Public Comment #014 (Stock)
Canyon Springs Draft Environmental Impact Report
2014 RDEIR Public Comment
Public Comment #014 (Stock)
11/10/2014 9:36:11 AM
11/10/2014 9:36:02 AM
City Clerk Records
City Clerk Records - Document
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
October 31, 2014 <br /> <br />To: Danyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner <br /> Town of Truckee Town Council <br /> <br />From: Pamela Stock, Glenshire Resident <br /> <br />Re: Canyon Springs Development revised DEIR <br /> <br />I am writing in response to the newly released revised DEIR for Canyon Springs. I will address <br />biological resources, water availability and quality as it relates to the biological resources, <br />alternatives to the project as addressed in the RDEIR, covered and non-covered responses to <br />my letters concerning the initial DEIR, concerns over the proposed recreational facilities that are <br />not designated on the Canyon Springs maps, and the Americans With Disabilities Act <br />compliance that has not been addressed in the RDEIR with regard to the proposed "public" trail <br />system. <br /> <br />BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: <br /> <br />1. Page 2-8 of the RDEIR, states that, "The proposed project has the potential to generate <br />significant environmental impacts in a number of areas." Mitigation measures are <br />recommended would reduce this to "less than significant." These mitigation measures are <br />specifically for the Canyon Springs project only. On page 4.4-49, "The project when considered <br />with the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan buildout and the Boca Quarry project in Nevada <br />County could impact special status plant and animal species, sensitive natural communities <br />jurisdictional waters, and wildlife movement." Yet a cumulative plan to address this impact is <br />not addressed. How can Canyon Springs, doing only mitigation for their project, change the <br />significance to "less than" when town build-out and Boca are not included in <br />any mitigation plan? <br /> <br />Under CEQA (page 2-8) "A significant impact on the environment is defined as a substantial or <br />potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected <br />by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, ad objects of <br />historic and aesthetic significance." Mitigation measures and questions about them are listed in <br />BIO-1 through BIO-5i below: <br /> <br />BIO-1: "Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush habitat could impact red fox." A biologist will <br />look for den sites and if none are found, "no further mitigation is necessary." Construction <br />noise in every phase will drive away the red fox in all areas, not just the construction area. <br />Animals of all kinds are very sensitive to vibrations in the ground and noises. "Avoidance and <br />minimization measures/buffer areas" would not prevent the "incidental" take of the red fox. <br />What is an "incidental take permit" from the CDFW and why would the town permit losing this <br />wildlife resource for this project? <br /> <br />BIO-2: "Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush could potentially disturb nesting birds, <br />including the Lewis woodpeckers and yellow warblers." Even if trees and shrubs are removed <br />during non-nesting times, this effectively removes the birds from the area. Ditto the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.