HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #053 (SCO) 140 Litton Drive
Suite 240
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Tel: 530.272.5841
Fax: 530.272.5880
WEBSITE: www.scopeinc.net
Truckee: 530.582.4043
November 20, 2014
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
Town of Truckee Community Development Department
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Email: dnishimori@townoftruckee.com
Re: Canyon Springs – Comments on Revised Draft EIR
Dear Denyelle:
This letter provides our comments on the Revised Draft EIR for the Canyon Springs
project. The comments represent the combined input of the Canyon Springs development team.
Those participating in the preparation of these comments include:
Dale Creighton, A.I.C.P., Principal, and Martin D. Wood, P.L.S., Vice-President,
SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying (engineering and planning)
John Heal, Heal Environmental Consulting (biological resources)
Greg C. Gatto, Stoel Rives, LLP (legal, planning and entitlements)
Whit Manley, Remy Moose Manley LLP (CEQA)
Christopher Huck, Owner/Applicant, Canyon Springs Joint Venture
As requested by the Town, we are limiting our comments to those topics covered in the
Revised Draft EIR.
1. Schedule
We appreciate the efforts of City staff and its consultants to produce this document. In
our view, the information set forth in the Revised Draft EIR does not constitute “significant new
information” within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 20192.1. For this reason, the
Town could have included it in the Final EIR, rather than in a recirculated Draft EIR.
We understand the Town’s decision to err on the side of providing expanded
opportunities for public input. Nevertheless, the decision to recirculate the Draft EIR has added
2
months to the environmental review process – a process that had already been unusually
leisurely.
Under CEQA, the process for preparing and certifying an EIR is supposed to take a year.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15108.) We recognize the CEQA process sometimes takes longer than
that. Nevertheless, lead agencies should be mindful of the obligation to ensure that the CEQA
process moves along promptly.
In this case, the Town circulated the Notice of Preparation for this project in April 2011,
well over three years ago. The Town has provided opportunities for public input that go well
beyond CEQA’s requirements. The comment period for Draft EIRs is normally 45 days. On
occasion, agencies will provide up to 60 days to comment. In this case, the comment period on
the Draft EIR was originally set at 73 days, and then extended to 78 days. The comment period
on the Revised Draft EIR was originally set at 45 days, and then extended to 53 days. By any
measure, the opportunity for review and comment of the Town’s environmental analysis has
been unusually abundant.
The lengthy process here stands in contrast with the CEQA process followed by the
Town for other projects. For example, the CEQA process for the Railyard Master Plan took
approximately 19 months, from the publication of the Notice of Preparation to the Town’s
approval of the project. The Canyon Springs project is far less complicated than the Railyard.
The Town will likely receive comments asking for still more time. Commenters may ask
why the Town seems to be rushing forward. In light of the amount of time that has already been
devoted to this process, we hope the Town will recognize that these comments do not reflect
reality.
2. Chapter 4.4 – Biological Resources
a. Sierra Nevada red fox.
Sierra Nevada red fox has not been detected on the site. The Revised Draft EIR states
there is no potential for the fox to use the site for cover or denning. At most, the site may
provide foraging habitat, although even that possibility is remote. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.4-
26.) The Revised Draft EIR states that, due to the abundance of foraging habitat, impacts to
foraging habitat on this site are not significant. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-37 – 4.4-38.)
Mitigation is included requiring pre-construction surveys for dens. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-
50 – 4.4-51 [Mitigation Measure BIO-1].) This mitigation measure is unnecessary and imposes
needless cost on the project. It should be deleted. Please see our earlier comments on the Draft
EIR.
If the Town does not change the characterization of the significance of this impact, then
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 should be revised to read: “Prior to the start of construction for each
phase of development, a qualified biologist approved by the Town of Truckee shall survey the
project site to determine if any burrows or other den sites suitable for use by Sierra Nevada red
fox are present.” We request this change because the applicant, as the entity that will bear the
cost of carrying out this measure, should have input into the biologist who performs this work.
At the same time, the Town will retain control of the biologist who is chosen to ensure that the
3
biologist is qualified to perform this work. This approach is consistent with CEQA. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21082.1.)
b. Nesting birds.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (second bullet) states: “If vegetation removal is not possible
during the non-nesting season, a qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall survey
the proposed work area and lands within a 500-foot radius (this area may be decreased due to
property access constraints) for nesting birds. The nesting survey shall be conducted within 14
days prior to the start of construction.”
