange on the I -so freeway.
Speedway Environmental and Feasibility Studies, Various Locations, Project Manager. In
addition to the Auto Club Speedway, Lloyd has been retained on several occasions to
perform feasibility analysis for proposed speedway facilities, including projects for:
® The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to conduct studies as to whether a
speedway could be safely located within Tribal lands without creating
significant noise impacts.
® The former owner of the Detroit Pistons to prepare noise and other feasibility
studies for the proposed conversion of the Michigan State Fairgrounds horse
racing track to auto racing.
® Penske Motorsports to assist in feasibility studies for development of a two -
mile superspeedway in Aurora, Colorado, and southwest of Denver
International Airport.
Porsche Experience Driving Center, Carson, CA. Lloyd supervised preparation of the EIR
for the S3 -acre Porsche Experience Driving Center project located on a former landfill
in the City of Carson. The EIR addressed development and operation of the driver
training facility, which includes two tracks, an acceleration/deceleration area, an off -
road course, and ice /low- friction courses along with a museum, restaurant, retail and
office spaces, and a "human performance center." In addition to analyzing the impacts
of developing and operating the driver training facility, Lloyd's team evaluated the
impacts of site remediation, including construction of a landfill cover and gas control
systems.
Community Planning
Ventura Freeway Corridor Areawide Plan and EIR, Los Angeles County, CA. Lloyd served
as the project manager and primary author for a joint planning effort between Los
Angeles County and the cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, and Westlake
Village; Las Virgenes Unified School District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District;
and the National Park Service. The purpose of this large -scale planning effort was to
prepare Los Angeles County's community plan for the Santa Monica Mountains area,
ensure compatible land use and consistent development standards throughout the
area's incorporated and unincorporated areas, ensure coordination between planning
by the five municipal entities and the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area, and provide a firm basis for master planning efforts by the area's two largest
special district service providers. As part of this effort, Lloyd undertook a substantial
public outreach effort involving a policy committee made up of elected officials, a 30-
member citizens committee, and a staff -level technical committee. Lloyd was
subsequently retained by Los Angeles County to provide environmental document for
the ridgeline protection ordinance that was prepared implementing the Areawide
Plan.
Building Industry Association of Southern, San Bernardino County General Plan Update
Review, San Bernardino, CA. The Baldy View Chapter of the Building Industry
Page 9
Association ( Baldy View BIA) retained Lloyd to represent Baldy View BIA during the
2007 County of San Bernardino General Plan Update. Lloyd was responsible for
reviewing the proposed updated General Plan, Community Plans, and Development
Code, evaluating the effects these documents would have on development
throughout the County, and assisting the Baldy View BIA craft appropriate responses
to address its concerns. Lloyd represented the Baldy View BIA at meetings with
County planning and Supervisors' staffs to discuss concerns and present solutions to
relevant issues in the General Plan update program. Through a series of meetings,
suggested revisions, and additional review, consensus between the County and BIA
was achieved concerning the General Plan update. Lloyd also represented the Baldy
View BIA at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors.
City of Shafter General Plan Update and EIR, Shafter, CA. Lloyd served as the project
manager and primary author for the City's General Plan update and EIR. As part of this
effort, Lloyd also supervised preparation of a Municipal Services Review that was
submitted to LAFCO in support of the City's request for a substantial increase in its
sphere of influence. The EIR prepared for the General Plan addressed not only the
impacts of the proposed General Plan update, but also the impacts of expanding the
City's boundaries by approximately 5o percent, two large scale specific plans proposed
within the southeast annexation area, and a proposed cancellation of agricultural
preserve contracts covering approximately s,000 acres within the proposed
annexation area. As part of this effort, Lloyd assisted the City to develop a streamlined
CEQA process that has successfully streamlined review of development projects
consistent with the updated General Plan.
City of Pico Rivera, General Plan Update and EIR, Pico Rivera, CA. Lloyd is serving as the
project director for a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan, having
previously served as the project manager and primary author of the City's 1993
General Plan. A key feature of the update programs was extensive bilingual
community outreach. Lloyd was also retained by the City to assist in defending its
adult business ordinance and to prepare revisions to the ordinance's location
standards.
San Bernardino County Commercial Solar Energy Generation Facilities Ordinance, San
Bernardino County, CA Manager. Lloyd was retained by the County of San Bernardino
to prepare an ordinance governing the development of commercial solar energy
generation facilities in the County. Lloyd produced the ordinance, which contains
detailed development standards to address substantial land use compatibility issues
occurring under the County's previous ordinance, on a fast track schedule to meet the
County's need to replace its previous emergency ordinance.
Page so
City of Malibu, Local Coastal Program, Malibu, CA. The City of Malibu retained Lloyd to
provide technical input and represent the City as Coastal Commission staff prepared
the Local Coastal Program forthe City. Subsequent to adoption of the Local Coastal
Program, Lloyd assisted the City of Malibu to prepare an amendment package to
resolve problems the City was having with implementation of the LCP prepared by
Coastal Commission staff. He assisted the City in preparing six components of the
technical amendment to the Malibu LCP and making presentations before the
Planning Commission and City Council.
The Colonies Partnership, The Colonies at San Antonio, Upland, CA. Lloyd was
responsible for preparation of the Colonies at San Antonio Specific Plan, involving a
multi - disciplinary team to plan and design the community. A key part of the design of
the specific plan involved reuse of an abandoned surface mine and negotiations for
mitigation of wetlands and waters of the United States that were present within the
project site. Lloyd developed and implemented a strategy that demonstrated
independent utility for Phase 1. development, facilitating development of Phase 1. and
creating cash flow for the project while more complex planning and regulatory permit
processing was undertaken for subsequent phases of development. Lloyd also
provided design guidelines for high- density mixed -use development within one of the
specific plan's development areas. He was subsequently retained to develop design
regulations and environmental documentation to integrate LED changeable message
boards into the project's freeway- oriented signage.
Airport - Related Development
Hofer Ranch (UPS West Coast Air Cargo Hub and Hofer Ranch airport Business Park
Specific Plans), Ontario, CA. The Hofer Ranch is the last working ranch and vineyard in
the City of Ontario, California, located immediately south of Ontario International
Airport. Development of the final portions of the ranch is encompassed in two
development plans: UPS Air Cargo Hub and the Hofer Ranch Airport Business Park.
The UPS Air Cargo Hub consists of 1..59 acres, and includes an aircraft apron forthe
loading and unloading of cargo aircraft, aircraft and vehicle fueling facilities, aircraft
maintenance facilities, and a 600,000 square foot package sorting facility. The Hofer
Ranch Airport Business Park provides forthe development of 1.96 acres of mixed use
industrial and commercial uses, including adaptive reuse of existing historic structures
within the original ranch complex, which is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. A total of 1..9 million square feet of industrial /R &D use and 250,000 of
commercial use are proposed. Lloyd served as the primary author of both
Page 11
development plan documents, and was responsible for securing required entitlements
from the City of Ontario. For the UPS site, he was responsible for preparation of
development regulations, design guidelines, and coordination of utility planning based
on a site design prepared by UPS. For the Airport Business Park development, he was
responsible for preparation of the land plan for the site and preparation of
environmental documentation (Mitigated Negative Declaration), as well as for
development regulations, design guidelines (including plans for adaptive reuse of the
designated historic district), and coordination of utility planning.
Mesa Gateway Development Plan, Mesa, AZ. Community Outreach, Strategic Planning
Advisor. Lloyd was responsible for designing and assisting in conducting community
outreach for the Mesa Gateway Strategic Development Plan. Spurred by the
realignment of Williams Air Force Base, the need for new airport facilities to
supplement Sky Harbor Airport, the proposed expansion of Arizona State University,
and closure of GM's Mesa Proving Grounds, the City of Mesa embarked on a program
to create a regional employment center with a mix of jobs emphasizing the attraction
of at least ioo,000 high wage — high value jobs adjacent to the Phoenix Mesa Gateway
Airport, emphasizing the integration of the airport and surrounding new urban center.
In addition to designing the community outreach program and conducting several
outreach sessions, Lloyd assisted in the development of strategic planning for the 32
square mile planning area.
Sierra Army Depot Reuse Plan, Herlong, CA. The reuse plan includes analysis of on -base
and regional conditions, regional market conditions, and reuse opportunities for 4,338
acres of land offered to the community under the BRAC process. The plan sets forth
land use, infrastructure, and community facilities plans for reuse of excessed portions
of the Depot, which is located 6o miles north of Reno, Nevada. Included are plans for
development and adaptive reuse of zo acres of residential uses, 3.6 acres of
commercial use and a 486 -acre business park (4.z million square feet of building area).
The reuse plan also provides for use of Amedee Army Airfield as a civilian use facility,
including development of airport- related and general industrial uses adjacent to the
field. Lloyd served as the project manager and primary author of the reuse plan. In
this effort, he prepared land use plans and development standards, and was also
responsible for ensuring the timely completion of airport design and building reuse
feasibility studies, as well as water, sewer, drainage and traffic studies.
Expert Witness Experience: Planning Regulations and Environmental Issues
Ace Properties v. San Diego. Lloyd was retained by the City of San Diego to assist in a
takings claim involving property within the Otay Mesa Community Plan area. He
reviewed the City's existing citywide General Plan, existing and proposed community
Page 1z
plans, and existing and proposed zoning for a site within the City along the Mexican
border to determine its developability and the reasonableness of proposed regulations
in relation to the site's development potential based on existing onsite environmental
constraints. Lloyd provided deposition and trial testimony. The City prevailed in this
case at trial.
American Tower Corporation v. San Diego. Lloyd was retained by the City of San Diego
to assist in defense of litigation brought as the result of the City's denial of conditional
use permits for three wireless telecommunications facilities. Lloyd prepared a report
addressing the role of conditional use permits and regulation of wireless
telecommunications facilities in a community's overall planning program, the
reasonableness of the City of San Diego's requirements for wireless
telecommunications facilities, and the reasonableness of the City's denial of the three
conditional permits at issue in the matter. Depositions were taken. In a summary
judgment action, the City prevailed in relation to the permitting issues addressed in
Lloyd's expert report; however, Plaintiff prevailed in relation to Permit Streamlining
Act issues.
Arizona v. California. Lloyd was retained by the Quechan Indian Nation to assist in
adjudicating water rights along the Colorado River. He identified lands within the
reservation that were "practicably irrigable" and, therefore, eligible for water rights
under the Winters Doctrine. Following depositions and trial testimony before a Spe-
cial Master of the United States Supreme Court, the Special Master determined that
the tribe should be granted water rights for approximately go percent of the lands re-
quested by the Quechan Nation. The full Supreme Court set aside the
recommendation of the Special Master, due to disputes over the legal boundaries of
the reservation, without ruling on the merits of the identification of practicably
irrigable lands
Kawaoka v. Arroyo Grande. Lloyd was retained by the City of Arroyo Grande in a
federal civil rights suit challenging the City's General Plan. To assist the City, he
prepared a declaration documenting Arroyo Grande's process for preparing and
adopting its General Plan, focusing on the effects the process and provisions of the
General Plan had on certain agricultural interests in the City. The City was awarded a
summary judgment at the trial court, which was appealed. The Ninth District Court of
Appeals cited Lloyd's declaration in its decision upholding the City's actions.
