HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #037 (The Meadows HOA)
The Meadows Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 1696
Truckee, CA 96160
(530) 587-8647
November 14, 2014
Denyelle Nishimori
Town of Truckee Community Development Department
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Re: Canyon Springs Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Canyon Springs Subdivision Project is the most recent of several residential
developments proposed on this site. Through the years, The Meadows Association has
closely followed all of these proposals and has consistently expressed our concerns about
density and resulting impacts. Our most recent letter dated March 1, 2013 was submitted
for consideration in the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
In reviewing the September 29, 2014 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
(RDEIR), we found that our concerns were either inadequately addressed or not
addressed at all.
DENSITY:
What is the TOTAL proposed density (not only the proposed 185 lots, but also multi-
family housing and second dwelling units)?
The RDEIR acknowledges that construction of second dwelling units are allowed, and
includes a projection of 50% in the Traffic Study (Reference: TABLE 4.14-6 PROJECT
TRIP GENERATION) but does not include them for impact discussion in any other areas.
The Town’s own General Plan “assumes that 20 percent of all future single-family units
will be secondary dwelling units”. However, the actual number could be higher since this
is a new development and it is much easier to site plan a second unit when a lot is vacant.
The 8 affordable lots will be allocated for future “multi-family” attached housing. The
RDEIR assumes a total number of 26 affordable housing units (Reference: TABLE 4.14-6
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION). This number also needs to be factored into TOTAL
density for impact discussion.
TABLE 4.14-6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION references a total “quantity” of 292.
This is significantly higher than 185.
This undetermined density should not be a hidden density. It should be a specific
potential number and, therefore, included in the maximum approved density. For example
if it is determined that 20% of new development will have second dwelling units, then a
development of 100 units will only be able to create 80 lots, because 20 of the lots will
have a second unit and thus will have reached the maximum allowed density.
TRAFFIC - INTERSECTION OF WHITEHORSE ROAD/MARTIS PEAK ROAD/
GLENSHIRE DRIVE:
The Meadows Association is particularly concerned about the intersection of Whitehorse
Road/Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Drive.
The RDEIR confirms that drivers exiting Whitehorse Road onto Glenshire Drive do
not have adequate corner sight distance to judge acceptable gaps looking either to
the east or west.
Reference: RDEIR (4.14-53 to 4.14-57)
i. Intersection Corner Sight Distance
The addition of project traffic at the Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Drive/ Whitehorse Road
intersection could result in hazardous driving conditions due to the current limited sight
distance conditions.
b) Whitehorse Road Looking West Along Glenshire Drive Whitehorse Road looking to
the west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195 feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330-
foot requirement (see Figure 4.14-8). Please note this Figure does NOT take into
account the reduced visibility due to snow banks in the winter months.
The corner sight distance at this location is limited by the existing embankment and
vegetation on the northwest corner of the intersection, as well as by the horizontal and
vertical curvature along Glenshire Drive. The corner sight distance improves as the driver
on Whitehorse Road approaches the edge of the travel lane on Glenshire Drive. Measured
10 feet back from the edge of the traveled way, the corner sight distance is approximately
195 feet, and when measured from a 5-foot setback the corner sight distance increases to
approximately 255 feet; however, these values do not achieve the Town’s 330-foot
requirement and impacts to drivers on Whitehorse Road would be potentially significant.
The corner sight distance at this location could be improved by modifying the existing
embankment on the northwest corner of the intersection. However, such an improvement
would likely require the acquisition of right-of- way from the single-family parcel located
on this corner.
Town standards indicate that “where restrictive conditions do not allow compliance with
the specified sight distance requirements, the Town Engineer may approve a reduction of
the corner sight distance to the minimum stopping sight distance as outlined in the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual.” According to Caltrans standards, at a 30-mile-per-
hour design speed, the minimum stopping sight distance is 200 feet. Measured stopping
sight distance for drivers approaching along Glenshire Drive from the west is 210 feet
measured to an object six inches in height, and at least 255 feet to a vehicle turning into
the westbound through lane.
Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided for eastbound drivers along
Glenshire Drive to see and react to a driver pulling out from Whitehorse Road.
Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year period
from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving impacts at this location would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
c) Whitehorse Road Looking East Along Glenshire Drive
The corner sight distance from Whitehorse Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive
is roughly 170 feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330- foot corner sight distance
requirement. To the east of the intersection Glenshire Drive curves to the north and then
back to the south. When looking east from Whitehorse Road, a driver can see a portion of
the road, but as it turns to the north it disappears from sight and reappears into the
driver’s sight as it curves back to the south.
