Public Comment #017 (Eisele)
Canyon Springs Draft Environmental Impact Report
2014 RDEIR Public Comment
Public Comment #017 (Eisele)
11/14/2014 9:17:44 AM
11/14/2014 9:17:15 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
To: Denyelle Nishimori, Senior Planner November 7, 2014 <br />10183 Truckee Airport Road <br />Truckee, CA 96161 <br />firstname.lastname@example.org <br />Re: Comments for Canyon Springs RDEIR <br />Dear Ms. Nishimori, <br />I have many concerns regarding the adequacy of the RDEIR for the Canyon Springs housing <br />development proposed for land adjoining Glenshire. They are too many to address in this letter, <br />but the following include some important ones related to the Biological Resources section — <br />specifically Wetlands and Water Resources and the Loyalton- Truckee Deer Herd, including <br />some points where there are conflicts with the Town of Truckee General Plan ( TOTGP): <br />Biological. Resources: Effects on wetlands, water resources, and the Glenshire Pond <br />Note: In wet seasons, this site contains several areas of beautiful wet meadows, riverine <br />wetlands, and intermittent drainages as noted on maps pages 4.4- 39 &40. <br />1. The project site includes 5.94 acres of wetlands. The project plans for wetlands to be filled, <br />with 54 square feet of disturbance to wetlands, (pg4.4- 41 &42; significant threshold c). <br />Disturbance of these jurisdictional waters violates the Clean Water Act, section 404. It also <br />conflicts with TOTGP COS -11. Additionally, changes to wetland areas cause impacts on <br />wildlife corridors (pg. 4.4- 25,d.), as animals move along drainages. <br />The DEIR needs to provide mitigation to avoid disturbing the wetlands :with the proposed <br />footbridges and provide an alternative to disturbing the jurisdictional waters. The RDEIR <br />statement that the impact would be minimal is invalid, as the same sentence states that impacts <br />would be "significant" (pg. 4.4 -42). Also, cumulative impacts from fill added to the wetlands <br />on site, effects of erosion from the hillsides, and the additional use of fertilizer and pesticides <br />that go along with residential properties are not fully addressed. <br />Mitigation Measure BIO -3 in the RDEIR is invalid. Impacting wetlands is a direct violation of <br />the Clean Water Act, section 404. Purchasing credits or paying in -lieu fees for the impact does <br />nothing for the immediate environmental damage where the adverse impacts occur, including <br />effects on the :watershed and wildlife. The RDEIR needs to be revised to include an alternative <br />to impacting these resources. (pg.4.4 -52) <br />2. Sensitive communities within the project area include the wet meadow and pebble meadow <br />areas (significant threshold b, pg 4.4 -38). Looking at the maps pg. 4.4- 39 &40, it is evident that <br />there are approximately 10 - 12 lots and one road that are very close to the largest wet meadow <br />area (Buck Springs), at the south end of the project. For some reason, these lots are not planned <br />with.the 100 -foot setback recommended by CDFW for the "main drainage ". Runoff from these <br />lots and activity associated with residents and heir pets will.directly impact this huge wet <br />meadow and wildlife using it. The conclusions that this is insignificant and no mitigation is <br />Pamela Eisele <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.