Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #014 (Stock)October 31, 2014 To: Danyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner Town of Truckee Town Council From: Pamela Stock, Glenshire Resident Re: Canyon Springs Development revised DEIR I am writing in response to the newly released revised DEIR for Canyon Springs. I will address biological resources, water availability and quality as it relates to the biological resources, alternatives to the project as addressed in the RDEIR, covered and non-covered responses to my letters concerning the initial DEIR, concerns over the proposed recreational facilities that are not designated on the Canyon Springs maps, and the Americans With Disabilities Act compliance that has not been addressed in the RDEIR with regard to the proposed "public" trail system. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: 1. Page 2-8 of the RDEIR, states that, "The proposed project has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts in a number of areas." Mitigation measures are recommended would reduce this to "less than significant." These mitigation measures are specifically for the Canyon Springs project only. On page 4.4-49, "The project when considered with the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan buildout and the Boca Quarry project in Nevada County could impact special status plant and animal species, sensitive natural communities jurisdictional waters, and wildlife movement." Yet a cumulative plan to address this impact is not addressed. How can Canyon Springs, doing only mitigation for their project, change the significance to "less than" when town build-out and Boca are not included in any mitigation plan? Under CEQA (page 2-8) "A significant impact on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, ad objects of historic and aesthetic significance." Mitigation measures and questions about them are listed in BIO-1 through BIO-5i below: BIO-1: "Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush habitat could impact red fox." A biologist will look for den sites and if none are found, "no further mitigation is necessary." Construction noise in every phase will drive away the red fox in all areas, not just the construction area. Animals of all kinds are very sensitive to vibrations in the ground and noises. "Avoidance and minimization measures/buffer areas" would not prevent the "incidental" take of the red fox. What is an "incidental take permit" from the CDFW and why would the town permit losing this wildlife resource for this project? BIO-2: "Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush could potentially disturb nesting birds, including the Lewis woodpeckers and yellow warblers." Even if trees and shrubs are removed during non-nesting times, this effectively removes the birds from the area. Ditto the construction noises and vibrations as noted in BIO-1. A 100 foot radius and/or orange fencing is not sufficient as a "no-disturbance buffer. Even a 500 foot buffer zone for raptors will not prevent the permanent disappearance of these birds from the area. How can this be "less than significant?" BIO-3: "Installation of the wood piles for the pedestrian trail footbridges would impact wetlands and non-wetlands present on the project." "Wetlands permanently impacted during construction shall be mitigated by preservation, creation and/or restoration of the impacted resources." How can these wetlands be "preserved" when the RDEIR states they already will be "impacted?" Why would the town allow the project to purchase credits at an approved mitigation bank for a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio when they are proposing a 2:1 ratio? How this will affect the water runoff and ultimately the Glenshire pond and Truckee River is not addressed in the RDEIR and must be. BIO-4: "Removal of Jeffrey pine and snags potentially disturb roosting bats." The RDEIR states that ALL snags and potential roost trees 20" in diameter at breast height shall be removed between September 1 and April 14 to avoid the breeding season. How does this ensure that the bats will have any roosting areas when all snags and roost trees are removed? Does this ensure that bats are effectively removed from the project area? BIO-5: "Long term disturbances in the form of increased human activity and domestic animals from residents and visitors could disturb the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule herd." The RDEIR states that the Canyon Spring's Homeowners Association shall distribute educational brochures regarding pets each May. When will this HOA come into existence? It could be years before a large and effective HOA will exist. How does this mitigate this concern? The CDFW letter addressing the initial DEIR (3/4/2013) states that , "developments such as Glenshire and Martis Valley 'removed many thousands of acres of high quality habitat from deer