Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #050 (Bunge Hester)Mark Bunge and Tanja Hester 10480 Regency Circle Truckee, CA 96161 Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Rd Truckee, CA 96161 Re: Comments for Canyon Springs Revised DEIR Dear Denyelle – We are writing to raise our concerns about the proposed Canyon Springs development adjacent to Glenshire in Truckee, specifically concerns we have about the adequacy of the revised draft environmental impact report (RDEIR), and ways in which the proposed Canyon Springs development would violate the Town of Truckee’s General Plan. A big picture theme of our comments is that the authors of both versions of the Canyon Springs EIR to date have not accounted for the already expected increases in population and traffic that are inevitable when the existing developments in the area (namely Sierra Bluffs, Elkhorn Ridge, the Meadows, etc.) are completed. It is unfair to characterize the existing Glenshire area population and traffic as the baseline, when new developments are already underway that will raise that number significantly in terms of population, traffic, bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as capacity needed at the schools and with emergency response. Inadequacy in the RDEIR: Traffic study was not conducted accurately The concerns raised on the prior DEIR were not addressed, namely that the traffic study was completed in December, when school was not in session, and when visitation to the area was at a low point. The study in the final EIR needs to be conducted at a more representative time period, when school is in session and when people are visiting the area in large numbers. Ideally, it would also address traffic delays during times of construction with increased motorists, and time for fire evacuation with more traffic from the existing Glenshire neighborhood’s residents, from the increased residents who will live in the area when existing developments are completed, and with the proposed residents of Canyon Springs. Inadequacy in the RDEIR: Clarity around the proposed access gate on Edinburgh in Glenshire There are contradictions between the RDEIR and Town Staff comments regarding the planned use of the access gate to the Canyon Springs neighborhood on Edinburgh Dr in Glenshire. The RDEIR states that the gate will be for emergency use, but does not specify what constitutes an “emergency.” Further, Town Staff comments indicate that the gate could potentially be used for any purpose. The RDEIR does not adequately address how this could impact residents in the area of Edinburgh, a very small residential street connected to other small streets like Regency Circle (our street), in regard to traffic, ongoing construction , etc. Inadequacy in the RDEIR: Water quality issues in wetlands and ground water The RDEIR does not address water quality impacts on Glenshire Pond, the main drainage point for the entire area, and from which Canyon Springs is uphill, nor does it adequately address the hundreds of acres of wetlands in the area. The report contradicts itself, calling the impact on Glenshire Pond “minimal” while elsewhere stating that the impact is “significant.” This must be addressed in the final RDEIR. The Elkhorn Ridge development has already contributed to erosion that degrades the Truckee River watershed, and we can only assume unless adequately studied that Canyon Springs could exacerbate the problem. In addition, our local water supply already has a high level of arsenic, as reported by the PUD, and the RDEIR does not address whether construction and digging could add arsenic or other hazardous substances to our water supply. Inadequacy in the RDEIR: Wildlife issues The RDEIR relied on a study of wildlife conducted in November, when wildlife are not at their most active. Everyone living in Glenshire knows that we are in a major deer migration corridor, because we see them every day. Yet even in this atmosphere, many deer are killed by careless motorists. The mitigations outlined in the RDEIR are insufficient to prevent a worsening of this problem as the population in the area increases, especially as the mitigations are not set to be completed until the development is completed, which could be 20 years or more from now. That is unacceptably long to be harming more deer with no mitigations. Inadequacy in the RDEIR: Fire evacuation capacity This summer gave us yet another reminder, with the King Fire, of how vulnerable we are to fire. With Glenshire Drive under construction for the much of the summer, much of the neighborhood is reliant on the downhill route to Hirschdale Drive and I-80 for a reliable evacuation route, and the RDEIR does not adequately address the evacuation capacity of that route or the Glenshire Drive to Truckee route, especially in light of the population increases that are already planned as a part of developments currently underway (Sierra Bluffs, etc.). The final EIR must address safe evacuations not just for existing Glenshire area residents, but for current and future residents plus proposed Canyon Springs residents. Not addressed by the RDEIR: Feasibility of Canyon Springs HOA providing promised services The RDEIR states that the Canyon Springs homeowners association (HOA) will provide for snow removal, maintenance of trails and common facilities, drainage maintenance, as well as mitigating effects on the migratory deer from the development and traffic. However, if parcels are not sold and rapidly developed and bought, this is not a credible assumption. Other adjacent developments