Madero v. El Paso. Lloyd was retained by the City of El Paso, Texas as an expert to
assist the City in defense of a landowner's taking claim resulting from the City's denial
of a plat map within a hillside area. Following depositions, the plaintiff and the City
agreed on a settlement.
Page 3.3
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ. Lloyd
was retained by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to assist in a
condemnation suit involving MWD's Inland Feeder Line. Lloyd was tasked with
determining the development potential of the subject property based on applicable
environmental conditions, development regulations, infrastructure availability, and
economic climate on a more than z3- year -old valuation date. The District and Campus
Crusade reached a settlement in the case.
NJD v. Glendora, NJD v. San Dimas. Lloyd was retained by the cities of Glendora and
San Dimas to assist in their defense of separate actions undertaken first against San
Dimas, and later against Glendora claiming inverse condemnation following denials by
each city of separate proposed hillside developments on each side of the cities'
common boundary. The plaintiff also challenged each City's hillside development
regulations. Depositions were taken in both cases, and both cities' ordinances and
denials were upheld at trial.
Polygon v. Glendale. Lloyd was retained by the City of Glendale in an inverse
condemnation suit involving denial of a proposed hillside development and a challenge
to the City's hillside development regulations. Depositions were taken. As part of
settlement discussions, Lloyd prepared an environmental review of the applicant's
proposed reduced density alternative.
Riverbend Ranch v. County of Madera. Lloyd was retained by Madera County in an
inverse condemnation suit involving the application of flood protection standards and
EIR mitigation measures to a proposed golf course project. Depositions were taken,
and a settlement was eventually reached.
Serena v. Carpinteria. Lloyd was retained by the City of Carpinteria in an inverse
condemnation suit involving adoption of General Plan and local coastal program
provisions for the Carpinteria Bluffs area. Depositions were taken, and the City's
actions were upheld at trial.
Jenna Endres
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Ms. Endres,
Alan Lattanner <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:25 PM
Jenna Endres
Kara Giano; Colleen Connors; Bob Fittrer
Pollard Station Comments from the Stonewood Owner's Association
Stonewood Pollard Station Letter to Town Planning Commission.pdf; Judgment Fitch &
Cook vs Stonewood 9- 20- 11.pdf, Litigation Correspondence re Fitch and Cook.pdf, STW
Pollard Station Review 10- 13- 14.pdf
Please see my letter on behalf of the Stonewood Owners Association that accompanies this email.
We oppose the Pollard Station Senior Living Center project for its negative impact on the quality of life for
residents in the vicinity, both during construction and as an ongoing high traffic and noise generating
commercial operation in our quiet residential neighborhood.
We further object to this project for its significant unmitigated environmental impacts and non - conformance to
the Hilltop Master Plan, which was prepared with extensive community involvement in a process lasting many
years.
At minimum a full CEQA - compliant environmental impact statement is required. We see no rationale for
granting any concessions to the developer.
Sincerely,
Alan V. Lattanner
Board Chair, Stonewood Owners Association
1
Stonewood Owners' Association
Pine Cone Road, Truckee, California.
October 23, 2014
Ms. Jenna Endres
Town of Truckee Planning Division
10183 Truckee Airport Rd.
Truckee, CA 96161
Subject: Pollard Station Senior Living Center
Dear Ms. Endres and Town of Truckee Planning Commissioners,
We oppose the Pollard Station Senior Living Center project for its negative impact on the quality
of life for residents in the vicinity, both during construction and as an ongoing high traffic and
noise generating commercial operation in our quiet residential neighborhood.
We further object to this project for its significant unmitigated environmental impacts and non-
conformance to the Hilltop Master Plan, which was prepared with extensive community
involvement in a process lasting many years.
Having reviewed the Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Pollard
Station Senior Living Center along with related project documents, we respectfully submit this
letter and attachments in response to your invitation to provide comments by October 23, 2014.
A summary our key concerns follows.
1) Applicant (Bill Fitch) has demonstrated the inability to successfully complete a
project and take responsibility for project defects as evidenced by the Stonewood
project. The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Nevada found the
developer guilty of BREACH OF CONTRACT on September 20, 2011, awarding a
judgment in the amount of $32,315.88. As a result, the Stonewood Homeowners have
been financially burdened to rectify the project defects made by this applicant as well as
cover the legal expenses to pursue this applicant in court. This developer continues to
refuse to pay this judgment.
The Stonewood Owners Association Board received e -mail correspondence on October
17, 2014 from David Griffith (Attachment 1), an agent of the Pollard Station project. Mr.
Griffith communicated the following regarding the outstanding unpaid judgment:
"For your information, when I forwarded your board's desire to have the judgment paid
in full to Bill (Fitch), his response was that he would be willing to come to the table to
consider this, in good faith, if the project moves forward. He would consider paying the
judgment costs, as a good neighbor, as part of his responsibility to re- surface Pine Cone
Road, which is a component of the proposed project. "
Stonewood Owners' Association
Pine Cone Road, Truckee, California.
These statements further demonstrate Mr. Fitch's historical practice of taking no
responsibility or accountability for the defects with the Stonewood project and his
continued unwillingness to pay the judgment. This message was perceived as a veiled
threat against the Homeowners Association seeking our support in order to receive
payment.
2) Substantial evidence that the project may result in significant adverse
environmental impacts in the following categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Public Services, Noise, Traffic, and Utilities, even after the mitigations
proposed in the MND. The proposed mitigations do not avoid the significant effects, or
reduce them to a less- than - significant level. Some analyses were omitted. For example, as
with the first application for this project, inadequate information had been provided to
decision makers. An EIR MUST to be prepared.
3) The project does NOT adhere to the Hilltop Master Plan and the Downtown
Specific Plan and the Truckee General Plan provisions. This is the second time the
applicant has presented a proposal that does NOT comply with approved Town
development plans.
4) Lack of consideration for the intent of plans and policies of our community as
evidenced by the request to be exempt from the affordable housing requirements, a
project design that generates a division on Hilltop, and the commercial nature of a project
in an area designated for residences, not business ventures. This is the second project
application for Pollard Station with a lack of plan compliance. The lack of a true
community- focused intent and compliance with these plans and provisions should not be
overlooked because of the need for more senior living services. When one envisions the
"mixed -use concept that is intended to create a walkable neighborhood /village" that
"enhances the concept of a village within the Town" (from the Hilltop Master Plan), a
commercial facility like the proposed project clearly does not fit.
5) The proposed development serves as a division between the Hilltop Master Plan
area and the Pine Cone /Schaffer neighborhood to the east, instead of joining it and
creating a seamless transition between new and existing developments. There is also
a division between downtown and the proposed project due to the likelihood that more
than half of the residents will be over 85 years old
(http: / /wxArv.ahcancal.org /ncal/ resources /Pages /ResidentProfile.aspx) and will have
difficulty walking or riding a bike back from downtown due to the steep grade of the hill.
6) Pollard Station is a commercial use project, but in the Hilltop Master Plan, Truckee
General Plan, and Truckee zoning ordinance the area is designated for residential
use. This commercial use would create a completely different atmosphere, with 24/7
Stonewood Owners' Association
Pine Cone Road, Truckee, California.
employees, delivery trucks, and other uses not typical of medium density residential
areas.
7) There is a lack of information concerning the financial viability of this $40 million
project. It is unclear who would agree to run Pollard Station. A failed project may mean
our historic Hilltop is dotted with large empty buildings, which would create even more
of a division in the neighborhood than the one proposed in the application.
8) As a continuing care complex, Pollard Station should expect to see a higher than
average use of emergency services. This propensity is not mentioned in the noise
analysis. The MND indicates that generators and HVAC units will be kept in contained
structures or on rooftops but these structures are not indicated on the plans for the facility.
9) Many of the exceptions that the Pollard Station project asks for are prefaced with
the fact that Pollard Station will be an age- restricted community. The statement that,
"Should age restrictions be removed from the project in the future, State mandated
mitigation fees will be required in accordance with Government Code Section 65995"
brings up the fear that Pollard Station will not be kept to an age- restricted community.
Lifting this restriction would invalidate many of the original premises which Pollard
Station uses to seek changes to the HMP.
10) The Pollard Station traffic study uses the lowest possible values for projecting
traffic (continuing care complex) when much of the facility is planned for senior
adult housing, which generates much more traffic. Additionally, on page 66, the
MND states that there will not be "any residents who will be commuting to jobs...."
However, the minimum age for the project is 55, which means residents may be
commuting to jobs.
11) The Visual Impact Study that was submitted by the applicant excluded the
foreground trees; making it impossible to determine the visual impact of the project
on historic downtown and High Street,
12) It is unclear from the MND whether the applicant plans to use a small and quiet
residential street, Pine Cone Road, for heavy construction vehicle and equipment
traffic during construction, which will create noise, dust, and other disturbances in
the residential area. Construction of the primary access, the roundabout on Brockway
Road, is proposed for Phase I, but it is unclear whether the roundabout would be built
before the other infrastructure and buildings in Phase 1. Construction traffic for the
Hilltop site should not go through the residential area on Pine Cone Road,
13) The applicant does not have the needed easements to proceed with the project.
Stonewood Owners' Association
Pine Cone Road, Truckee, California.
We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject the proposed Amendments to the Hilltop
Master Plan (HMP) in conjunction with the Pollard Station Senior Living Center and require any
project within the boundaries of the Hilltop Master Plan Area to conform to the HMP as
approved by the Town council, as well as the Downtown Specific Plan and the Truckee General
Plan provisions.
The proposed Pollard Station project is a detriment to the Hilltop area and should not be
approved for this location. It is significantly out of alignment with approved Hilltop Master Plan
which took years of careful planning and community -wide input to create. The voices of all of
our community members who spent hours upon hours creating the Hilltop Master plan will be
ignored if this proposed project proceeds. No changes should be made to the plan without a full
community process.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alan V. Lattanner
Board Chair, Stonewood Owners Association
Attachments
❑ Judgment against Fitch & Cook Communities, Inc. et al. from the Superior Court of
California, County of Nevada, dated September 20, 2011 for Item (1). Filename:
Judgment Fitch & Cook vs Stonewood 9 -20 -1 I.pdf
❑ Supporting email correspondence for Item (1). Filename: Litigation Correspondence re
Fitch and Cook.pdf
❑ Email from David Griffith with subject: Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14 for
Item (1). Filename: STW Pollard Station Review 10- 13- 14.pdf
B =RDING WAIL
A T T 0 R N F. Y S A T L A W
May 4, 2011
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Elise Bu art
17690 V' to Avenue
Monte ereno, CA 95030
Re: Stonewood Owners Association
Dear Ms, Burkhart:
Berding & Weil LLP
3240 Stone Valley Road West
Alamo, California 94507
tel 925 838 2090
fax 925 820 5592
bending- weil.com
On May 9, 2009, Fitch & Cook Communities, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement
with the Stonewood Owners Association to resolve a construction defect dispute related to (a)
the South side retaining wall and drainage system; and (b) the grading of the parking lot.