production' and that "migration measures recommended during the planning process for these developments have been generally inadequate, not truly meaningful and not complied with." In addition, the letter states, "The CDFW believes that the project (Canyon Springs) will significantly impact foraging habitat and the migration corridor of the (Verdi deer herd)." "The DEIR does not provide adequate mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant." The RDEIR does NOT address these concerns and it needs to be revisited in the form of a completely new DEIR and then RDEIR. On page 2-3 per the RDEIR, the HOA will be responsible for snow removal and road maintenance until revenue neutrality is reached. Per the town, snow removal has been done without revenue neutrality in the Elkhorn Ridge area--will it be the same for Canyon Springs? In additional, in Elkhorn Ridge, the HOA is so small, even after 10+ years, that there is not enough money to maintain drainages or even clean up the roads of cigarette butts, discarded condoms, beer cans, garbage, vegetation waste that is dumped, and papers. Black plastic used to surround the Elkhorn project has been left to rot and crumble--will the town be responsible for its' cleanup in both Elkhorn and Canyon Springs?How will this be really handled in Canyon Springs? Is the town going to ensure that such blight does not occur? If not, why not? The impact on wildlife is now and will be significant in the future. Who from the Town will inspect routinely to ensure that blight is not occurring? BIO-5b, 5c, 5d: "The project will realign the trail to avoid the southeast corner of the project and install a split-rail fence to prohibit residents/visitors/dogs from entering from May to October." This is to "decrease threats" to deer and other wildlife. In additions, signs will be posted. Who will be responsible for posting signs, inspecting the area to see that dogs and people are not entering, and ensuring that deer and wildlife are not impacted? As noted, the HOA will not be in existence from the beginning of the project and will not have the resources to do inspections, especially "bi-annual inspections." Who in the town or project ensures this is done? BIO-5e, 5f: "HOA shall require confinement 6 foot fencing for residents with pets to confine the pet(s)." However, the RDEIR states that "No fencing of sufficient height or construction that would impede wildlife movement shall be permitted to be installed along the outer edges of any individual resident lot in its entirety." How then does this then confine pets? BIO-5g: see HOA comments and questions above. BIO-5h: "HOA shall require landscapes treated with pesticides have minimal low-level exposures and sub-lethal effects to wildlife." How can this possibly be enforced, and who will inspect? BIO-5i: "HOA will post signs for deer crossing warnings during migration seasons." Again, who will ensure the posting of the signs and more importantly, the enforcement? Under the California Endangered Species Act, (page 4.4-1), it is unlawful to "take" any species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered, and requires a consultation with CDFW for a project that will result in "take" of a listed species. Bird species listed as threatened and endangered have been omitted from the RDEIR and the proposed mitigations are not sufficient. Page 4.4-10 to 11: special-status species potentially occurring on the site: 1. Sierra Nevada red fox: this is listed by the CDFW as a "threatened and endangered species" and therefore requires a consultation with the CDFW to ensure there is not a "take." Has this been done and if not, why not? 2. The taking of the bat roosts in the area could result in "take" of the species. Has the CDFW been consulted, and if not, why not? 3. The bald eagle is a FULLY PROTECTED species in the state of California. In the 27 years I have lived in Glenshire and walked on the Canyon Springs property, I seen single bald eagles and families of bald eagles soaring over the area every year. The RDEIR asserts that there is no suitable wintering or nesting habitat on the project, and only "marginal foraging habitat. Per the CDFW, breeding is mostly in Northern California in mountains, forests and woodlands near lakes and rivers. Because of the ongoing presence of bald eagles in the area, it is clear that Boca Lake, the Glenshire pond and the Truckee River provide more that adequate foraging areas. Resident breeding pairs stay during the winters around their nests, and breeding is from January through August yearly. Threats to the bald eagle include: "pesticides, encroachment of roads and housing and other developments, timber harvest, increased human disturbance, power lines and shooting" per the CDFW. Most of these threats will occur with the project and potential for occurrence cannot be dismissed as in 4.4-11. How is this going to be addressed? 