Laserfiche WebLink
March 5, 2013 x <br />hil <br />To: Denyelle Nishimori, Associate Planner Town of Truckee 3.9'' <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Canyon Springs Draft EIR. <br />1. P.P 3.6 States site is 1.6 miles East of Town Center. This is wrong and misleading. Shows lack of <br />attention to the most basic details. <br />P.P 4.1 -9 This shows the same mistake. <br />2. 3 -16 States 2500 Square foot building footprint. Is this the house size or the total disturbed <br />foot print? I.E. Driveways, fenced yards, etc. No clarity on detail. <br />3. 43 Cumulative impacts: no mention of encroachment issues to airport. Canyon Springs will <br />open the door for massive development to the northeast of the current site. 4.11.27 There is no <br />mention of primary GPS instrument approach to runway 20 at the Truckee Tahoe Airport. High <br />performance aircraft on stabilized high drag approach procedures generate high noise levels that can <br />not be mitigated. The addition of potentially thousands of new homes starting with Canyon Springs, <br />near the GPS procedure to runway 20 will result in large numbers of noise complaints at the airport. <br />Truckee Tahoe Airport has been here since the 1960s. Encroachment from unbridled growth is a real <br />problem for airports. Truckee Tahoe Airport was here first and must be protected from these threats. <br />4. P. 4.10.41 States there are no 100 year flood plains on the site. <br />P. 4.4 -4 States a minimum of 50 ft. setbacks to building envelopes would be maintained along <br />the designated 100 year flood plain. This is inconsistent and misleading. <br />5. 4.13 -7 States project will generate 2.59 persons per household equaling 468 new residents. <br />There is no mention of granny or second units. These units must be included in the calculations for <br />impact discussion. <br />6. 4.8 -9 States Martis fire turned 15 thousand square miles (39000 sq km). This would be a <br />square 122 miles on a side. The fire burned 17000 acres. This again shows a lack of objective research. <br />A total rework of fire hazards is in order. <br />7. In late September 2010 representatives from MAPF and SOSG were hosted by the applicants <br />on a walk of the project site. We were at the geographic center of the property listening to one of the <br />applicants discussing one of the bridges to be built when a herd of 7 -10 deer were sighted <br />approximately 100 yards north of our group. Needless to say, this did generate a lot of excitement and <br />silence. <br />8. In July 2010, 1 met with a land restoration expert at the parking area east of Glenshire Drive <br />below the Canyon Springs site and the Elkhorn Ridge subdivision, to discuss the environmental aspects <br />of Canyon Springs. The discussion centered on nutrient runoff and disturbed soil from construction <br />projects. The expert pointed out many issues resulting from the Elkhorn Ridge subdivision. I mentioned <br />the seasonal creek in back of my house on Regency Circle running clear for years, until one spring I <br />noticed grey sludge and algae clogging the creek. The expert asked if any construction of homes had <br />taken place upsteam. I answered yes, up on a side street off Edinburgh Drive. The expert said it is very <br />difficult to prevent this as the natural filtration quality of the land is destroyed by grading the lots for <br />construction, <br />in closing, the expert said "if Canyon Springs goes in, you can kiss the Glenshire Pond goodbye ". <br />Respectfully, <br />Leigh Golden President SOSG <br />