Pursuant to that agreement, Fitch & Cook Communities represented that it would oversee and
perform an agreed to scope of work for the purpose of repairing those conditions. Fitch & Cook
Communities warranted that the work would be completed as soon as possible, but in no event
later than October 15, 2010. Needless to say, the work has not been completed and you are in
breach of that agreement.
Stonewood Owners Association negotiated in good faith with Fitch & Cook Communities
so that it did not have to incur the expenses associated with construction defect litigation. If
Fitch & Cook Communities does not intend on proceeding with the work, however, the
Association will pursue all available remedies under the governing documents and the California
Civil Code. Please contact me no later than May 16, 2011 to advise whether and when you
intend to proceed with the work. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
BERDING & WEIL LLP
Allison L. Andersen
aandersen @berding- weil.com
�LA:Ikb
cc: Bob Fittrer �->'.
o:\ wDOCS \0002\07U.ET(ER\00544886.DOC
Bob Fittrer
From: Allison Andersen [aaddersen @berding- weil.comj
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 20118:09 AM
TO: Bob Fittrer
Cc: Allison Andersen; Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: FW: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Summons, Complaint, etc.
Attachments% Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook -
Summons.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Complaint & Exh. A.pdf, Stonewood OA v.
Fitch & Cook - Not of CMC (1- 20A2).pdf
:..
As you know, the board authorized Berding & Weil to file a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Prior to filing, I
pulled the CEB Practice Guide to ensure that the Association had satsified the criteria for such a motion. Unfortunately,
because the court never had jurisdiction over the dispute (no prior papers filed with the court, no stipulation to the court's
jurisdiction in the settlement agreement), we were required to obtain jursidiction by filing the attached documents. We do
still intend to proceed as discussed - asking the court to enter judgment per the terms of the settlement agreement. As
soon as we serve the above docs on the developer, we will file the appropriate motion.
Thanks and please let me know if you or the board has any questions.
Allison L. Andersen
[ 45
Slone Valley West B E n Q Iy Y E' L Af o.Cal om a 4507
tel 925.838.2090
fax 925.820.5592
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
protecting attorney client communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Lisa K. Boynton
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 20115:22 PM
To: Allison Andersen
Cc: Gabriel P. Rothman; Lisa Bertorellos Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Summons, Complaint, etc.
1) Civil Case Cover Sheet
1
Download
vCard
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
protecting attorney client communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Lisa K. Boynton
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 20115:22 PM
To: Allison Andersen
Cc: Gabriel P. Rothman; Lisa Bertorellos Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Summons, Complaint, etc.
1) Civil Case Cover Sheet
1
Rnh Fiffrpr
From: Allison Andersen [aandersen@berding- weil.coml
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 20115:16 PM
To: Alan & Norma Lattanner; Bob Fittrer; Garret & Rachel McCullough; Henry & Kara Giano;
Roger & Elisa Fisher; Sean & Colleen Connors
Cc: Allison Andersen; Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: Stonewood Update
Members of the Board:
As you know, the Association needed to file its complaint in order to enforce the terms of the settlement against Fitch &
Cook. We were able to serve Fitch & Cook Communities with the complaint, however it did not file a timely response, so I
requested that the clerk enter a default against the company. That default has now been entered and tomorrow I intend to
ask the court that judgment be entered against the company. Unless F &C Communities decides to appear and challenge
the judgment, the HOA will be in a position to attempt to collect on the judgment: This judgment can, of course, be
excused through bankruptcy proceedings.
The Association additionally named Messrs. Fitch and Cook individually in the lawsuit. We have not been able to serve
either individual with the complaint as we do not know their whereabouts. We are using our resources to attempt to locate
them, but if anyone has any further information on where they can be found, please let me know. Once we serve them,
we will attempt to proceed in the same fashion, but that will require the individuals to likewise ignore the complaint. The
board could opt to dismiss them from the lawsuit, but I think there is a far less chance that they will bankrupt themselves
personally as that would guarantee that they won't be able to obtain any development or construction loans in the near
.future. So, I recommend keeping them in for the time being.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Allison L. Andersen
Partner
, Valley West
B_ R Q 1V G Y _ I L A2amolCalfom a94507
let 925.838.2090
fax 925.820.5592
aandersen @berding- weii.com
Download vCard
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
protecting attorney client communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this cDmmunication or its information without approval is prohibited.
1
i
i
From: Allison Andersen [aandersen@berding- weii.com]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 20114:29 PM
To: Alan & Norma Lattanner; Bob Fittrer; Garret & Rachel McCullough; Henry & Kara Giano;
Roger & Elisa Fisher, Sean & Colleen Connors
Cc: Allison Andersen; Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: Stonewood Judgment Filed by Clerk
Attachments: 6718350 JUDGMENT.pdf
Members of the Board:
Please be advised that judgment has been entered against Fitch & Cook Communities in the amou of $32,315.88. Now
that the judgment has been entered, there is no currently pending litigation by the Association, so re s ...id be no
further issues with regard to sales or refinancing. We will proceed with minimal investigation to see if we can attach the
judgment to real or personal property so that you can collect on that amount.
Thank you,
Allison L. Andersen
B.�RDING WEIL
The Park Tower Building
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
Sacramento, Calfomia 95814
tel 916.443.5100
fax 916.443.5199
cell 916.712.0729
Partner
3240 Stone Valley Road West
Alamo, California 94507
tell 925.838.2090
fax 925.820.5592
aandersen@berding-vmil.com
Download vCard
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
Protecting attorney client communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
mo��
:a•
From:'
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
i • M
Allison Andersen [aandessen @herding- weil.com7
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:20 PM
'Bob Fittrer'
Lisa K. Boynton
F W: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Recorded Judgments
Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - PLACER COUNTY, CA Recorded Abstract of Judgment.pdf;
Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Application of Foreign
Judgment (2).pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Affidavit of
Judgment Creditor .pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV -
Notice of Filing of Application of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of Judgment Creditor
(1).pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Affidavit of
Service.pdf, Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Affirmation -
Domestication of Foreign Judgment.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF
DOUGLAS, NV - Appi. of Foreign Judgment.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY
OF DOUGLAS, NV - Affidavit of Judgment Creditor.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook -
COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, NV - Notice of Filing Appl. of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of
Judgment Creditor.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, NV -
Affidavit of Service.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, NV -
Affirmation - Domestication of Foreign Judgment.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Attached please find the majority of the documents related to the recordation of the judgments. It was a bit of a process,
so we apologize for the delay.
Thank you,
Allison L. Andersen
B®RDING yll EIL
The Park Tower Building
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
tel 916.443.5100
fax 916.443.5199
cell 916.712.0729
3240 Stone Valley Road West
Alamo, California 94507
tel 925.8382090
fax 925.820.5592
We", .., : .
..
Affidavit of Service; and
Affirmation — Domestication of Foreign Judgment.
2) Douglas County, Nevada:
Application of Foreign Judgment;
Affidavit of Judgment Creditor;
this communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges,
ncluding those
)rotecting attorney client communications and attorney work product information.
Ise of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
Froth: Lisa K. Boynton
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:04 PM
ro: Allison Andersen
Cc: Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Recorded
) udgments
1) Washoe County. Nevada:
Application of Foreign Judgment;
Affidavit of Judgment Creditor;
Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of
Judgment Creditor;
Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of Judgment Creditor;
Affidavit of Service; and
ATTORKy OR PARTY MMOUT ATTORNEY (Name, +fete bar mmW. Wd&d&#aa1'
Allison L. Andersen (CSB# 2213 3)
- Gabriel P. Rothman (CSB# 25384 }
Berding & Weil LLP
3240 Stone valley Road West
Alamo, CA 94507
TEI.EPWNENO.: 925/838 -2090 FAxNo.(q*ar . &925 /820 -5592
ernAU AnoRESS(Ol +en: aandersen@berdinf3-weii.com
.rrn[2NEviroRtmam). Stonewood Owners; Association
SUPERIOR COt1RT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF Nevada
smEsTADOMss: 10075 Levon Avenue, Suite 301
MAILING ADDRESS:
cmrAwzLvc E: Truckeer California 95161
sRAwm : Truckee Branch
PLAINTIFF: Stonewaod Owners Association
DEFENDANT:Fitch & Cook CommuD
JUDGMENT
x By Clerk ® By Default
= By Court = On Stipulation
ties, Inc., et al.
r. .
F After Court Trial
Defendant Did Not
Appear at Trial M
JUDGMENT
1. [ 13Y DEFAULT
a. Defendant was properly served with 4 copy of the summons and complaint.
b. Defendant failed to answer the corroWnt or appear and defend the action within the lime
c. Defendanrs default was entered by the dark upon plaintiff's application.
d..® Clerk's Judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 585(a)). Defendant was sued only on a Cort
this-state for the recovery of money.
e. [� Court Judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 585(b)). The court considered
(1) .Q plaintffl's testimony and other evidence.
(2) = plaintiff's written dect.0ration (Code Civ. Proc., § 685(d)).
2. ON STIPULATION •
a. Plaintiff and defendant agreed (stipvtated) that a judgment be entered in this case. The
judgment and
b. 0 the signed written stipulation was filed in the case.
c. 0 the stipulation was stated in open court 0 the stipulation was stated on the
3. = AFTER COURT TRIAL. The jury was waived. The courtconsidered the evidence.
,
a. The case was tried on {date and time):
before (name of judicial officer):
b. Appearances by:
[� Plaintiff (name each):
(1)
(2)
Q Continued on Attachment 3b.
C] Defendant (name each):
(1)
(2)
= Continued on Attachment 3b.
[� Plaintiffs
(1)
(2)
[] Defendant's
(y)
(2)
c. = Defendant did not appear at Vial. Defendant was property served with notice of
d. = A statement of decision (Code Civ. Proc., § 832) 0 was not = was
JUDGMEN-t
cotJRr inE ONLY
an
:.. I to . =#:
(name each):
(name each):
�Jt
PLAINTIFF. Stonewood Owners Association cASENC SM4
T11/4680
DEFENDANT: Fitch & Cook Communitiea, Inc., et al.
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOLLOWS BY: Q THE COURT [TO THE CLERIC
4. [Q Stipulated Judgment Judgment is enterjed according to the stipulation of the parties.
5, Patties, Judgment is
a. ® for plaintiff (name each) Stonewood Owners c. [Q for cross - complainant ( ame each):
Association
and against defendant (names): Fitch & Cook
communities, Inc.
Q Continued on Attachment 5a.
b. = for defendant (name each):
6. Amount,
a. [ Jx Defendant named in Item 5a above must
pay plainer on the complaint
(1)
ETC)
Damages
ry ..,)f f
$
26r$60.00
(2)
®
Prejudgment
$
5 , 7 5 5.8
8
interest at the
annual rate of
10%
(3)
[Q
Attorney fees
$
0000
(4)
Q
Costs
$
0000
0
(5)
Q
Other (specify):
$
0000
(6)
TOTAL
$
32,15.88
b. [Q Plaintiff to receive nothing from defendant
named in item 5b.