4. The northern goshawk is a species of special concern and is a year around inhabitant of territories close to their breeding places in old growth forests which include Jeffrey pines. These hawks have been seen for years in the project area on a daily or weekly basis. The RDEIR asserts that the Jeffrey pine community is "marginally suitable habitat for this species, but the project is lacking the north slopes and water resources typically found in suitable habitat." Threats to the species include "habitat loss and degradation of areas by fragmenting forests (with loss of mature trees and pine forests) and human development and recreation." The Canyon Springs project will result in these threats, and since the species is seen often, it cannot be correct that "the Jeffrey pine community is marginally suitable habitat." What will be done to amend this RDEIR and do a complete and thorough survey for ALL species that inhabit the area? 5. The black-backed woodpecker, Lewis woodpecker, willow flycatcher and yellow warbler are all listed as having "marginal habitat" on the project site or "no habitat." These birds are seen often in surrounding areas and in the Canyon Springs area. Again, has a survey been done to make sure these species are not occurring on the project? If not, why not? No corroborating evidence is given to support the RDEIR conclusions and this needs to be addressed. 6. The (gilded) northern flicker is not listed in the RDEIR as a special-status species potentially occurring on the project. I addressed the northern flicker in my initial letters about the DEIR and it has not been addressed in Canyon Springs RDEIR. This bird is listed as threatened and endangered by the CDFW due to a loss of habitat and degradation of habitat. Northern flickers are seen DAILY in the project area, breeding and bringing fledglings to nearby feeders, as well as being seen on the project foraging in tree bark and on the ground for foods. They are year around residents. This needs to be addressed in the RDEIR to protect this bird. When will this be done? 7. In addition to the above, there are many varieties of raptors (turkey vultures, Cooper's hawks, sharp-shinned hawks, osprey, red-tailed hawks) and other nesting birds (sparrows, blue jays, Clark's nutcrackers, black birds, red winged blackbirds, towhees, mountain bluebirds, yellow headed blackbirds, finches, pygmy nuthatches, various grosbeaks, mountain chickadees, black capped juncos, various wrens, various woodpeckers etc) that call this area home. All are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the State Fish and Game Code (4.4-29). All will suffer a loss of habitat or degradation of habitat if this project goes through. The Truckee General plan (COS-P1.5) states that projects will provide "Maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation," "Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain community," and "(COS-P4.1) "Provide for the integrity and continuity of biological resources open space, habitat, and wildlife movement corridors and support the permanent protection and restoration of these areas, particularly those identified as sensitive resources." Is this project honoring the general plan by dismissing wildlife as not having "suitable habitat" without appropriate consultation with the CDFW and surveys to substantiate their claims? In 4.4-29, the RDEIR admits that the CDFW is "Particularly concerned about the impacts to habitat (movement) and migration corridors of the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd as a result of residential development and recreational use" in the project area and "increased edge effects." 4.4-30 states that mule deer disperse by moving beyond the home range to distances of up to 5 miles, but "critical fawning habitat occurs approximately 1.5 miles south of the project." In addition, "various causes for the (substantial deer population declines in recent years) are from "habitat loss, fires, developments," and other causes. These are some of the concerns from the CDFW letter for the initial DEIR and are not addressed in the RDEIR. When will this be done? 4.4-31 states that the "Protection and enhancement of key mule deer winter, foraging, migratory and fawning habitat are vital to their long-term survival." The RDEIR states that, "There is HIGH potential for this mule deer herd to utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging, movement, and MIGRATION," and in the next sentence states, "There is no data showing the project site to be a major or important migratory corridor for mule deer." You cannot have it both ways. The CDFW letter regarding the initial DEIR states that "From the fall of 2010 to the fall of 2012, hundreds of deer, including fawns, does, and bucks were photographed by cameras and this information indicates that deer use of Project site is very active, contrary to statements made in the DEIR," and