HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #017 (Eisele)To: Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner November 7, 2014
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
dnishimori@townoftruckee.com
Re: Comments for Canyon Springs RDEIR
Dear Ms. Nishimori,
I have many concerns regarding the adequacy of the RDEIR for the Canyon Springs housing
development proposed for land adjoining Glenshire. They are too many to address in this letter,
but the following include some important ones related to the Biological Resources section —
specifically Wetlands and Water Resources and the Loyalton- Truckee Deer Herd, including
some points where there are conflicts with the Town of Truckee General Plan ( TOTGP):
Biological. Resources: Effects on wetlands, water resources, and the Glenshire Pond
Note: In wet seasons, this site contains several areas of beautiful wet meadows, riverine
wetlands, and intermittent drainages as noted on maps pages 4.4- 39 &40.
1. The project site includes 5.94 acres of wetlands. The project plans for wetlands to be filled,
with 54 square feet of disturbance to wetlands, (pg4.4- 41 &42; significant threshold c).
Disturbance of these jurisdictional waters violates the Clean Water Act, section 404. It also
conflicts with TOTGP COS -11. Additionally, changes to wetland areas cause impacts on
wildlife corridors (pg. 4.4- 25,d.), as animals move along drainages.
The DEIR needs to provide mitigation to avoid disturbing the wetlands :with the proposed
footbridges and provide an alternative to disturbing the jurisdictional waters. The RDEIR
statement that the impact would be minimal is invalid, as the same sentence states that impacts
would be "significant" (pg. 4.4 -42). Also, cumulative impacts from fill added to the wetlands
on site, effects of erosion from the hillsides, and the additional use of fertilizer and pesticides
that go along with residential properties are not fully addressed.
Mitigation Measure BIO -3 in the RDEIR is invalid. Impacting wetlands is a direct violation of
the Clean Water Act, section 404. Purchasing credits or paying in -lieu fees for the impact does
nothing for the immediate environmental damage where the adverse impacts occur, including
effects on the :watershed and wildlife. The RDEIR needs to be revised to include an alternative
to impacting these resources. (pg.4.4 -52)
2. Sensitive communities within the project area include the wet meadow and pebble meadow
areas (significant threshold b, pg 4.4 -38). Looking at the maps pg. 4.4- 39 &40, it is evident that
there are approximately 10 - 12 lots and one road that are very close to the largest wet meadow
area (Buck Springs), at the south end of the project. For some reason, these lots are not planned
with.the 100 -foot setback recommended by CDFW for the "main drainage ". Runoff from these
lots and activity associated with residents and heir pets will.directly impact this huge wet
meadow and wildlife using it. The conclusions that this is insignificant and no mitigation is
Pamela Eisele
required are contradictory to the CDFW recommendations (pg. 4.4 -41). This whole area of the
project needs to be re- evaluated in the DEIR and changes made to eliminate these impacts.
3. The RDEIR states, "The project could indirectly impact these wetlands through
modification of the hydrology that supports these areas ", (pg. 4.4 -42, threshold c).
Modification of the hydrology could impact the Truckee River Watershed that conservation
groups are working so hard to protect. Water from the site flows to the Glenshire Pond &
Truckee River ( "tributary to the Truckee River", pg. 4.4 -35). There is already concern that the
adjacent Elkhorn Ridge housing development, with inadequate mitigation, has resulted in
erosion and deteriorating water quality in the Glenshire Pond.
The Canyon Springs impacts on and eutrophication of the Glenshire Pond need to be studied
and addressed in the DEIR. How project effects would be assessed, before and after
development, needs to be established. Once development occurs, without adequate pre - project
and ongoing regulation and monitoring, it is impossible to prove blame for future impacts. This
is serious as deterioration of the pond can cause damages to the Glenshire- Devonshire HOA,
which would need to be indemnified from this liability.
Anything leading to the deterioration of the Glenshire Pond, affecting its role as a major scenic,
recreational, and aesthetic resource in the neighborhood is also a serious matter. In addition to
the obvious, it also conflicts directly with the TOTGP Goal COS -2 ( RDEIR Table 4.4 -1, pg.