Q Defendant named in item 5b to rei over
Sts $ 0.0 0
and attorney fees $ 0.00
7, Q Other (specify):
Date:
Date:
cr
r. e.
ry ..,)f f
$
0000
(2)
(SEAL)
JU0 -100 (Nor Jan6wY It
and against
(name each):
5c,
each):
C, Q Cross - defendant named It item 5c above must pay
cross - complainant on the ss- complaint:
(1)
Q
Damages
$
0000
(2)
Q
Prejudgment
$
0400
interest at the
annual rate of
%
(3)
Q
Attorney fees
$
0,00
(4)
Costs
$
0.0
0
(5)
Q
other (spec+7yk
$
0600
(8)
TOTAL
$
0000
Kr /j Z
..
cross�defendant named
crossdefendant
costs
JUDICIAL OFFICS
A
CLERKS CERTIFICATE (Optional)
I certify that this is a tree copy of the original judgment on file in the court.
pate:
Cleric, by
JUDGMENT
ive nothing from
Item 5d.
ned in Item 5d to recover
, Deputy
, Deputy
Palo 2 or 2
Gmail - Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10mUmU
Alan Lattanner <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
To: Rachel McCullough <rachel.mcculloughl @ gmail.com>
Griffith's response, for your info. // Alan
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: David Griffith <dgriff1007 @gmail.corn>
Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
To: Bob Fittrer <fittrer @sbcgloba1.net>
Cc: "Connors,Colleen" <seancolleen @gmail.com >,
& Norma" <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
:..
https: / /mail. google .com /mai I /u/0 / ?ui =2 &i k =8c3 788 cb4d &v iew =pt &sea...
Rachel McCullough <rachel.mccullough1@gmaiLcom>
Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM
"Giano, Henry & Kara" <kgiano @goldenl.com >, " Lattanner, Alan
Thank you for your response. As a representative of the Pollard Station project, my main focus is to help educate
interested local residents about the recently re- designed project, and to transparently answer questions about the
project. With that said, can we schedule a presentation with your board in the near future? Next week if possible, or
early the following week? There will likely be another Planning Commission Study Session some time in early
November, and I was hoping to meet with your board before then. At the public study session, the general public will
only have 3 minutes at the podium to speak or ask questions, whereas I can give you as much time as your like!
As for the judgment, first off, would you be willing to send me a copy, for my records, and to present to the developer?
For your information, when I forwarded your board's desire to have the judgment paid in full to Bill, his response was
that he would be willing to come to the table to consider this, in good faith, if the project moves forward. He would
consider paying the judgment costs, as a good neighbor, as part of his responsibility to re- surface Pine Cone Road,
which is a component of the proposed project.
I hope this provides you with confidence that Bill is willing to work with you. He wants a positive /respectful relationship
with you as a potential neighbor of his project. Please remember that I have not been asked to "negotiate" with your
organization. My role is to educate your organization about the project, and express Bill's sentiment that he is willing to
consider working with you to resolve this issue.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
David Griffith
Cell: (530) 414 -3338
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Bob Fittrer <fittrer @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
David Griffith: We understand that you are the representative of the Pollard Station project and have offered to:
1. Review the current
design of the
Pollard Station project with the
board 2.
Address and /or pay the judgment
against
Fitch
& Cook
Communities
dated
9 -20 -11
in
the amount
of
$32,315.88.
The response of the board is that the judgment must be paid in full to the Stonewood Owners Association.
1 of 1 10/21/2014 10:38 PM
Gmail - Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
Thank you, Bob
Bob Fittrer
Bob Fittrer Management
Certified Community Association Manager
15268 Icknield Way, Truckee, Ca. 96161
(Ph) 530 - 582 -0845
(Cell) 530- 906 -5618
fittrer @sbc global.net ,
https:Hmail.google.com /mai l /u/0 / ?ui =2 &i k =8 c378 8cb4d &view =pt &sea...
2 of 2 10/21/2014 10:38 PM
Oct. 23, 2014
Attn: Jaime LaChance VIA EMAIL
Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161 -3306
RE: Pollard Station Project
As a current property owner within the Town of Truckee I am very concerned about the proposed
development of the Pollard Station, which is planned to be located in the Hilltop area. This area
represents one of the last scenic, and historical elements for the Town of Truckee. This area holds a
special place in my heart, as one of the last remaining historical properties. I know, because I used
to reside in a single - family residence above the Hilltop area over thirty years ago.
The Town of Truckee spent an enormous amount of time and energy planning and then adopting the
Hilltop Master Plan for this area. Additionally, local residents participated in that Plan, and they too
spent their time during its initial crafting to ultimate adoption by the Town. For these reasons, as
concerned homeowners, we believe that there should not be any changes to that Plan. Surely what
is being proposed is not consistent with that approved Master Plan. Therefore, if the Town
determines to move forward with this type of development, then the entire Master Plan should be
re- opened up for public review and consideration, and the entire Master Plan should go through a
comprehensive and rigorous environmental review with numerous public scoping and public
meetings, so that the facts can be laid out to the General Public.
Both my husband and I realize that senior housing is necessary within the Tahoe region, but the scale
and the magnitude of this project needs to be critically looked at; and further addressed and analyzed
for its environmental impact to this specific area and the region.
Our immediate suggestion is that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared, and that this
document include technical studies, such as: Water Supply, Health and Safety, Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology, Geology, Land Use, Visual, Traffic and Circulation, and all
other relevant disciplines be prepared. This document should be prepared by an outside and
independent consultant that has no affiliation with either Town or the Developer, so that the
community can be assured that no consulting if misaligned to one cause or another, as we have
recently seen in the KSL /Squaw Valley fiasco.
Sincerely,
Mary and Stan Bennett - Property Owners
11351 Valley Road
Truckee, CA 96161
mountain area preservation
E S T A B L I S H E D I N
Ms. Jenna Endres
Town of Truckee Planning Division
10183 Truckee Airport Rd.
Truckee, CA 96160
jendres @Townoffruckee.com
1 9 8 7
October 23, 2014
RE: Pollard Station MND Application No, 12- 001 /MPA - DCA- DP -UP -TM -HDR
Dear Ms. Endres,
On behalf of the Board and Staff of Mountain Area Preservation (MAP), we would
like to submit the following comments into the public record regarding the Initial
Study (IS) /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Pollard
Station Senior Living Center, Application No. 12- 001 /MPA - DCA- DP -UP -TM -HDR.
Upon our initial review of the proposed project and MND we have identified
concerns and inadequate environmental review regarding inconsistency with the
Hilltop Master Plan (HMP), significant impacts related to the environment with the
proposed project, as well as public process concerns. While the new proposal differs
from the original 2009 application, the project is still incompatible with the vision
and goals the HMP had envisioned for the 8 -acre parcel site, which is located at the
center of the master plan community. The project would need to amend the HMP,
which represents a community driven planning document for the entire project site
to allow for senior housing /congregate care, which is currently not allowed under
the HMP. Furthermore, the project applicant has requested to be exempt from the
inclusionary housing requirement, as called for in the Town of Truckee
Development Code (Chapter 18.216). The Town of Truckee requires that 15% of all
new dwelling units in a residential development project shall be affordable (section
18.14.040 B), while also needing an inclusionary housing plan which is not
identified in the project proposal, project description nor the MND. The project
description and MND needs to be revised and re- circulated to contain an
inclusionary housing plan or statement for exemption.
Our review of the project has determined further environmental analysis is
warranted for the proposed project. The MND represents the minimal level of CEQA
1
analysis for a project use that is currently not allowed under the governing
document for the project site. The project description and MND analysis is also
lacking needed detail such as grading plans, construction plans, site layouts, and
building elevations which is needed to analyze potential environmental impacts
associated with the project considering its location and direct impact to the
viewshed of Historic Downtown Truckee.
MAP has determined that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is needed in
order to fully analyze all substantive impacts related to the Pollard Station proposal,
including cumulative impacts and EIR project alternatives. We also feel that
processing a project that is not an allowed use under the HMP warrants community
discussions and workshops focused on examining whether or not senior housing
and congregate care is appropriate for the site and HMP. The HMP represents
countless community hours and land use goals and policies for the 37.8 acre parcel
located within the Downtown corridor which envisioned, a mixed use concept that is
intended to create a walkable neighborhood /village. While the design theme for the
village will be within the Town's regulatory framework, it is more use - restrictive and
enhances the concept of a village within in a village, (HMP pg.1 -4). It is unclear how
senior specialized care fits this vision.
The following issues illustrate the need for a full EIR to be prepared for the
proposed Pollard Station application.
• The proposed project will create significant impacts to Hilltop Master
Plan and Downtown Medium Density Residential District (DRM), with a
Senior Living Facility, which is not an allowed use. The HMP was intended
for medium density residential units and accessory uses. While the Pollard
Station proposal includes some alignment with the DRM with the
condominium proposal, 5 large lodge buildings and 13 condominium
buildings dominate the project design, which represents building coverage of
80,777 sq. ft. This disturbance is more of a commercial use for a senior care
facility, which will operate 24 hours a day and dominate the character of the
development. This is a significant land use impact that needs to be further
analyzed in an EIR to determine impacts with a large commercial like setting,
with the lodge facilities, and the impact on the existing residential setting.
The vision for the HMP, which was originally intended for a residential
neighborhood development, to blend with existing development and connect
to the downtown core. A full EIR would allow for more specific analysis to
look a land use impacts, cumulative impacts with existing and future
development and evaluate alternatives.
• Significant viewshed and aesthetic impacts will result from the
proposed project to the Downtown core and overall Hilltop community
character. The project proposes significant grading and tree removal for the
8 -acre parcel located within the center of the HMP. The five large lodge
2
buildings will require significant grading for the proposed building envelopes
square footage, the HMP prohibits mass pad grading for building pads and
large -scale vegetation removal is not allowed (HMP, Section 6.17.2). The
project proposes removal of 285 trees out of 470 trees on the project parcel.
While the MND notes that building design and infrastructure improvements
dictate the need for the tree removal, significant impacts will occur along the
Brockway corridor and ridgeline of the Hilltop area with extensive grading
and vegetation removal, creating significant visual impacts to the
surrounding area.
The HMP prohibits this type of grading and vegetation removal in mitigation
measure 1.a. and 1.b. (HMP IS /MND, pg. 8). The MND downplays the
significance of the tree removal by stating any development would require
significant tree removal, yet the HMP mitigation measure 1a suggests
removal of trees 24 inches or greater can be removed when there are no
practical methods to preserve trees and vegetation clusters. The MND does
not evaluate alternatives nor measures to analyze alternatives in order to
preserve trees 24 inches or greater. An EIR needs to identify and evaluate
specific alternatives to look at ways to preserve tree clusters as written in the
HMP guidelines. The design of the 5 lodge like buildings represent significant
vegetation removal of 2.3 acres, this is significant and inconsistent with the
HMP mitigation measures.
• The MND fails to evaluate the biological loss of tree removal and its
aesthetic impacts. A full EIR would analyze the loss of vegetation from a
biological standpoint, look at provisions for retaining trees and tree clusters
of 24 inches and greater, while also addressing design alternatives that
respect the HMP guidelines for tree preservation. The MND is inadequate in
this respect. The MND analysis is also based on old data sets to analyze
biological loss from the HMP program MND from 10+ years ago (Pollard
Station MND, pg. 40). CEQA requires that current baseline data and surveys
be used in order to adequately analyze potential significant impacts. Using
old data sets warrants new studies to be conducted to identify whether
conditions have changed over a decade at the project site.