RDEIR. Furthermore, the CDFW latter states, "The preliminary data has shown that deer seem to have small summer home ranges,meaning that the deer photographed within the Project site will likely remain in the area for the duration of the summer before migrating to Nevada. Because of high site fidelity, deer that return to the area from the northeast along historical migration routes will find their path impeded and introduce high levels of ongoing disturbance by the Project." "The remaining open space areas will be cut by interior roads, pedestrian trails and footbridges, limiting deer movement and use of the site for foraging. This design (of the project) makes it unlikely that wildlife would use this open space." None of this is acknowledged or mitigated by the RDEIR and needs to be addressed. When will this happen? During the first town hall meeting concerning the initial DEIR, I met with the man who did the deer study for the initial DEIR, and he stated there were no significant numbers of deer on the project because he could only count 19 deer poops during his survey. Seriously? My dogs can find 19 deer poops within 20 feet of ANY place we walk on the project. The two tracked collared deer showed that deer are active on the site, and 19 poops will not provide enough information about the deer habitat in the project area. Since there has been an in-depth study of the deer habits and migration on the site, by the CDFW, the RDEIR must address impacts and adequate mitigation to protect the deer herd. How can the people of Truckee get this be done to ensure we do not lose an important biological resource? The CDFW letter further states that the, "Project conflicts with the current Town General Plan as this area is used as a migratory corridor and provides valuable foraging habitat to the VSU (Verdi deer herd)." This is not addressed in the RDEIR and the Town must abide by the General Plan--how will this be addressed? 4.4-35 gives standards of significance regarding a "Significant impact this project would have in regard to biological resources." "On individual housing lots, the introduction of pets, alteration of native vegetation, etc., would decrease the overall value of these habitats and could discourage wildlife from using these areas." Yet on every impact listed from 4.4-37 to 4.4-38, all losses of habitat are "less than significant," except in the case of the Lewis woodpecker where "potential disturbance of active nests would be significant," and the red fox denning habitat loss which would be "significant." What about the deer? What about construction noise, vibrations from trucks and tree cutting, and other consequences of construction that would reverberate throughout the project area and impact all of the wildlife? JURISDICTIONAL WATERS: "There area total of 7.78 acres of jurisdictional waters on the project site (4.4-33), consisting of 5.94 acres of wet meadow and 0.65 acres of riverine emergent wetlands (4.4-35)." "Buck's Spring, in the southwest corner of the project is one of the wet meadows fed by groundwater discharge and snow melt." The RDEIR states that these "waters are tributary to the Truckee River and subject to regulation by the USACE as waters of the U.S., and likely be subject to regulation by the RWQCB and CDFW." What are these regulations and are they adequately addressed by the RDEIR? Buck's Spring is in a 100 year flood plain per the RDEIR (4.4-41). On 4.4-38, the RDEIR states that, "Consistent with the Town Development Code Section 18.38.040.A2A, all proposed building envelopes would be outside of the Town-required 50 foot setback from designated 100 year floodplains for the two blue line waterways." There are 10 proposed housing units (lots 122 to 131) located within a 50 foot setback from Buck's Spring. 18.38.020 of the Truckee General Plan designates blue line permanent and seasonal waterways such as Buck's Spring, as needing "A buffer area between proposed development and designated stream corridors to protect valuable environmental, scenic and recreational resources." 18.38.030 and 18.70.040 state that "Applications for projects on parcels that include 100 year floodplains or are located within 100 feet of the floodplain shall include all informational and materials required by 18.70.040 and shall show 100 year floodplains, floodways and base flood elevations in relational to the parcel." The project must apply for a land use permit, filed with the (town) to give evidence in support of approval for 50 foot setbacks, and it must be reviewed by CEQA. Has Canyon Springs applied for or been granted a variance for these lots? Will this project be approved without the variance or an evaluation of the impact on wildlife? Has this been reviewed by CEQA? Since, per the RDEIR, Buck's Spring has been identified as an area that will be used by wildlife, and will have split rail fencing to keep people and pets out, how can the town approve having housing so close? AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: The ADA of 1990 states that "New developments must fully comply with accommodating all of the public, including the use of special signage, reserved parking, restrooms and ramps, and providing wheelchair access." Wheelchair access includes hardscape trails, not dirt trails as proposed by Canyon Springs. 