4.4 -5, TOTGP Goal CC -2).
The RDEIR needs to be revised to include analysis as to how the hydrology will be modified,
what the impacts are and how to mitigate them. Just saying that modifications to surface
hydrology are "insignificant" and no mitigation is required is invalid without more study and
documentation in light of the initial statement (above in bold).
4. Along the same lines, the TOTGP policy pertaining to Biological Resources, Goal LU -4,
P4.5 requires "new infrastructure and development to be designed and built to manage storm
water runoff and to minimize or eliminate harmful impacts to property prone to flooding, water
quality, and riparian, wetland and meadow habitats ". The DEIR needs to include a
comprehensive drainage plan for the whole project (not just limited to impervious surfaces) to
mitigate impacts associated with runoff from yards and trails and flooding on water quality and
on riparian, wetland, and meadow habitats, based on appropriate analysis. Additionally pg. 2 -3
of the RDEIR states that the HOA will be responsible for maintenance of drainage. How can it
be assured that they will actually be able to do that through the various phases of the 20 -plus
year construction period and after build -out, when there may only be small numbers of actual
home - owners in the association at times, or if the HOA becomes nonviable?
Biological Resources: Effects on the Loyalton- Truckee Deer Herd
Items in the report regarding negative impact on the deer herd are conflicting.
2
Pamela Eisele
1. The RDEIR states that the "California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDF99 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" (see citation
18 & 19 on pg. 4.4 -29 & 30).
The RDEIR cites CDFW findings that "the deer population declines in the Northern/Central
Sierra have been substantial ", (pg. 4.4 -30 citation 20) and that "deer populations may be at
the lowest levels in the last 50 years" (citation 21). The RDEIR goes on to state that this is
likely due to a number of causes including habitat loss, development, and vehicle collisions (pg.
4.4- 30 &31) (all relevant to this project).
How can the RDEIR state that there will be insignificant impact to the deer herd when the
RDEIR states that the CDFW is concerned about the effects of residential development in the
projec t,W�on the animals? The RDEIR is inconsistent with the CDFW statements.
2. The RDEIR uses information from only two collared deer, which appears to minimize the
importance of the project area to the herd (pg. 4.4 -31, paragraph 2). However, when CDFW
study a herd they do not collar the entire herd, they collar a select study sample. The data shows
that the deer herd is utilizing the site and the RDEIR states that the "herd is known to utilize the
project site and surrounding area for foraging, movement, and migration" (pg. 4.4 -33), "vital to
their long -term survival" (pg. 4.4 -31).
The statement "Critical fawning habitat for this deer herd occurs in two distinct locations
approximately 1.5 miles south and 7 miles southwest of the project site; therefore, there is a low
potential for fawning habitat for this mule deer herd on project site ", (pg. 4.4- 31 -32) is invalid.
How can this conclusion be drawn since data from CDFW clearly shows the herd use of the
project area and region?
These conflicting positions need to be peer reviewed and additional data from CDFW analyzed
for a revised evaluation of the project impact on the migration corridor. The DEIR needs to re-
analyze the impact that this development will have on the loss of the habitat for the deer, and
provide an alternative.
3. Not protecting the corridor the herd utilizes by approving this project conflicts with the
TOTGP Goal COS -4, both generally and under P4.1 and 4.2 (Table 4.4 -1, pg. 4.4 -6).
4. The RDEIR says that there will be "adequate undisturbed areas for wildlife throughout the
20 year build out period" and that effects are "less than significant" and no mitigation is needed
(pg. 4.4 -45). This statement is invalid. Deer follow similar paths year after year. Twenty plus
years of construction will likely significantly affect their activities and the construction plan to
minimise dust will not result in a less than significant effect.
This construction effect on the deer needs to be analyzed and mitigated in the DEIR.