• The MND fails to adequately identify the visual impacts that will occur
with grading and cutting into slopes with the proposed project design.
The MND does not illustrate nor include what sort of visual analysis was
conducted to look at significant impacts to the viewshed of Downtown
Truckee and the Brockway corridor. The MND mentions HPAC had
discussions about key vantage points and impacts associated with the project
at build out, yet there is no analysis or methodology included in the MND that
can dictate the impacts as less than significant (Pollard Station MND, pg.24).
The MND states that cutting into slopes and stepping down buildings into the
hillside will reduce visual impacts to less than significant, yet no analysis is
3
f
used to verify this as appropriate mitigation. An EIR needs to adequately
analyze the visual impact with GIS modeling or a computer generated
simulation of the project at the five different construction phases, full build
out and existing site conditions today to effectively analyze potential visual
impacts and mitigation measures.
• The MND fails to adequately analyze cultural resources for the project
site, with grading and vegetation removal. The MND notes that HPAC
reviewed the 2003 on -site cultural survey and no archeological resources
were identified; yet there is no analysis included in the MND. Data from 2003
is also outdated and should be re- evaluated. Mitigation Measure 4.a is vague
in stating any cultural resources will be collected if found during
construction. Due to the massive amount of site disturbance with 60% of the
tree vegetation being removed, mass pad grading with 5 lodge complexes
and the proximity of the site location in historic downtown cultural artifacts
will likely be found. The MND does not truly substantiate how impacts will be
reduced to less than significant with mitigation measure 4.a., furthermore the
MND does not state how to deal with the different cultural artifacts if found
during construction. The MND needs to be revised to include appropriate
mitigation measures and comply with CEQA.
• Trip generation and GHG emissions seem undervalued. The MND
assumes that traffic generation will be less due to the proposed project being
a senior age restricted development (impact discussion 7.a.). The traffic
analysis does not take into account the condominium units outside the lodge
complexes, it groups these types of units into the senior lodge facilities, by
assuming less traffic will occur, due to the development being a senior center.
The condominium units will likely have higher vehicle trips, for independent
senior who can travel by car, these units can not be accounted for in the same
analysis as the continuing care lodge analysis, since more vehicle trips are
likely for the 'active' seniors. It is inappropriate to make such assumptions
for trip generation. The traffic analysis needs to be revised and recalculated
to include trip generation cited in the 2013 Hilltop traffic analysis. Making
the assumption there will be less vehicle trips due to the senior care lodges
and not analyzing the condominium units makes the traffic analysis and
finding of less than significant invalid.
• A `Climate Action Program' is missing from MND and Pollard Station
application. The MND assumes there is mitigation for the air quality and
GHG assessment, yet no plan is provided, (Pollard Station MND pg. 67). Other
proposed developments such as Hotel Avery were required to have a
`Climate Action Program' as a part of the environmental analysis. The MND
needs to be revised and re- circulated to include this plan.
El
" A i r Q u a l i t y , G H G e m i s s i o n s a n d T r a f f i c a n a l y s i s i s d i m i n i s h e d a n d
v a g u e l y e v a l u a t e d i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s . T h e M N D i s s t a t i n g t h a t
a s e n i o r c a r e f a c i l i t y , w i t h m o s t s e n i o r s b e i n g a s s i s t e d w i t h d a i l y c a r e ,
w a l k a b i l i t y a n d c o n n e c t i v i t y t o t r a i l s w i l l l e s s e n t h e G H G e m i s s i o n s t o l e s s
t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s i s v a g u e a n d u n k n o w n , w h a t a b o u t t h e w i n t e r m o n t h s ,
a n d c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t o w n e r s w h o m a y s t i l l u t i l i z e c a r s , ( P o l l a r d S t a t i o n
M N D , p g . 6 6 ) . T h e M N D h a s n o e v i d e n c e t o v a l i d a t e t h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e
i m p a c t s a s s o c i a t e d t o a i r q u a l i t y , t r a f f i c a n d G H G e m i s s i o n s w o u l d b e l e s s
t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t . F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s i s n e e d e d t o m a k e t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s .
" T h e M N D f a i l s t o a d e q u a t e l y a n a l y z e n o i s e p o l l u t i o n w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d
p r o j e c t . T h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s i s c o n t i n u e s t o d i m i n i s h n o i s e i m p a c t s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t b y s t a t i n g , ` D u e t o t h e a g e
r e s t r i c t e d o c c u p a n c y , t h e P r o j e c t w i l l g e n e r a t e l e s s n o i s e t h a n a t y p i c a l m u l t i -
f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s . T h e P r o j e c t s h o u l d n o t r e s u l t i n a s u b s t a n t i a l
p e r m a n e n t o r p e r i o d i c i n c r e a s e i n a m b i e n t n o i s e l e v e l s i n t h e v i c i n i t y , '
( P o l l a r d S t a t i o n M N D , p g . 8 6 ) . T h e M N D s t a t e s t h a t a n o i s e a n a l y s i s w a s n o t
c o n d u c t e d ; t h i s i s i n a d e q u a t e a n a l y s i s ( P o l l a r d S t a t i o n M N D , p g . 8 4 ) . T h e
p r o j e c t i s u l t i m a t e l y a c o m m e r c i a l f a c i l i t y t h a t h a s r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b o r s , a n d
w i l l h a v e n o i s e i m p a c t s a s a 2 4 / 7 f a c i l i t y o p e r a t i n g t o c a r e f o r s e n i o r s . A
n o i s e a n a l y s i s n e e d s t o l o o k a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s r e l a t e d t o t r a f f i c a n d
n o i s e o f t h i s f a c i l i t y , a n d t h e i m p a c t i t w i l l h a v e o n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g
r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b o r s , a s w e l l a s f u t u r e p l a n n e d r e s i d e n t i a l g r o w t h f o r t h e
H M P .
F u r t h e r m o r e t h e H V A C s y s t e m w i l l g e n e r a t e n o i s e l e v e l s t h a t w i l l n e e d t o
c o m p l y w i t h T o w n o f T r u c k e e S t a n d a r d s f o r t h e N o i s e E l e m e n t o f 6 0 d B A
C N E L , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 1 2 . a w i l l r e q u i r e n o i s e l e v e l s f o r t h e H V A C t o
b e k e p t a t 5 0 d B A a n d H V A C s y s t e m s t o b e k e p t i n s t r u c t u r e s o n t h e r o o f t o
m i n i m i z e n o i s e , y e t t h e p l a n s d o n o t s h o w w h e r e t h e y w i l l b e l o c a t e d . T h e
M N D a l s o f a i l s t o e v a l u a t e t h e n o i s e f r o m t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d h o w t h a t w i l l
d i s t u r b t h e c l o s e s t n e i g h b o r s . T h e M N D n o t e s t h a t i m p r o v e m e n t t o P i n e C o n e
R d . w i l l t a k e p l a c e P h a s e 1 , y e t t h e a n a l y s i s d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e w h e t h e r P i n e
C o n e R d . w i l l b e u t i l i z e d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , n o r h o w t h a t w i l l i m p a c t
n o i s e l e v e l s f o r e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e n o i s e a n a l y s i s i s
i n c o m p l e t e , a n d d e m a n d s f u r t h e r s t u d i e s i n r e g a r d t o t h e c o m m e r c i a l l i k e
s e t t i n g t h e p r o j e c t w i l l c r e a t e a n d c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g
r e s i d e n t s , a n o i s e a n a l y s i s m u s t b e c o n d u c t e d .
" D r a i n a g e a n a l y s i s , p l a n s a n d a s s o c i a t e d i m p a c t s w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d
p r o j e c t s e e m t o b e m i s s i n g o r n o t p r o v i d e d i n M N D . T h e p r o j e c t m u s t
c o m p l y w i t h t h e T o w n ' s d r a i n a g e a n d s t o r m w a t e r r u n o f f r e g u l a t i o n s a s
s p e c i f i e d i n D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e 1 8 . 3 0 . 5 0 . , w h i l e c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e N D P E S
p e r m i t a n d L R W Q C B r e g u l a t i o n s . T h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t n e e d s t o p r o v i d e a
d r a i n a g e p l a n i n o r d e r t o a n a l y z e p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t s . M i t i g a t i o n
5
Measure 9.a only states a plan will be submitted with the project. There is no
detail or way of knowing impacts will be mitigated to less than significant.
The mitigation for associated storm water run -off is invalid without analysis,
a plan or ways to enforce mitigation for associated impacts (Pollard Station
MND, pg.76).
Additionally there is mention in the MND that storm water facilities will be
designed to meet Town of Truckee Standards as well as LRWQCB as stated in
mitigation measure 16c (Pollard Station MND pg. 39 -40). Where will
additional facilities such as retention ponds be placed, and how can
mitigation occur if construction detail and site analysis is not analyzed. The
MND falls short in analysis, detail and appropriate mitigation without the
specifics of where the additional storm water facilities will be located. The
project proposal needs to provide this detail and the MND needs to be
revised and re- circulated to include stated specifics.
Furthermore the discussion of water supply and analysis for the proposed
project is also not included or discussed in the MND. The MND lightly touches
on the project proposal and needed water supply with the infrastructure but
there is no analysis that discusses if there is adequate water supply for the
project or verification to dictate there is no significant impact (Pollard
Station, MND item 16d). The MND should be revised to include the water
supply information and evidence that there is enough to support the
proposed project.
• MND traffic analysis and trip generation analysis is complex and
incomplete. The additional outside condominium units are intended for
independent seniors who may utilize vehicles, the proposed development
will have attached and detached housing for seniors, both have different
traffic analysis and trip generation for the proposed style of senior care
housing. The traffic analysis diminishes the trip generation by stating the
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) has less trip generation, but
does not truly evaluate all 126 units and additional vehicle trips that will
occur with employees and amenity services for the proposed project. The
MND and traffic analysis uses three different standards for trip generation
CCRC Use (0.16PM peak trips /dwelling units), Congregate Care Facility Use
(0.17PM peak trips /dwelling unit), and Senior Adult Housing- Attached (0.2S
PM peak trips /dwelling units). This is a complex way to measure trip
generation for a large -scale senior housing facility, which seems
underestimated.
The MND also states that there is a potential that the age restriction
limitation could be lifted in accordance with Government Code Section 65995,
this raises a number of questions in regard to the MND analysis and if it is
adequate if the project were to change from a senior center to a regular
housing development. The MND traffic analysis as stated earlier should look
G
at all trip generation with the 2013 Hilltop traffic analysis and not
undervalue potential mitigation due to the proposal being a senior housing
facility. If the applicant has the ability to change the use after approval the
project would be subject to legal scrutiny understanding the entire
environmental analysis is completely invalid with the number of
assumptions the MND declares, due to being for seniors.