This measure should be revised to read: “If vegetation removal is not possible during the
non-nesting season, a qualified biologist approved by the Town of Truckee shall survey the
proposed work area and lands within a 500-foot radius (this area may be decreased due to
property access constraints) for nesting birds. The nesting survey shall be conducted within 14
days prior to the start of construction. ”
We request this change for the same reason as the change requested for Mitigation
Measure BIO-1.
c. Mule deer.
The Revised Draft EIR states that fawning habitat is located near Dry Lake and Lookout
Mountain. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.4-30.) The implication is that mule deer must travel on or
near the Canyon Springs site to move between their winter habitat and summer fawning grounds.
This implication may be incorrect. The most recent data available from CDFW suggest that
some mule deer fawn along the Truckee River, north of the Canyon Springs site. This data calls
into question some of the longstanding assumptions by CDFW and NDOW about how and where
mule deer move around Nevada County. In particular, the data suggests that deer movement is
not limited to a narrow corridor at or near the project site. Thus, if anything, the data shows that
the project will have a smaller impact on deer movement than CDFW has assumed.
The Revised Draft EIR lists various potential causes of the reduction of the population of
mule deer. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.4-30.) Other potential causes, not listed in the Revised
Draft EIR, include hunting and poaching. Hunting and poaching result in direct mortality of
individuals of the mule deer herd on an annual basis. The related issues of taking does, and of
genetic drift caused by selection of larger individuals by the hunter rather than the loss of weaker
individuals due to disease and predation, are discussed in greater detail in reports previously
submitted by Mr. Heal to the Town and CDFW.
The Revised Draft EIR also does not note another potential cause of the reduced
population of (or increased stress to) mule deer: the lack of surface water. Lactating does need
access to water, as do all the mule deer that are migrating. The absence of surface water may be
exacerbated by lower precipitation in recent years. In the recent past, the area has experienced
precipitation totals that are well below average. Virtually no surface water has been present on
the Canyon Springs site from June through late October or early November.
4
The project includes buffers around the wetlands located off site: Buck Springs to the
south and the unnamed wetland to the east. In addition, the project includes the creation of a
“guzzler”, or water source, in the southeast corner of the site, where CDFW data shows mule
deer move through the area. Both of these project features will benefit the mule deer. The
Revised Draft EIR should note these benefits.
The Revised Draft EIR states there are “no data showing the project site to be a major or
important migratory corridor for mule deer. Recent data suggests that only a few individual mule
deer use the site as a migration corridor or for forage at any given time.” (Revised Draft EIR, p.
4.4-31.) This conclusion is consistent with Mr. Heal’s conclusions based on ten years of study.
We have provided Mr. Heal’s reports to the Town.
The Revised Draft EIR notes that impacts to the deer, and to other wildlife, are caused by
trespassers, particularly those with off-leash dogs. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.4-37.) The project,
if approved, will reduce the disturbance caused by trespassers. Dogs will be leashed, disturbed
habitat will be restored, trails will be improved, and dog walkers will be admonished. These
project features will improve habitat for the deer. The Revised Draft EIR should acknowledge
these benefits.
The Revised Draft EIR states: “Implementation of the proposed project could impact the
biological resources on the project site and reduce biodiversity.” (Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.4-48.)
We disagree. There will be impacts, but the evidence does not support the conclusion that they
will be significant, or that they will result in the loss of biodiversity. A reduction of biodiversity
occurs when a species becomes extinct or is locally extirpated. There is no evidence that will
occur with respect to the mule deer or any other species. Moreover, the project preserves the
majority of the site as open space. The current condition of the site is not pristine, nor does it
contain any critical habitat for any listed species.
The Revised Draft EIR states: “Therefore, cumulative impacts identified with project
implementation would be less than significant and additional mitigation measures are required.”
(Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.4-50 [emphasis in original].) The duty to consider mitigation arises
only if the impact is “significant.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001.2.) In the context of
cumulative impacts, the impact must be cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines, §
15130, subd. (a).) In this instance, the impact is not significant, so no mitigation should be
required.
3. Chapter 4.14 – Traffic
a. Trip generation rates.
The traffic analysis includes the following passage summarizing the amount of traffic the
project will generate:
The estimated weekday trip generation analysis is summarized in Table 4.14-6.
As indicated, at buildout the proposed project would generate up to approximately
5
2,578 one-way daily vehicle trips, of which 194 ( 46 inbound and 148 outbound)
would occur during the AM peak hour and 257 (164 inbound and 93 outbound)
would occur during the PM peak hour.
(Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.14-28.)
This is identical to the trip-generation estimate provided in the 2012 Draft EIR. (See
Draft EIR, p. 4.14.-29.)
Our comments on the Draft EIR explained why this trip generation estimate is too high.
Among other things:
The Revised Draft EIR’s trip generation rates are derived from the ITE manual. The ITE
manual is based on generic traffic studies prepared throughout the country. While the
ITE manual is an appropriate basis for estimating trip-generation rates, the manual
recommends using local data where available. Here, such data is available. In particular,
observed trip generation rates in the Glenshire area, based on actual traffic counts, “are
approximately 42 percent lower than the ITE rates. Furthermore, the ITE rates do not
consider the relatively high proportion of ‘trip chaining’ (making multiple stops as part of
a single external round-trip from the residential area) due to the relatively long travel
distance from Glenshire to the rest of the Truckee community.” (Appendix I, p. 18.)
Because such local data is available, the Town should revise the trip-generation estimate
for the project.
Trip generation rates do not take into account the reduction in trips due to “trip chaining,”
even though the EIR acknowledges that this characteristic of the project will result in
reduced trips. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 4.14-59 fn. 25.)
The trip generation estimate assumes all those residing at the project will be full time
residents. The report acknowledges that full-time residents have higher trip-generation
rates than part-time residents. Data shows, however, that not all residents will be full-
time. In particular, the Town’s most recent Annual Report 2013 (Table 1, p. 3 --
attached) assumes an owner occupancy rate of 74% based on State Department of
Finance data. The trip generation rates should be adjusted downward to reflect this fact.
The analysis assumes 50% of all single-family residences will have secondary units.
Although the zoning allows for secondary units, no secondary units are proposed, and
whether they will ever be proposed is a matter of conjecture. Under those circumstances,
it would be appropriate to assign no trips to hypothetical secondary units. (See Save
Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1449-1454
[rejecting claim that EIR had to analyze second units authorized by zoning, where no
proposal to construct second units had been submitted].)
The traffic analysis assumes that all of the secondary units will be full-time residences.
There is no data to suggest that secondary units are all full-time residences. Trip
6
generation rates for these units should be adjusted downward to reflect the fact that many,
if not most, will be vacant a significant portion of the time.
The estimate of cumulative conditions assumes full build-out of the General Plan will
occur by the year 2025. Using the annual growth of 1.7% for the past ten years, however,
Truckee’s estimated population will be 19,201 in the year 2025. That equates to an
estimated population that is 6,379 lower than the estimated General Plan build-out
population of 25,280. Even this estimate overstates the Town’s projected population.
Department of Finance data indicates that the Town’s growth rate will decline 1.9% from
the previous 10-year average of 1.7%. (Town Annual Report 2013, p. 3 – see attached).
The traffic study therefore overstates traffic conditions likely to exist in the year 2025 (or,
for that matter, in the year 2031).
Taken together, these assumptions result in overestimating the amount of traffic the project will
generate.
b. Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive.
Table 4.14-7 states the project will contribute 57 peak-hour trips to the Donner Pass
Road/Glenshire Drive intersection. Because the analysis overestimates trips generation as a
whole, the analysis also overestimates the number of trips the project will contribute during the
peak hour at the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection. It is particularly important to
correct this overestimate because the analysis concludes traffic congestion at this intersection is
already exceeding Town standards. All other intersections have an acceptable level of service
with or without the project.
Even if the Town does not adjust trip-generation rates, the analysis shows that, even at
this intersection, the project will improve traffic conditions. Table 4.14-10 summarizes traffic
conditions at the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection. The key comparison is
between existing conditions and “existing + project” conditions. As this table shows, the project
will improve operations at this intersection. Level of service will remain “F” with or without the
project. The amount of delay, however, will go from “OVF” to 107.0 seconds/vehicle, and from
11.3 vehicle/hours to 5.6 vehicle hours. In short, the project will result in a net improvement in
traffic conditions at this intersection.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires the applicant to construct the improvement at this
intersection prior to recording any final map on the project – that is, before the project has any
residents. The net effect will be improved conditions at an intersection that is already operating
at a deficient level of service. CEQA focuses on a project’s impact on existing conditions. If
environmental conditions are currently degraded, and the project will improve them, then under
CEQA the project will have “no impact.” In this instance, if the applicant constructs the
identified improvement at this intersection, the impact should be shown as “less than
significant.” A project cannot lawfully be required to construct improvements to address a
problem that the project neither caused nor exacerbated. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd.