3
Pamela Eisele
5. Deer do not read signs or respect private property. Proposed mitigation consisting of
constrained areas for migration, with a large, new neighborhood (with associated dogs, fences,
human activity, and landscaping) encroaching on the already much reduced range of the deer
herd, will continue to push the animals into smaller and smaller spaces. They already have to
cross I -80 and the Glenshire Drive hill and deal with the existing development in the Truckee
area. There is also the concept of "quality" of open space and what it is good for. The open
space needs of people for exercise are not the same as what wild animals need for health and
survival. A wildlife migration corridor should be a place where animals can move freely and
avoid having to interact with people, bikes, cars, fences, noise, and dogs.
At what point is too little open range going to be left for them to maintain a viable migration
pattern? Who is qualified to assess this?
6. The RDEIR needs to better mitigate to protect the survival of the local deer herd.
a. Mitigation Measures BIO -5a & c (pg. 4.4 -53) are invalid and contradict the EIR
consultants' statements that there is a less than significant impact on wildlife, especially the deer
herd. Utilizing HOA educational pamphlets to deal with loss of wildlife habitat is completely
inadequate and logistically impossible (due to a number of things including the transience of
visitors and second home owners in the area) and cannot be taken seriously! While education of
the public is a noble goal, based on what one observes all around the area, there are numerous
people, including youths, who do not take care for local wildlife, driving so fast that they risk
hitting animals and letting dogs run loose, harassing wildlife. It is ridiculous to think that
pamphlets and signs will mitigate the impact of the project on the deer and other wildlife. Also,
plans for once a year distribution of materials will not work because of the numerous summer
and winter visitors to the area and second home - owners who may not even be here in May.
b. Mitigation Measures BIO -5b & c are inadequate. The deer herd will not just stay
concentrated in the south east corner of the project site. Fencing and signage will not control the
migration pattern. Split rail fencing does not keep dogs out, is easily breached by people, and
does not hold up in this climate. The DEIR needs to be revised to include realistic mitigation
measures that protect the habitat the deer utilize, without fencing and signage. (pg. 4.4 -54)
c. Mitigation Measures BIO -5e & 5f, are invalid and effectively cancel each other out.
They state that domestic pets need to be confined by 6 -foot fences, yet there shall not be
complete property line fences that impede wildlife movement on residential lots. Motivated
dogs can get out of 6 -foot fences, people often let their dogs out anyway, and barking dogs
behind fences also harass and stress animals. All of these things affect the wild animals' energy
budgets and activity and, ultimately, their survivability. These mitigation measures make no
sense and would not eliminate impacts on the wildlife corridor. Their being put forward further
confirms that there is an associated impact from the project due to domestic animals (dogs,
specifically) and diminished habitat for the Loyalton- Truckee deer herd, as already discussed.
Additionally, statements on pg. 4.4 -46 affirming that dogs under owner control per the
municipal code would have less than significant impact and not require mitigation are invalid.
Pamela Eisele 4
With 185 new households and the possibility of several dogs per household, up to several
hundred new dogs could be resident (24/7) in Canyon Springs. Even in areas as central as the
Legacy Trail (mainly daylight hour use), dogs run loose and are not under effective owner
control, as many observations and letters to the editor, etc. have documented. In a rural area
such as Canyon Springs, enforcement of the "leash" and "voice control" regulations will be
logistically impossible, rendering this set of assurances invalid. Has there been any serious,
realistic study as to what the predicted impact of these new resident dogs will be on the wildlife
and watershed (through added nutrients in the soil from urine and feces)?
d. Mitigation Measure BIO -5i contradicts the EIR consultants' conclusions that there is
no true migration corridor by providing mitigation in the form of signs to raise awareness of the
deer migration corridor to vehicular traffic. Neighbors already put up signs on the Glenshire
Drive hill, letting people know about deer and fawn movement across the road. Many people
ignore them, regularly driving too fast when there are does with fawns in or beside the road. I
have used hand signals to try to slow people down and also used my car to slowly herd deer off
of the roadway, while drivers behind me or opposite have indicated irritation at having to slow
down for the animals. From observation, it is evident that signs do not to work. This mitigation
measure is invalid.
e. It is not feasible for a small HOA to implement all of the Bio -5 suggested inadequate
mitigation measures. Enforcement would be impossible. In addition to being inadequate, the
entire mitigation plan is invalid because it is not practical to implement.