The traffic analysis section also illustrates that the new roundabout to be
developed for the Pollard Station development was not evaluated in the MND
traffic analysis (Pollard Station MND, pg. 93). How can there be no significant
finding or errors in the traffic analysis if the newly proposed roundabout was
not analyzed? The MND uses the assumption that the HMP 2009 study is
applicable to making the determination there is no impact, yet all Phase 1
infrastructure improvements are not adequately analyzed for the current
project proposal. By not analyzing the new roundabout the Level of Service
(LOS) could be significantly impacted. The MND needs to be revised and re-
circulated to include new traffic analysis for the roundabout/ Phase 1
infrastructure, including appropriate mitigation measures.
MND fails to identify project alternatives or mitigation measures to
ensure the proposed project will have no impact. A full EIR would
evaluate ways to minimize the impact on the 8 -acre parcel site by proposing
additional alternatives to the proposed project. The MND makes no reduction
suggestions nor identifies alternatives. A revised EIR should include an
alternative that suggests a smaller project footprint with less vegetative
removal, while adhering to the goals and policies stated in the HMP.
Overall the MND issues, omitted analysis, missing project specific plans and invalid
mitigation measures that are contained within the Pollard Station environmental
analysis warrant a full EIR to be prepared for the proposed project. The purpose of
CEQA is to identify and disclose significant environmental impacts for a project, to
better inform decision makers and the general public. The MND for Pollard Station
as noted in our comment letter does not fully disclose all related environmental
impacts for the proposed project. At the recent Pollard Station study session hosted
at the Town of Truckee on September 16, 2014 additional issues were addressed
that are not evaluated in CEQA. Some of these concerns raised by MAP were the
project applicants financial ability to carry out a $40 million dollar project, the
project applicants development track record within the community, needed demand
studies to show this style of senior care is necessitated, incompatible land uses for
the proposed project in relation to the Hilltop Master Plan, needed easements for
Phase 1 Infrastructure which have not been granted by JARCO, as well as the project
applicants desire to be exempt from the inclusionary housing requirement.
As noted earlier in our comment letter we feel the public process has been fatally
flawed to move this project through the approval procedure. The community and
decision makers need to better understand the demand for the project, do a site tour
7
with the applicant, publicly discuss if the proposed use is appropriate for the Hilltop
Master Plan site, while also having the assured confidence that the project applicant
can financially support a project of this scale and detail with the needed mitigation
to protect the local environment. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project and environmental analysis. If you have questions regarding our
comments feel free to get in touch.
Sincerely,
Alexis 011ar, MS & GISP
MAP Executive Director
0
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Robert W. Affeldt, DDS
Jerry Gilmore
Brian Kent Smart
Ron Sweet
Nelson Van Gundy
October 23, 2014
A PUBLIC AGENCY
12304 Joerger Dr. ® Truckee, California 96161 -3312
Telephone (530) 587 -3804 a Fax (530) 587 -1340
Town of Truckee Planning Division
Attn: Jenria Endres
10183 Truckee Airport Dr.
Truckee, CA 96161
BLAKE R. TRESAN, A.E.
General Manager
Chief Engineer
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Pollard Station — Application No. 12 -001
The Truckee Sanitary District (District) has received the information regarding the above - referenced
project.
The District has no cornments at this time.
Sincerely.
wn, P.E.
District Engineer
Z:EHO? BEN\ GII\'EEP. P; G `CONMIERCWLPROIECTSITOWN &COUMIY COMMENTSNOCOMM EN TLEPIEP.N0001Y1MEN'TLLITER.DOC
Rachel and Garrett McCullough
PO Box 991
Truckee, CA 96160
Oct 23, 2014
Ms.lenna Endres
Town of Truckee Planning Division
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Subject. Pollard Station Senior Living Center
Comments on Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Ms. Endres and Town of Truckee Planning Commissioners,
We have reviewed the Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Pollard Station
Senior Living Center along with related project documents. We respectfully submit this letter and
attachments in response to your invitation to provide comments by October 23, 2014.
We oppose this project for its negative impact on the quality of life for residents in the vicinity, both
during construction and as an ongoing high traffic and noise generating commercial operation in our
quiet residential neighborhood. As active and concerned citizens of the Town of Truckee, we further
object to this project for its significant unmitigated environmental impacts and non - conformance to
the Hilltop Master Plan, which was prepared with extensive community involvement in a process
lasting many years.
Here are some of the reasons we oppose the project:
1) There is a lack of demonstrated ability by the applicant to successfully complete a project and
take responsibility for project defects as evidenced by the Stonewood project. This is shown by
a judgment against the developer for breach of contract by the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Nevada, dated September 20, 2011, which the developer still refuses to
pay. There is further detail below and supporting documents are attached.
® The Stonewood development, which was constructed between 1999 and 2001, had
drainage issues, which were deemed to be construction defects. In September
2011, the Nevada County Superior Court issued a judgment against Fitch & Cook
Communities, Inc. et al. for these damages and interest in the amount of
$32,315.88. None of this has been paid to date. In the Stonewood Owners
Page 1 of 4
Association Board's email correspondence with David Griffith, a representative of
the Pollard Station project, on October 17th, 2014, David relayed the following
regarding the judgment:
"For your information, when I forwarded your board's desire to have the judgment paid
in full to Bill, his response was that he would be willing to come to the table to consider
this, in good faith, if the project moves forward. He would consider paying the judgment
costs, as a good neighbor, as part of his responsibility to re- surface Pine Cone Road,
which is a component of the proposed project."
• Not only does this show that Bill Fitch has outstanding debts, but it also
demonstrates the lack of accountability on his project, his unwillingness to pay the
judgment unless the Pollard Station project goes forward, and that only if it does go
forward would he be "willing to come to the table to consider this" (not pay it, but
consider paying it).
2) There is substantial evidence that the project could result in significant adverse environmental
impacts in the following categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Public
Services, Noise, Traffic, and Utilities, even after the mitigations proposed in the MND. The
proposed mitigations do not avoid the significant effects, or reduce them to a less -than-
significant level. Some analyses were omitted. Like with the first application for this project,
inadequate information had been provided to decision makers. An EIR needs to be prepared.
3) The project does not adhere to the Hilltop Master Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan and the
Truckee General Plan provisions. This is not the first, but the second time the applicant has
presented a proposal that doesn't comply with Town development plans.
4) There is a lack of consideration for the intent of plans and policies of our community as
evidenced by the request to be exempt from the affordable housing requirements, a project
design that generates a division on Hilltop, and the commercial nature of a project in an area
designated for residences, not business ventures. This is the second project application for
Pollard Station with a lack of plan compliance. The lack of a true community- focused intent and
compliance with these plans and provisions should not be overlooked because of the need for
more senior living services. When one envisions the "mixed -use concept that is intended to
create a walkable neighborhood /village" that "enhances the concept of a village within the
Town" (from the Hilltop Master Plan), a commercial facility like the proposed project clearly
does not fit.
5) The proposed development serves as a division between the Hilltop Master Plan area and the
Pine Cone /Schaffer neighborhood to the east, instead of joining it and creating a seamless
transition between new and existing developments. There is also a division between downtown
Page 2 of 4
and the proposed project due to the likelihood that more than half of the residents will be over
85 years old (http: / /www.ahcancal.org /ncal/ resources /Pages /ResidentProfile.aspx) and will
have difficulty walking or riding a bike back from downtown due to the steep grade of the hill.
6) Pollard Station is a commercial use project, but in the Hilltop Master Plan, Truckee General
Plan, and Truckee zoning ordinance the area is designated for residential use. This commercial
use would create a completely different atmosphere, with 24/7 employees, delivery trucks, and
other uses not typical of medium density residential areas.
7) There is a lack of information concerning the financial viability of this $40 million project. It is
unclear who would agree to run Pollard Station. A failed project may mean our historic Hilltop is
dotted with large empty buildings, which would create even more of a division in the
neighborhood than the one proposed in the application.
8) Asa continuing care complex, Pollard Station should expect to see a higher than average use of
emergency services. This propensity is not mentioned in the noise analysis. The MND indicates
that generators and HVAC units will be kept in contained structures or on rooftops but these
structures are not indicated on the plans for the facility.
9) Many of the exceptions that the Pollard Station project asks for are prefaced with the fact that
Pollard Station will be an age- restricted community. The statement that, "should age
restrictions be removed from the project in the future, State mandated mitigation fees will be
required in accordance with Government Code Section 65995" brings up the fear that Pollard
Station will not be kept to an age- restricted community. Lifting this restriction would invalidate
many of the original premises which Pollard Station uses to seek changes to the HMP.
10) The Pollard Station traffic study uses the lowest possible values for projecting traffic (continuing
care complex) when much of the facility is planned for senior adult housing, which generates
much more traffic. Additionally, on page 66, the MND states that there will not be "any
residents who will be commuting to jobs...." However, the minimum age for the project is 55,
which means residents may be commuting to jobs.
11) The Visual Impact Study that was submitted by the applicant does not include the foreground
trees; making it impossible to determine the visual impact of the project on historic downtown
and High Street,
12) It is unclear from the MND whether the applicant plans to use a small and quiet residential
street, Pine Cone Road, for heavy construction vehicle and equipment traffic during
construction, which will create noise, dust, and other disturbances in the residential area.
Construction of the primary access, the roundabout on Brockway Road, is proposed for Phase I,
but it is unclear whether the roundabout would be built before the other infrastructure and
Page 3 of 4
buildings in Phase I. Construction traffic for the Hilltop site should not go through the
residential area on Pine Cone Road,
13) The applicant does not have the needed easements to proceed with the project.
We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject the proposed Amendments to the Hilltop Master
Plan in conjunction with the Pollard Station Senior Living Center and require any project within the
boundaries of the Hilltop Master Plan Area to conform to the HMP as approved by the Town council, as
well as the Downtown Specific Plan and the Truckee General Plan provisions.
The Pollard Station proposed project is a detriment to the Hilltop area and should not be approved for
this location. It is not even close to being in accordance with the Hilltop Master Plan, which took years
of careful planning and community -wide input to create. The voices of all of our community members
who spent hours upon hours creating the Hilltop Master plan will be ignored if this proposed project
proceeds. No changes should be made to the plan without a full community process.
No concessions should be granted to the developer for this project. Financially motivated developers
should create projects that fit within our community plans, not the other way around.
Thank you for your time in reviewing our comments.
Sincerely,
Rachel and Garrett McCullough
Attachments
1. Judgment against Fitch & Cook Communities, Inc. et al. from the Superior Court of California,
County of Nevada, dated September 20, 2011 for Item (1). Filename: Judgment Fitch & Cook vs
Stonewood 9- 20- 11.pdf
2. Supporting email correspondence for Item (1). Filename: Litigation Correspondence re Fitch
and Cook.pdf
3. Email from David Griffith with subject: Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14 for Item (1).
Filename: STW Pollard Station Review 10- 13- 14.pdf
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WfTHOUT ATTORNEY rNarw, rtek bW rtwdWv WW &09"e COURr USE MY
Allison L. Andersen (CSB# 2213 3)
- Gabriel P. Rothman (CSB# 25384 }
Berding & Weil LLP
3240 Stone Valley Road West
Alamo, CA 94507
TELEPHONENO.: 925/838 -2090 FAX NO. (opdr1:925 /820 -5592
Eew��voRESStoar n: aandersen®berdinq -weil . com
.rrnstNr- yFo;zt w *): Stonewood Owners; Association y
SUPERIOR CART OF CALIFORNIA, cotim OF Nevada q�
srReETADDRESS: 10075 Levon Avenue, Suite 301
MAILING ADDRESS:
crrYArmzwcooe Truckee, California 96161
sRwii rums: Truckee Branch
PLAINTIFF: Stonewood Owners Association
DEFENDANT:Fitch & Cook Commupities, Inca, et al.