The corner sight distance at this location is limited by an existing utility box in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection, as well as by existing vegetation. If the existing
utility box (actually a sewer pump station controller) and vegetation were removed,
then the corner sight distance to the east would be improved to roughly 580 feet, thereby
meeting minimum corner sight distance requirements.
However, the stopping sight distance along Glenshire Drive east of Whitehorse Drive
(measured along the travel lane) is over 500 feet, as the existing utility box does not block
the driver sight line along the traveled way. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is
provided.
If a driver makes a right turn from Whitehorse Road without an adequate gap, a vehicle
traveling on Glenshire Drive westbound would have adequate stopping sight distance to
react and come to a stop.
Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year period
from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazardous driving impacts at this location would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
It does not seem to be a reasonable or responsible conclusion that, because there
were no accidents reported at this intersection PRIOR to the addition of 2,578 one-
way daily vehicle trips. (Reference: TABLE 4.14-6 PROJECT TRIP
GENERATION), that the impacts will be less than significant.
There is no acknowledgement or studies of the additional reduction in visibility from
all directions due to snow banks in the winter months.
There is no acknowledgement or studies of the decreased stopping ability on icy
roads, especially at the edge of a “steep grade of about nine percent” during the
winter months. Yet, the drivers referenced above, that the RDEIR assumes are
capable of stopping for someone pulling out from Whitehorse Road in front of them,
are the same drivers referenced below that have two times the State and County
average accident rates” and “need to leave more distance between vehicles and avoid
sudden stops.”
Reference: RDEIR (4.14-56 – 4.14-57)
ii. Roadway Segment Hazards
The Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road roadway segment has an average
accident rate (from 2006 to 2010) about two times the State and County average
rates for similar facilities. The injury and fatal accident rate is also higher than the
State and County average rates for similar facilities. However, the severity of the
accidents is relatively minor overall, given that no fatalities were reported, and two-
thirds of the accidents resulted in property damage only (no injuries). Furthermore,
while one-third of the accidents occurred under icy/snowy road conditions, which
represents a relatively small proportion of the overall winter, each of these acci-
dents involved a single vehicle, and there were no injuries.
This roadway segment has a steep grade of about nine percent. The existing travel
lane width is striped to accommodate two 11-foot travel lanes with an outside fog
line and the actual asphalt roadway is 24 to 25 feet wide in all locations. Paved
and unpaved shoulder widths are generally 2 to 4 feet wide. Both Nevada County
and Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot travel lanes with
4-foot shoulders, and maximum grade of eight percent.
Therefore, while this segment of Glenshire Drive is deficient with respect to the current
County standards for this type of roadway in some areas, it essentially meets the required
design standards. It should be noted that Glenshire Drive met the standards that were
applicable at the time it was constructed. As the County standards have been up-
dated over the years, most of the rural County roadways do not meet the current
County standards.
In 2008, Nevada County installed several hundred feet of guardrail along the por-
tion of the roadway segment approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak
Road/Glenshire Drive intersection, and rehabilitated the pavement on the Nevada
County section of Glenshire Road in 2009. As previously stated, the Nevada
Community Development Agency Department of Public Works’ investigations on
this road show a majority of crashes occurred in 2006 and 2007 and were concen-
trated in a 500 foot area approximately 1,500 feet east of the Martis Peak Road
intersection. While the guardrail and pavement improvements were not specifically
intended as safety projects, according to the Nevada Community Development
Agency Department of Public Works, both improvements have contributed to
overall improved roadway conditions at this location. The Nevada Community
Development Agency Department of Public Works found that accident rates at
this location have been reduced since these improvements have been installed. This
is consistent with the County’s findings that crash rates typically drop after a pave-
ment improvement project, either due to the improved pavement surface or the
improved striping associated with pavement projects.
While the accident rate along this roadway segment is higher than State and County
averages, it would be speculative to try and predict potential traffic impacts based
on variables such as icy/snowy road conditions or illegal driving behaviors such as
speeding or using handheld electronics (e.g. smart phones) while driving. It is driver
responsibility to comply with the law and exercise safe driving practices such as
slowing down, leaving more distance between vehicles and avoiding sudden stops
and quick direction changes in icy/snow conditions, which are often the cause of
accidents. Additionally, in rural communities throughout California, including
Truckee and the area surrounding the project site, the incident of vehicular and
wildlife collisions is an expected and unpredictable hazard.