(a)(4).) For this reason, capping the project at 84 units, pending completion of the Donner Pass
Road Extension, is inappropriate.
7
The Town has revised Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 to allow for a follow-up traffic
study based on observed trip generation rates at the project. We support these revisions because
they will enable the Town to revisit and revise the cap on development based on actual data.
We recognize there is some uncertainty regarding development of the Railyard, and
timing of the construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension. Please include in the Final EIR a
discussion of the current status of this improvement, including the Town’s Capital Improvement
Program as it relates to funding and construction of this improvement.
c. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive Intersection.
The analysis concludes a left-turn lane is warranted on Glenshire Drive at the western end
of Dorchester Drive. The left-turn lane is warranted with or without the project. Does the
Town’s CIP list this improvement? If so, the corresponding mitigation measure (TRANS-3) is
unnecessary. If not, the CIP should be amended to include this improvement, since it is required
regardless of whether the project is approved. In that event, if Mitigation Measure TRANS-3 is
retained, then the applicant should be reimbursed to the extent the cost of the improvement
exceeds its “fair share.” That is particularly true because this impact already exists, both under
current conditions and under cumulative conditions. Indeed, all future development contributing
trips to this intersection should contribute to this improvement, rather than just Canyon Springs.
Absent such a mechanism for reimbursing the applicant, Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 is
overbroad. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(4).)
d. Martis Peak Road.
The analysis concludes Martis Peak Road does not meet Town standards for a collector,
which calls for 12-foot travel lanes and 2-foot shoulders. The issue is not whether the road meets
a particular standard, but whether the project will result in significant environmental effects.
There is no evidence that the current configuration of Martis Peak Road, and the project’s
reliance on that road for access, will result in a significant impact. For this reason, Mitigation
Measure TRANS-2 should be deleted.
4. Chapter 5 – Alternatives
The alternatives analysis has been revised to include a new “Alternative F.” This
alternative increases the open-space area in the southeast portion of the site by 4.6 acres.
The discussion of “aesthetics” states the open-space area will be increased by only one
acre. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 5-48.) Please clarify whether the right number is 4.6 acres or one
acre.
The aim of this alternative appears to be to increase slightly the open-space buffer
between residential development and the open-space area to the southeast, apparently in an effort
to provide a wider wildlife corridor. As the analysis acknowledges, however, the project, as
mitigated, will not have a significant impact on wildlife. Thus, the Town need not adopt this
8
alternative in order to avoid an impact that would otherwise be significant. (See Revised Draft
EIR, p. 5-51.) In fact, this alternative appears to be a nod to CDFW, based on its unsubstantiated
concerns regarding impacts to the mule deer. While we have no objection to including such an
alternative in the EIR, it is clear that CEQA does not oblige the Town to adopt it.
The discussion of the “environmentally superior alternative” contains a typo. The
Revised Draft EIR states: “Alternative E would meet the project objectives, decrease the overall
development area and increase the open space area from that of the proposed project and, with
185 lots, would achieve the minimum density of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed
density.” (Revised Draft EIR, p. 5-56.) Alternative E consists of 88 lots, not 185 lots. The text
should be revised to refer to “Alternative D,” not “Alternative E.”
In adopting findings with respect to alternatives that reduce the number of units, we
recommend that the Town note the requirements set forth in Government Code section 65589.5,
subdivision (j), and Public Resources Code section 21159.26.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments, and look forward to the
Town’s expeditious consideration of the project.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Dale Creighton, A.I.C.P., Principal, and Martin D.
Wood, P.L.S., Vice-President, SCO Planning,
Engineering & Surveying
John Heal, Heal Environmental Consulting
Greg C. Gatto, Stoel Rives, LLP
Whit Manley, Remy Moose Manley LLP
Christopher Huck, Owner/Applicant, Canyon
Springs Joint Venture
Denyelle N. Nishimori, AICP
Senior Planner, Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road. Truckee, CA 96162
November 19, 2014
Re: Canyon Springs Recirculated DEIR Sections on Biological Resources
Denyelle,
The following comments are offered in response to the Recirculated DEIR for the Canyon Springs
Project, specifically concerning the Biological Resources Section.
Page 4.4-30, the report states that fawning habitat is near Dry Lake and Lookout Mountain. This may be
correct, but the latest available data from the CDFW show that a number of mule deer fawn along the
Truckee River north of the Canyon Springs site. The implication in the RDEIR is that mule deer must
travel on or near the Canyon Springs site to move between their winter habitat and summer fawning
grounds. This is not necessarily correct, and one of the lessons from the initial results of the radio-collar
tagging study that CDFW and NDOW have conducted is that some of the long-standing assumptions
about how and where mule deer move around Nevada County were either incorrect or overlooked
other important aspects of mule deer migration.
At the bottom of the same page, various potential causes of the reduction of the population of mule
deer are listed, but hunting and poaching are not included. Hunting and poaching results in direct
mortality of individuals of the mule deer herd on an annual basis. The related issues of taking does and
of genetic drift caused by selection of larger individuals by the hunter rather than the loss of weaker
individuals due to disease and predation are discussed in greater detail in my other reports that have
been submitted to the Town, the Towns EIR Consultant and CDFW.
Another potential cause of the reduced population of (or increased stress to) mule deer that is not
mentioned is the lack of surface water. Lactating does need access to water, as do all the mule deer
that are migrating. This issue may be exacerbated by climate change, and the Truckee area has
experienced very dry years recently. There is virtually no surface water on the Canyon Springs site from
June through late October or early November during recent years. This is why the current Canyon
Springs proposal includes buffers around the wetlands located off site, Buck Springs to the south and the
unnamed wetland to the east. In addition, the current proposal includes the creation of a “guzzler”, or
water source, in the southeast corner of the site, where CDFW data shows mule deer move through the
area. These are constructive mitigation measures that actually benefit the mule deer and reduce the
potential for significant impacts to the mule deer herd on a regional or cumulative basis.
Page 4.4-31:
“However, there is (sic) no data showing the project site to be a major or important migratory corridor
for mule deer. Recent data suggests that only a few individual mule deer use the site as a migration
corridor or for forage at any given time.” I agree with this statement, and it is consistent with my
studies over the past 10 years and which are part of the record.
Page 4.4-42: Impacts to 78 square feet of wetland “would be significant”. This small area of impact
meets the definition of an incremental and insignificant impact, and the conclusion is incorrect.
Page 4.4-48:
“Implementation of the proposed project could impact the biological resources on the project site and
reduce biodiversity.” I disagree. Yes, there could be impacts but I don’t think biodiversity could be
reduced. A reduction of biodiversity occurs when a species becomes extinct or is locally extirpated. I
don’t think either of these could occur. A reduction of biodiversity would be a greater impact than the
taking of a listed species, and even this is avoided. Moreover, in the project proposal, the majority of
the site is preserved as open space. The current condition of the site is not pristine, nor does it contain
any critical habitat for any listed species.
Page 4.4-50:
“Therefore, cumulative impacts identified with project implementation would be less than significant
and additional mitigation measures are required.” CEQA requires mitigative measures only if impacts
are potentially significant.
Standards of Significance
I covered this topic with respect to mule deer in my 2011 report, “CEQA Significance of Mule Deer at the
Canyon Springs Site, Truckee CA.” The key phrase quoted in the RDEIR is “have a substantial adverse
effect…” This means that incremental or insubstantial effects are not significant, although CEQA does
require that the potential for cumulative effects be considered.
D. Impact Discussion
This section states that the impacts analysis is based on the potential presence of protected species and
habitats, but fails to include consideration of the fact that mere presence does not imply an impact. This
may be due to factors such as timing, geography, or the implementation of mitigation measures that
avoid, minimize, reduce, or rectify potential impacts.
Potentially significant impacts to natural resources should also be analyzed in terms of temporary
impacts during construction and permanent impacts during operation. My understanding of CEQA is
that the determination of significance should be based on an analysis of the potential for significant
impacts that includes consideration of mitigation measures.
Conclusion
Overall, I agree with the conclusions that the potentially significant impacts to biological resources can
be mitigated. Our contention has been that the overall project, including mitigation measures, results in
less than significant impacts to biological resources. Please contact me at (530) 414-0689 if you have
any questions for me or if you would like to discuss further. Thank you very much.
Regards,
John Heal
Heal Environmental Consulting
CC: Martin Wood, SCO; Chip Huck, Canyon Springs Joint Venture