JUDGMENT CASE
Q By Clerk ® By Default Q After Court Trial T11 / 4 6 8 C
[Q By Court Q On Stipulation Q Defendant Did Not
Appear at Trial
JUDGMENT
1. BY DEFAULT
a. Defendant was property served with S copy of the summons and complaint.
b. Defendant faited to answer the cron�aint or appear and defend the action within the time alt d by law.
c. Defendant's defautt was entered by the clerk upon plaintiff's application.
d. ® Cleric's Judgment (Code Civ. Prom, § 585(a)). Defendarn was sued only on a contrac I or judgment of a court of
this-state for the recovery of money.
e. Q Court Judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 585(b)). The court considered
(t) .Q plaintiffs testimony and other evidence.
(2) Q plaintiffs written ded4ration (Code Civ. Proc., § 585(d)).
2. Q ON STIPULATION
a. Plaintiff and defendant agreed (stipulated) that a judgment be entered in this case. The rt approved the stipulated
judgment and
b. Q the signed written stipulation was filed in the case.
C, Q the stipulation was stated in open court Q the stipulation was stated on the rec Ord,
3. Q AFTER COURT TRIAL. The jury waa waived. The courtconsidered the evidence.
a. The case was tried on (date and time):
before (name of judicial oNiced:
b. Appearances by:
Q Plain
Plaintiff (name each): Q tiffs attor y (name each }:
(.I) {1}
(2) (2)
Q Continued on Attachment 3b.
Q Defendant (name each): Q Defendant's a tomay (name each):
(t) 0)
(2) (2)
Q Continued on Attachment 3b.
c. Q Defendant did not appear at Wlat. Defendant was properly served with notice of trial.
d, [Q A statement of decision (Codie Civ. Prom, § 632) Q was not = was m quested.
r]
!IIIUIh ;1U1l
Paps 1 or 2
PLAINTIFF: Stonewood Owners Associat
DEFENDANT: Fitch & Cook CotmnunitieS, Inc. , et al.
CAM NLOABM-
T11/4680
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOLLOWS BY: Q THE COURT Eil THE CLEI
4, Q Stipulated Judgment. Judgment is entered according to the stipulation of the parties.
54 Parties. Judgment Is
a. ® for plaintiff (name each): Stonewood Owners C. Q for cross- compiainatrt
Association
and against defendant (names): Fitch & Cook
Communities, Inc.
Q Continued on Attachment 5a.
b. = for defendant (name each):
6. Amount.
a. Qx Defendant named in item 5a above must
pay plaintiff on the complaint:
(1) ® Damages $ 26, 560.00
(2) [O Prejudgment $ 5 , 7 55.8 8
interest at the
annual rate of 10%
(3) Q Attomey fees $ 0000
(4) [Q Costs $ 0000
(5) [Q Other (specify): $ 0000
(6) TOTAL
1 J
$ 32,$15.88
b, ptainUif to receive nothing from deferxiant
named in item 5b.
[Q Defendant named in item 5b to recover
costs $ 0000
and attorney fees $ 0.00
7. = Other (specify).
Lam
Date:
(SEAL)
0
and against
each):
(name each):
5c.
each):
C. Q Cross- defendant named It item 5c above must pay
cross - complainant on the oss- complaint:
(1)
Q
Damages
$
0000
(2)
[Q
Prejudgment
$
0000
interest at the
annual rate of
%
(3)
Q
Attorney fees
$
0.00
(4)
Q]
Costa
$
0.0
0
(5)
Q
Other (Specify):
$
0000
(9)
TOTAL
$
0100
•
cross"deliandant named F,
Crowdefenclant
costs t
attorney
JUDICM OFFICER
CLERICS CERTIFICATE (Optional)
I certify that this is aq true copy of the original judgment on fide In the court.
Date:
Cleric, by
JUD OD(NowJW%WYtZ002l 1 JUDGMENT
Ve nothing from
Item 5d.
ned In Item 5d to recover
$0.00
. Deputy
, Deputy
v.erxa2
B =RDING � W =1L
A T T O R N E Y S A 7 L A W
May 4, 2011
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Elise Bu art
17690 1 to Avenue
Monte ereno, CA 95030
Re: Stonewood Owners Association
Dear Ms, Burkhart:
Berding & Weil LLP
3240 Stone Valley Road West
Alamo, California 94507
tel 925 838 2090
fax 925 820 5592
berding- weil.com
On May 9, 2009, Fitch & Cook Communities, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement
with the Stonewood Owners Association to resolve a construction defect dispute related to (a)
the South side retaining wall and drainage system; and (b) the grading of the parking lot.
Pursuant to that agreement, Fitch & Cook Communities represented that it would oversee and
perform an agreed to scope of work for the purpose of repairing those conditions. Fitch & Cook
Communities warranted that the work would be completed as soon as possible, but in no event
later than October 15, 2010. Needless to say, the work has not been completed and you are in
breach of that agreement.
Stonewood Owners Association negotiated in good faith with Fitch & Cook Communities
so that it did not have to incur the expenses associated with construction defect litigation. If
Fitch & Cook Communities does not intend on proceeding with the work, however, the
Association will pursue all available remedies under the governing documents and the California
Civil Code. Please contact me no later than May 16, 2011 to advise whether and when you
intend to proceed with the work. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
BERDING & WEIL LLP
Allison L. Andersen
aandersen @berding- weii.com
,/ cc: Bob Fittrer
0: \WDOCS10002107tEMR\00544886.DOC
Bob Fittrer
From: Allison Andersen [aandersen @berding- weil.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 20118:09 AM
To: Bob Fittrer
Cc: Allison Andersen; Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: FW: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Summons, Complaint, etc.
Attachments: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook -
Summons.pdf, Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Complaint & Exh. A.pdf, Stonewood OA v.
Fitch & Cook - Not of CMC (1- 20- 12).pdf
As you know, the board authorized Berding & Weil to file a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Prior to filing, I
pulled the CEB Practice Guide to ensure that the Association had satsified the criteria for such a motion. Unfortunately,
because the court never had jurisdiction over the dispute (no prior papers filed with the court, no stipulation to the court's
jurisdiction in the settlement agreement), we were required to obtain jursidiction by filing the attached documents. We do
still intend to proceed as discussed - asking the court to enter judgment per the terms of the settlement agreement As
soon as we serve the above docs on the developer, we will file the appropriate motion.
Thanks and please let me know if you or the board has any questions.
Allison L. Andersen
B DING Y r° I L Alamo, California 94507 West
tel 925.838.2090
fax 925.820.5592
.• rid.• . . ,
This communication is Intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
Protecting attorney dent communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Lisa K. Boynton
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 S:22 PM
To: Allison Andersen
Cc: Gabriel P. Rothmans Lisa Bertorello; Lisa K, Boynton
Subject: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Summons, Complaint, etc.
1) Civil Case Cover Sheet
Download
vCard
This communication is Intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
Protecting attorney dent communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Lisa K. Boynton
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 S:22 PM
To: Allison Andersen
Cc: Gabriel P. Rothmans Lisa Bertorello; Lisa K, Boynton
Subject: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Summons, Complaint, etc.
1) Civil Case Cover Sheet
Bob
From: Allison Andersen [aandersen @berding- weil.coml
Sent* Tuesday, September 13,20115:16 PM
Tp; Alan &Norma Lattanner, Bob Fittrer; Garret & Rachel McCullough; Henry & Kara Giano;
Roger & Elisa Fisher; Sean & Colleen Connors
Cc: Allison Andersen; Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: Stonewood Update
Members of the Board:
As you know, the Association needed to file its complaint in order to enforce the terms of the settlement against Fitch &
Cook. We were able to serve Fitch & Cook Communities with the complaint, however it did not file a timely response, so I
requested that the clerk enter a default against the company. That default has now been entered and tomorrow I intend to
ask the court that judgment be entered against the company. Unless F &C Communities decides to appear and challenge
the judgment, the HOA will be in a position to attempt to collect on the judgment. This judgment can, of course, be
excused through bankruptcy proceedings.
The Association additionally named Messrs. Fitch and Cook individually in the lawsuit. We have not been able to serve
either individual with the complaint as we do not know their whereabouts. We are using our resources to attempt to locate
them, but if anyone has any further information on where they can be found, please let me know. Once we serve them,
we will attempt to proceed in the same fashion, but that will require the individuals to likewise ignore the complaint. The
board could opt to dismiss them from the lawsuit, but I think there is a far less chance that they will bankrupt themselves
personally as that would guarantee that they won't be able to obtain any development or construction loans in the near
.future. So, I recommend keeping them in for the time being.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Allison L. Andersen
BERD1 NG WEI L
Partner
3240 Stone Valley Road West
Alamo, California 94507
tel 925.838.2090
fax 925.820.5592
aandersen@berding- weil.com
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
protecting attorney client communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
1
From: Allison Andersen [aandersen @herding- weil.com]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 20114:29 PM
To: Alan & Norma Lattanner; Bob Fittrer; Garret & Rachel McCullough; Henry & Kara Giano;
Roger & Elisa Fisher, Sean & Colleen Connors
Cc: Allison Andersen; Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: Stonewood Judgment Filed by Clerk
Attachments, 6718350 JUDGMENT.pdf
Members of the Board:
Please be advised that judgment has been entered against Fitch & Cook Communities in the amou of $32,315.88. Now
that the judgment has been entered, there is no currently pending litigation by the Association, so re s .. id be no
further issues with regard to sales or refinancing. We will proceed with minimal investigation to see if we can attach the
judgment to real or personal property so that you can collect on that amount.
Thank you,
Allison L. Andersen
I D— R a f NG WE I L Partner
The Park Tower Building
s 980 9th Street, Floor 3240 Stone Valley Road West
Sacramento, California 95814 Alamo, California 94507
f
tel 916.443.5100 tel 925.838.2090
fax 916.443.5199 fax 925.820.5592
i cell 916.712.0729
1 aandersen @herding- weii.com
Download vCard
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those
protecting adomey diem communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
li
From: Allison Andersen [aandersen @berding- weil.comj
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:20 PM
To: 'Bob Fittrer'
Cc: Lisa K. Boynton
Subject: FW: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Recorded Judgments
Attachments: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - PLACER COUNTY, CA Recorded Abstract of Judgment.pdf;
Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Application of Foreign
Judgment (2).pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Affidavit of
Judgment Creditor .pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV -
Notice of Filing of Application of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of Judgment Creditor
(1).pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Affidavit of
Service.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF WASHOE, NV - Affirmation -
Domestication of Foreign Judgmentpdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF
DOUGLAS, NV - Appl. of Foreign Judgment.pdf, Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY
OF DOUGLAS, NV - Affidavit of Judgment Creditor.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook -
COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, NV - Notice of Filing Appl. of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of
Judgment Creditor.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, NV -
Affidavit of Service.pdf; Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, NV -
Affirmation - Domestication of Foreign Judgment.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
:..