7. The RDEIR (threshold d -iii, pg. 4.4 -47) states that "long -term disturbances in the form of
increased human activity, vehicular, and bicycle traffic, equestrian use, and the presence of
domestic animals such as pet dogs ... associated with permanent residents ... are considered
significant ". While it is pointed out that the area is used "heavily" for recreation, this is not
quantified and has no validity without further documentation. In no way does occasional use by
neighbors to walk and bike compare to the impact that development will have on the area and it
is misleading to even imply this.
Biological Resources: Some additional General Concerns to address
1. The RDEIR states that the newest field study by the EIR biologist from LSA was on
November 1, 2013 (pg. 4.4 -8). November is usually a very cold, dry time of year in Truckee
and is not ideal for biological field surveys. Also, this field survey is inadequate to properly
assess biological resources due to drought. The DEIR needs to be revised to include more recent
biological field surveys, done at several points in the spring - summer months of a normal
precipitation year. The DEIR needs to include the field survey data.
2. The TOTGP policy pertaining to the Biological Resources section of the RDEIR, Goal COS
1 - P1.5 (Table 4.4 -1, pg. 4.4 -6) states "Preserve open space that, to the greatest possible extent,
occurs in large blocks and is contiguous and connected". P 1.3 ( "Work with the Tahoe Donner
Land Trust to support their efforts to acquire and manage open space lands. ") and P 1.5 give
guidelines as to how to achieve this. Approval of this project conflicts with these TOTGP
Pamela Eisele
sections, especially since the conservation community has indicated the possibility of buying the
property for preservation.
3. The RDEIR (pg. 4.4 -49) section on Cumulative Impacts is also missing data related to
planned development for the Teel property. This property comprises approximately 3,600 acres
and has planned housing and commercial growth. The DEIR needs to be revised to analyze
biological resource and other impacts associated with the proposed Canyon Springs
development in correlation with possible future development on the Teel property. Cumulative
impact analysis is inadequate.
4. Mitigation may not be completed until the project is built out, which could be 20 years or
more from now (or it could be never). This means that proposed mitigation for impacts to the
deer herd, wet lands, etc. will not occur in a timely enough fashion to truly alleviate adverse
effects on the things of concern. To be effective, mitigation needs to occur in an ongoing
fashion during any part of development to be sure that the things of concern survive the
development process. Otherwise, mitigation is a joke.
5. If for some reason, the project or HOA become nonviable, how will mitigation be carried
out? Who will assure that mitigation measures that are part of the project as approved get done,
who will do them, and where will the money come from to complete them in this scenario?
There are so many other concerns about this project, but this letter is already too long. I have
not addressed the invalid conclusions drawn in the RDEIR regarding Traffic / Transportation,
Project Alternatives, and other aspects of Biological Resources (birds, red fox, etc.). Nor have I
addressed concerns regarding air quality, sprawl and the concept that this development is not
suited for an area on the town fringe, but rather closer to the town core (TOTGP Goal LU -3),
the inappropriateness of creating a new development so far away from town that will require
miles of water pipe (that could leak) and will draw on limited water supplies for new households
and landscaping in this time of unprecedented drought, the inappropriateness of proposing
multi - family low income housing in an area so far away from town that it will obligate these
people to get into / buy cars and burn / buy gas when they are on a limited budget, the many
already approved developments that are not being built due to lack of interest / demand / or
whatever, etc. I am sure that others will write with these concerns for you to address.
Thank you for your consideration.
Pamela Eisele DVM
10925 Whitehorse Drive
Truckee, CA 96161
530 758 -0620
pameisele @comcast.net
Pamela Eisele 6