like Elkhorn Ridge have not sold their very similar parcels, and as a result their HOA has no money to complete its tasks. As the Canyon Springs development is largely uphill from Glenshire, deferring this maintenance could potentially impact the existing neighborhood, and this has not been addressed by the RDEIR, nor has the credibility of claims such as the one that the Canyon Springs will mitigate the impact on deer, other wildlife and the watershed. How can they do that if their parcels don’t sell, or if the neighborhood isn’t completed for 20 years? Or, better stated, what is the Town’s or Glenshire’s recourse if the Canyon Springs HOA cannot do what it has promised to do? Not addressed by the RDEIR: Traffic and safety on Glenshire Drive with completion of Legacy Trail One topic the RDEIR did not adequately address is pedestrian and bicyclist safety on Glenshire Drive, now that the Legacy Trail has been completed, and more people are seeking to access it on foot and via bike. The parking at the Glenshire terminus is now regularly full, and one can envision more cars seeking to park there, and impeding traffic on Glenshire Drive, blocking the bike lane from town, etc. In addition, many more pedestrians and bicyclists can be seen on Glenshire Drive seeking to access the trail. With no sidewalks or bike lanes on Glenshire Drive or any streets in the neighborhood, we should all be concerned about what will happen if we add additional housing parcels and residents, meaning more vehicle traffic and more pedestrian traffic, onto what is becoming an increasingly dangerous roadway for children, families and pedestrians. The RDEIR did not address this safety and traffic issue. Not addressed by the RDEIR: Traffic increases as a result of existing developments being completed The RDEIR fails to account for traffic increases that will happen if no other developments are begun, but rather if existing developments simply sell all of the lots that are currently open. That includes many developments, including Sierra Bluffs, Elkhorn Ridge, the Meadows, Juniper Hills, Cambridge Estates, Glenshire Devonshire, etc. The final EIR needs to account for traffic increases that are already expected but not yet realized, and add Canyon Springs’ impact on top. Not addressed by the RDEIR: Economic and real estate market analysis of the project timeline The Canyon Springs developers have put forth a timeline for completion of the development, but we have no way of knowing if that timeline is realistic or not. Given that Glenshire residents will be affected by construction vehicles for an unknown length of time (apparently construction vehicles will qualify as “emergency vehicles” and will be granted access via the Edinburgh access gate), we are entitled to a realistic assessment of whether the project timeline accurately accounts for economic and real estate market projections in order to have a clear sense of how long we will be made to endure heavy construction vehicles, the ripping up of our street for a new water main, etc. We have our own concerns, separate from the RDEIR, of how appealing these proposed parcels will be to likely buyers. Buyers from the Bay Area are much more inclined to buy on the west side of town, closer to the ski resorts, and full-time residents are more interested in being in the more “community” feeling neighborhoods in the heart of Glenshire or closer to central Truckee, so we worry that there won’t be enough interest in the Canyon Springs parcels to complete the development – possibly ever. Not addressed by the RDEIR: Sanitation capacity Per the letter sent by Jason Parker at the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitation Agency, it is not clear from the RDEIR whether the TTSA has the capacity to serve yet another development in the Glenshire area. This could affect not only Truckee residents but also affect our ability to serve the Tahoe Basin in their sanitation needs, and maintain the pristine nature of the basin. General Plan Violations As much as we are concerned about inadequacies in the RDEIR of Canyon Springs, we are even more concerned about the many ways the development would violate the town citizens’ vision for our community, set forth in the General Plan for 2025. The plan seeks to foster “neighborhoods each with their own unique qualities,” but unfortunately Glenshire’s “unique quality” is becoming the huge amounts of blight surrounding us on all sides, from the empty streets and empty lots of Sierra Bluffs to the empty streets and empty lots of Elkhorn Ridge, to the soon-to-be empty streets and empty lots of Canyon Springs. This is a terrible expression of our “community character,” and is certainly not what our town’s voters or planners have in mind. The town’s priority of infill is not becoming the reality in and around Glenshire, and the last thing we need is another development to contribute sprawl and actually work against the goal of infill, nevermind the destruction of more open spaces. We believe that most Glenshire residents would agree that our neighborhood’s unique character is that we are surrounded by open space, and Canyon Springs also jeopardizes that, trading our scenic resources for more blight, more traffic, and a lower quality of life for everyone. We have many more concerns about how the Canyon Springs development would contradict and violate Truckee’s General Plan, but we will address those concerns if/when the proposed development reaches the Planning Commission. Thank you for considering our comments. With concern, Mark Bunge & Tanja Hester