HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #012 (Brooks)October 27, 2014
To: Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner
10183 Truckee Airport Rd.
Truckee, CA 96161
dnishimori@ townoftruckee.cor
Regarding: Comments on Revised DEIR for Canyon Springs
Dear Denyelle,
I have written my comments and concerns in regards to the
Revised (2nd) DEIR for the Canyon Springs (CS) development. I
have been a Glenshire resident since 1988.
Firstly, in the Biological Resources chapter:
In reference to 13I0-3: No reference is made to a study of
Glenshire Pond and how it would be impacted by this
development. All the wetlands within the CS development
drain into the Glenshire Pond, and eventually the Truckee
river. There are many species of birds migrating through this
important place, and nesting occurs also. White pelicans, geese
many species of ducks, grebes, and shorebirds. There is
potential for the pond to be so adversely affected by
development run -off as to become a toxic algae wasteland. If
the CS development only is partially build out (as happened in
Elkhorn Ridge, with no oversight apparently anymore on the
erosion and run off there) , I'm afraid a severe consequence
would be the toxic ruin of our pond and violation of the Clean
Water Act. Would Glenshire residents be responsible
financially for the clean up of the pond too? I do not believe the
wetlands and pond have been adequately studied, especially if
the CS developers are not successful and responsibility is left to
the unknown (that is getting into economics, but something we
must consider.
In reference to BIO -5a; Simply distributing educational
materials to residents about confinement of dogs is no
guarantee that animals will be stopped from chasing migrating
deer. Requiring fencing would be a huge hindrance to the safe
migration of deer through this area. BIO -5e states CS HO
association will require fencing, but yet the mitigation states
"no fencing to impede wildlife movement ".
Impact Bio -5a: Educational brochures distributed each May to
residents ?? I envision a bunch of brochures blowing around in
any sagebrush that may be left alive in this development.
Also, under Biological Resources, there is no mention of
mountain lion or black bear habitat. Both are seen in this area.
At least, mitigation should be made for bear -proof garbage
disposal containers!
I am concerned the aquifer we all rely on in Glenshire is a big
unknown with so many years of drought. Our water quality is
already changing, especially in summer months, it takes on a
milky appearance.
Secondly, in the Traffic /Transportation chapter:
In reference to Trans -2, Trans- 3, Trans- 4: Reading through
these sections makes one realize the Glenshire neighborhood
would be impacted for years with construction traffic.
In the impact discussion 4.4 -36 Section D i. "Temporary
Construction Disturbances" - construction phases last 2 -3
years. At the end of the paragraph is the word "prolonged"
construction impacts "less than significant ". Seriously, which is
it temporary or prolonged?
Trans -2 does not adequately address a left turn on to Martis
Peak Rd, when driving up steep Hirschdale Rd. On a day of icy
road conditions, this would be a pile up place.
Another traffic concern that is not addressed anywhere in the
DEIR is the bicyclists approach to the Legacy Trail bike path, at
the top of the Glenshire "curve ". One must quickly turn left
onto the bike path when no vehicles are coming behind you or
towards you. Or cross the road quickly to get to the bike path
side of the road at any random place one can! This is not safe.
With even more vehicles on Glenshire Drive, from the CS
development, this issue must be addressed.
Thirdly, in the Project Alternative chapter:
Under CEQUA, Alternative A is the only good solution.
However, the developer of Canyon Springs does not seem open
to dialogue to sell this land parcel for a reasonable price.
Alternative B is completely ridiculous! To have Edinburgh
Drive as an access, that 75% of the traffic would use, driving
those narrow residential streets as the main thoroughfare
would be so dangerous for everyone!
Alternative E is reduced density and would make the project
tolerable only if the density was even more reduced as to be
similar to the parcels on Martis Peak Rd at the present time, i.e.
lots sized at 20 acres each, with 10 -20 houses total on this
project site.
I must also state that the Canyon Springs development is in
direct violation of the Truckee General Plan in all 3 of the
principals stated in GOAL LU -7 :...which specifically
encourages clustered residential development, to minimize
environmental impacts and threats to public safety.
In reference to GOAL COS-4 :....to protect significant wildlife
habitat and biological resources. This describes the area east
of Glenshire.
Part of Truckee General Plan 2025 is GOAL SAF-4:...to protect
lives and property from risks associated with wildland and
urban fire. There is only one route out of Canyon Springs,
which must join in the evacuation route at Hirschdale Rd.
Scary.
Thank you for reading my letter of comment and concern
regarding the adequacy of the RDEIR for Canyon Springs.
Please contact me with any questions about my letter.
Sincerely, � -'�%
jean Brooks
10468 Evensham Pl.
Truckee, CA 96161
jandgbrooks gyahoo.com
587 -8473