Although the proposed project would result in an increase of up to 1,600 daily one-
way trips, including 160 peak-hour trips, on this roadway segment, which when
compared to existing conditions, equates to about a 50-percent increase in the total
peak-hour traffic volume, the 2008 and 2009 roadway improvements, as described
above, have reduced potential hazards at this roadway segment. Therefore, potential
hazardous driving impacts related to the additional vehicle trips of the proposed
project at this roadway segment would be less than significant.
How can this impact be reduced to “less than significant”??
The RDEIR seems to conclude that because new asphalt and guard rails have been
installed that it will reduce an accident rate that is two times the state and county
average and putting another 1600 daily trips on this same road segment will have no
impact.
Those of us who live here and travel this road extensively are aware of the extremely
hazardous driving conditions on this road segment. If you were to travel it today
you would see numerous skid marks, glass from collisions and blood stains from
animal/vehicle collisions. The icy/snowy road conditions of the winter months are
particularly dangerous. Accidents and spin-outs occur on a regular basis. It is
irresponsible to conclude that an additional 1600 daily trips on this road will be less
than significant.
In addition, one of the recommended mitigation measures will route even more
traffic on this road segment.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b: Construction traffic shall not be permitted to
exceed the Town's level of service standards at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
and Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive intersections and construction traffic shall
not travel to and from the project site using the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection during the AM or PM peak hour. (Reference: 4.14-70)
If traffic is prevented from traveling down Glenshire Road/Donner Pass Road, the
only other direction would be Glenshire Road east of Martis Peak Road.
TRAFFIC – OTHER:
* The RDEIR does not address the safety concerns for children leaving the Meadows
communities from Whitehorse Road and walking along Glenshire Road to catch the
school bus at Yorkshire with this increase in traffic.
* Significant improvements to the intersection of Donner Pass Road and Glenshire
Drive must be funded and completed before any additional projects are approved in the
Glenshire Area.
WILDLIFE:
* What is the realistic impact on the Loyalton-Truckee Verdi sub-unit Deer Herd
that returns to the Hirshdale/Glenshire/Martis Valley in the spring for fawning and
summer forage and, in recent years, has been wintering over.
In addition to the 100 plus acres of trees and vegetation expected to be removed for the
project (Reference Biological Resources. D. Impact Discussion. 4.4-36 to 4.4-42), the
RDEIR did not address what the additional loss of habitat in acres of trees and vegetation
required by the Truckee Fire Protection District for: 1) 30’ defensible space around
structures; 2) 10’ on both sides of roads and driveways; 3) Fuel Modification Plan for the
entire subdivision, including a 200-300 ft. shaded fuel break. (Reference: DEIR
Appendix B, Letter from Bob Bena, Truckee Fire Protection District May 12, 2011)
What will be the cumulative loss of habitat for the Deer Herd and other wildlife?
* The RDEIR continually references that long-term disturbances from human
activity, pet dogs and other domestic pets belonging to homeowners and visitors to the
project could have a significant impact on the herd.
How will the proposed development protect deer and other wildlife from free-roaming
domestic animals? The proposed mitigations in the RDEIR are inadequate as they are
overseen by a homeowners association that can be changed at the whim of any majority of
homeowners rather than by protective deed restrictions.
* What are the guidelines for fencing within the proposed development? Will they
inhibit migration and create a gauntlet effect? Again, realistic and enforceable mitigations
need to be protected by deed restrictions rather than a homeowner association whose rules
can be changed by the homeowners.
* Will bear boxes be required to prevent increased interaction between humans and
bears?
GENERAL COMMENTS:
* What is the effect to surrounding property values when there are so many vacant
lots on the market within the Town already (Elkhorn Ridge, Grays Crossing, etc.)?
* Why wasn’t the development of the adjacent “Teel/Raleys Property” included as a
cumulative impact in the RDEIR?
* The TDPUD and TSD have indicated that the Canyon Springs Project will require
modifications or additional infrastructure to accommodate this subdivision. What cost
will the existing district members bear? What modifications will be required to other
existing infrastructure and what will be the resulting costs to district members?
* The number of phases (8) with “build-out” of the project are anticipated to take
“20 or more years”. We believe the proposed mitigations will do little to offset the
continual construction traffic, noise and disturbance to surrounding homes for decades.
Thank you for addressing the Association’s concerns.
Sincerely,
The Meadows Board of Directors:
Ken Weakley
Mike Sabarese
Dave Giacomini