4.4-46 of the RDEIR states that there is a "Proposed 4.5 mile publicly accessible trail network." 2-2 states the trail would be "Made up of 2-foot wide soft surface earthen trails and 12-foot wide gravel trails." Is this to be construed as compliant with ADA? The ADA (36.401) also states that "Failure to design and construct facilities for first occupancy after 1/26/93 that are not ADA compliant is discrimination." 36.301 of the ADA states that an entity "Cannot have eligibility requirements to screen out the disabled." 4.4-41 of the RDEIR states that "The proposed project would result in minor indirect impacts to wet meadows through modification of surface hydrology that supports these areas due to the introduction of impervious surfaces," however, the "Impact would be less than significant." An ADA compliant trail will add significant hardscape and must be reviewed. 4.4-41 of the RDEIR states that "The project would minimize the effects to upland surface hydrology supporting the wet meadow community by limiting the area of impervious surface and associated runoff which can result in erosion, sedimentation, and increased pollutants." Questions: 1. Since this new needed hardscape is not included in the RDEIR or DEIR, how will this impact the water runoff from the added hardscape so that there are no impacts to the Glenshire pond and ultimately the Truckee River? 2. How much hardscape would be added to the project to comply with ADA and will the impact now be "significant?" 3. How will this added hardscape and loss of open space impact the wildlife, and especially the deer herd, using the area? 4. Will it again be up to a nonexistent HOA to maintain the trail, signage, parking, etc.? 5. What is the purpose of the proposed 12 foot wide gravel trails? RECREATIONAL FACILITIES: 2-2 of the RDEIR states that there will be a recreational area "centrally located within the project site" and is to include a "tot-lot, swing set, play structure, picnic shelter, pool, clubhouse and/or multi-use play court." It is to be 24,015-square foot facility. There is not an identifiable designated area shown on any of the RDEIR maps. 1. Does this recreational area further encroach on open space and will it further increase hardscape? 2. How will this impact the wildlife? 3. How will this impact water runoff and can it be contained from reaching the Glenshire pond, the ultimately the Truckee River? ALTERNATIVES: The only acceptable alternative is A: no project. While it is clear that the "current unauthorized and unregulated recreational uses on the site" HAVE NOT impacted the biology, hydrology, traffic of the site, any other project alternative would. Per the RDEIR, (4.4-49), "A cumulative impact would be considered potentially significant if, taken together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Town of Truckee SOI and the Boca Quarry project in Nevada County, the project would contribute to the ongoing loss of natural (relatively)undisturbed open space in the region resulting in a decline of biological resources and species diversity." Per the RDEIR: "The encroachment of development areas into natural, relatively undisturbed open space is a continual and direct threat to wildlife species in the vicinity as it removes habitat for plant species, increases fragmentation of open space in the region effecting wildlife dispersal, and results in increased human presence leading to the degradation of natural undisturbed habitats." Also per the RDEIR: "Accordingly, the project when considered with the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan build- out and the Boca Quarry project in Nevada County could result in a significant cumulative impact to biological resources." To just say, as does the RDEIR, that all mitigations reduce this threat to "less than significant," is to do a great disservice to the area's resources and the people of the Town of Truckee. It is clear that a completely NEW DEIR and RDEIR must be done to address the failures and inadequacies of the first two. I am requesting this be done. In addition, to avoid more stalled build-outs and sprawl, such an Elkhorn Ridge and other unfinished projects, the Town must consider rejecting this project. Or at the vary least, delaying it until all other projects are finished, to study and ascertain the current cumulative impacts of more projects, is protecting the promise made by the Town General Plan to the people of Truckee to adequately ensure our mountain community will be protected.