Attached please find the majority of the documents related to the recordation of the judgments. It was a bit of a process,
so we apologize for the delay.
Thank you,
Allison L. Andersen
B ®RDING X111 OWNS
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges,
including those
protecting attorney client communications and attorney work product information.
Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Lisa K. Boynton
!Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12 :04 PM
The Park Tower Building f To: Allison Andersen
980 9th Street, 16th Floor 3240 Stone Valley Road West Cc: Lisa K. Boynton
Sacramento, Calrfomia 95814 Alamo, California 94507 ; Subject: Stonewood OA v. Fitch & Cook - Recorded
i Judgments
tel 916.443.5100 tel 925.838.2090
fax 916.443.5199 fax 925.820.5592
cell 916.712.0729
1) Washoe County, Nevada:
aandersen@berding- weii.com t Application of Foreign Judgment;
Affidavit of Judgment Creditor;
Download vCard
Affidavit of Service, and
Affirmation — Domestication of Foreign Judgment.
2) Douglas County, Nevada:
Application of Foreign Judgment;
Affidavit of Judgment Creditor;
Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of
Judgment Creditor,
Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit of Judgment Creditor;
Affidavit of Service; and
Gmail - Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
Alan Lattanner <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
To: Rachel McCullough <rachel.mccullough1 @ gmail.com>
Griffith's response, for your info. //Alan
---- - - - --- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: David Griffith <dgriff1007 @gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
To: Bob Fittrer <fittrer @sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "Connors,Colleen" <seancolleen @gmail.com >,
& Norma" <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
:..
https:Hmai l.google. com /mail /u/0 / ?ui= 2 &ik =8c3 788 cb4d &view =pt &sea..
Rachel McCullough <rachel.mccullough1 @ gmail.com>
Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM
"Giano, Henry & Kara" <kgiano @goldenl.com >, " Lattanner, Alan
Thank you for your response. As a representative of the Pollard Station project, my main focus is to help educate
interested local residents about the recently re- designed project, and to transparently answer questions about the
project. With that said; can we schedule a presentation with your board in the near future? Next week if possible, or
early the following week? There will likely be another Planning Commission Study Session some time in early
November, and I was hoping to meet with your board before then. At the public study session, the general public will
only have 3 minutes at the podium to speak or ask questions, whereas I can give you as much time as your like!
As for the judgment, first off, would you be willing to send me a copy, for my records, and to present to the developer?
For your information, when I forwarded your board's desire to have the judgment paid in full to Bill, his response was
that he would be willing to come to the table to consider this, in good faith, if the project moves forward. He would
consider paying the judgment costs, as a good neighbor, as part of his responsibility to re- surface Pine Cone Road,
which is a component of the proposed project.
I hope this provides you with confidence that Bill is willing to work with you. He wants a positive /respectful relationship
with you as a potential neighbor of his project. Please remember that I have not been asked to "negotiate" with your
organization. My role is to educate your organization about the project, and express Bill's sentiment that he is willing to
consider working with you to resolve this issue.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
David Griffith
Cell: (530) 414 -3338
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Bob Fittrer <fittrer @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
David Griffith: We understand that you are the representative of the Pollard Station project and have offered to:
1. Review the current
design of the
Pollard Station project with the
board 2. Address and /or pay the judgment
against
Fitch & Cook
Communities
dated
9 -20 -11
IG
in
the amount
of
$32,315.88.
Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
Alan Lattanner <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
To: Rachel McCullough <rachel.mccullough1 @ gmail.com>
Griffith's response, for your info. //Alan
---- - - - --- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: David Griffith <dgriff1007 @gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
To: Bob Fittrer <fittrer @sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "Connors,Colleen" <seancolleen @gmail.com >,
& Norma" <alanlattanner @gmail.com>
:..
https:Hmai l.google. com /mail /u/0 / ?ui= 2 &ik =8c3 788 cb4d &view =pt &sea..
Rachel McCullough <rachel.mccullough1 @ gmail.com>
Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM
"Giano, Henry & Kara" <kgiano @goldenl.com >, " Lattanner, Alan
Thank you for your response. As a representative of the Pollard Station project, my main focus is to help educate
interested local residents about the recently re- designed project, and to transparently answer questions about the
project. With that said; can we schedule a presentation with your board in the near future? Next week if possible, or
early the following week? There will likely be another Planning Commission Study Session some time in early
November, and I was hoping to meet with your board before then. At the public study session, the general public will
only have 3 minutes at the podium to speak or ask questions, whereas I can give you as much time as your like!
As for the judgment, first off, would you be willing to send me a copy, for my records, and to present to the developer?
For your information, when I forwarded your board's desire to have the judgment paid in full to Bill, his response was
that he would be willing to come to the table to consider this, in good faith, if the project moves forward. He would
consider paying the judgment costs, as a good neighbor, as part of his responsibility to re- surface Pine Cone Road,
which is a component of the proposed project.
I hope this provides you with confidence that Bill is willing to work with you. He wants a positive /respectful relationship
with you as a potential neighbor of his project. Please remember that I have not been asked to "negotiate" with your
organization. My role is to educate your organization about the project, and express Bill's sentiment that he is willing to
consider working with you to resolve this issue.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
David Griffith
Cell: (530) 414 -3338
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Bob Fittrer <fittrer @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
David Griffith: We understand that you are the representative of the Pollard Station project and have offered to:
1. Review the current
design of the
Pollard Station project with the
board 2. Address and /or pay the judgment
against
Fitch & Cook
Communities
dated
9 -20 -11
in
the amount
of
$32,315.88.
The response of the board is that the judgment must be paid in full to the Stonewood Owners Association.
1 of 10/21/2014 10:38 PM
Gmail - Fwd: STW Pollard Station Review 10 -13 -14
Thank you, Bob
Bob Fittrer
Bob Fittrer Management
Certified Community Association Manager
15268 Icknield Way, Truckee, Ca. 96161
(Ph) 530- 582 -0845
(Cell) 530 - 906 -5618
Fttrer@sbc global.net
2 of 2
https:Hmai l.google.com /mai 1 /u/0 / ?ui =2 &i k =8 c3788 cb4d &view =pt &sea.
10/21/2014 10:38 PM
16 October 2014
John McLaughlin
Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 961610
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
"4 GOVERNOR
MATTHEW ROORIOUEZ
It SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CERTIFIED MAIL
7014 1200 0000 7154 3342
COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, POLLARD STATION SENIOR LIVING CENTER PROJECT,
SCH NO. 2014092071, NEVADA COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse's 24 September 2014 request, the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review
for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Pollard Station Senior Living Center Project,
located in Nevada County.
Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and
groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those
issues.
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than
one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more
acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General
Permit Order No. 2009- 009 -DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing,
grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not
include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity
of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation
of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources
Control Board website at:
http: / /www.waterboards.ca.gov /water issues / programs /stormwater /constpermits.shtm1.
KARL E. LONOLEY SCD, P.E., CHAIR I PAMELA C. CREEDON P.E., BCEE, EXECUTIvE OFFICER
11020 Sun Center Drive 02O0, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 ( www. waterboards .ca.gov /centralvalley
0 RECYCLED PAPER
Pollard Station Senior Living Center Project .2-
Nevada County
16 October 2014
Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits'
The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from
new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the
maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards,
also known as Low Impact Development (LID) /post- construction standards that include a
hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for
LID /post- construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA
process and the development plan review process.
For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central
Valley Water Board website at:
http: / /www.waterboards. ca.gov/ centralvalley /water issues /storm_water /m unicipal_permits /.
For more information on the Phase II MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water
Resources Control Board at:
http: / /www.waterboards.ca.gov /water issues / programs / stormwater /phase_ii_municipal.shtml
Industrial Storm Water General Permit
Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations
contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 97- 03 -DWQ.
For more information on the Industrial Storm Water General Permit, visit the Central Valley
Water Board website at:
http: / /www.waterboards.ca.gov /centralvalley /water issues/ storm _water /industrial_general_perm
its /index.shtml.
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or
wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACOE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the
USACOE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that
discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage
realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for
information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements.
If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact
the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACOE at (916) 557 -5250.
Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized
Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over
250,000 people). The Phase II MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non - traditional Small
MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals.
Pollard Station Senior Living Center Project .3- 16 October 2014
Nevada County
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit — Water Quality Certification
If an USACOE permit (e.g., Non - Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of
Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any
other federal permit (e.g., Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this
project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands),
then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to
initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications.
Waste Discharge Requirements
If USACOE determines that only non jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., "non- federal" waters
of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project will require a Waste
Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the
California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State,
including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated
wetlands, are subject to State regulation.
For more information on the Water Quality Certification and WDR processes, visit the Central
Valley Water Board website at:
http: / /www.waterboards .ca.gov /centralvalley/ help /business_help /permit2.shtmi.
Regulatory Compliance for Commercially Irrigated Agriculture
If the property will be used for commercial irrigated agricultural, the discharger will be required
to obtain regulatory coverage under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program.
There are two options to comply:
1. Obtain Coverage Under a Coalition Group, General Order R5 -2014 -0030. Join the
local Coalition Group that supports land owners with the implementation of the Irrigated
Lands Regulatory Program. The Coalition Group conducts water quality monitoring and
reporting to the Central Valley Water Board on behalf of its growers. The Coalition
Group for Napa County is the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, Napa County
. Putah Creek Subwatershed. The yearly fee to join the Coalition is $4.50 /acre. To
enroll, call Jesse Ramer with Subwatershed at 707 - 224 -5403.
2. Obtain Coverage Under the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Individual
Growers, General Order R5- 2013 -0100. Dischargers not participating in a third -party
group (Coalition) are regulated individually. Depending on the specific site conditions,
growers may be required to monitor runoff from their property, install monitoring wells,
and submit a notice of intent, farm plan, and other action plans regarding their actions to
comply with their General Order. Yearly costs would include State administrative fees
(for example, annual fees for farm sizes from 10 -100 acres are currently $1,084 +
$6.70 /Acre); the cost to prepare annual monitoring reports; and water .quality monitoring
costs. To enroll as an Individual Discharger under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory
Program, call the Central Valley Water Board phone line at (916) 464 -4611 or e -mail
board staff at IrrLands @waterboards.ca.gov.
Pollard Station Senior Living Center Project - 4 - 16 October 2014
Nevada County
Low or Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the
groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are
typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the
General Order for Dewatering and Other Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters (Low Threat
General Order) or the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges of Treated /Untreated
Groundwater from Cleanup Sites, Wastewater from Superchlorination Projects, and Other
Limited Threat Wastewaters to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete
application must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under these
General NPDES permits.
For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit
the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http: / /www.waterboards. ca.gov /centralvalley/ board_ decisions / adopted _orders /general_orders /r5
- 2013 -0074. pdf
For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process,
visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http: / /www.waterboards .ca.gov /centralvalley /board decisions /adopted _orders /general_orders /r5
- 2013 -0073. pdf
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464 -4684 or
tcleak terboards.ca.gov
Trevor Cleak
Environmental Scientist
cc: State Clearinghouse Unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento