Laserfiche WebLink
February 28, 2013 <br />To: Town of Truckee, Tony Lashbrook <br />From: Carl Oberriter <br />Subject: Comments to Canyon Springs DEIR <br />To begin, I would like to thank you and your Building Department for keeping the <br />Glenshire residents informed on how this particular project is progressing. I would also <br />like to thank the Town of Truckee for the use of its meeting hall to help generate the <br />many concerns that the community has towards such a large project. <br />I have been fortunate to be able to attend many of the meetings dealing with this <br />project. In the past, it appeared that many of the surrounding communities were also <br />present (Hirshdale, Olympic Heights, Cambridge, and Juniper Hills), at this last meeting <br />I noticed very few of these residents from these areas. Were these communities <br />informed of the project? <br />In reading the paper work that was handed out at the last meeting December 18, 2012, <br />I could not find my paperwork concerning the original project plans that the county of <br />Nevada approved in 1990. If I recall, the original plans of 1990, were for a development <br />of far fewer residences than the current proposal. The lot sizes were substantially larger <br />than the new current plan allowing for more open space for the wildlife that inhabits <br />this area, is this true? <br />I know the meeting that I attended had some serious time constraints and in order to <br />save time, I was encouraged to write a letter to you with my concerns. In looking at the <br />power point information that I received, I noticed on Pg. 8 project alternatives and 5 <br />different alternatives. I have many questions dealing with a few of these alternatives. <br />During the presentation, one of the speakers mentioned Alternative A: No project. He <br />then went on to say or suggest that there might be another alternative besides the <br />current one being presented. Just what did he or the developers have in mind for this <br />parcel of land if this project is not approved? <br />Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access: Please correct me on this, but I thought <br />this alternative was off the table from the last meeting. That it was then agreed, that <br />this alternative was to be used only for emergency purposes on any project that was to <br />be brought forth. <br /> I have more concerns/questions on this Alternative B. It appears, according to the map <br />that this development is quite a bit larger than that of the combined residents that live <br />on and the side streets of Regency Circle. By opening up this street to traffic flow to the