Canyon Springs delayed again; developer wants more time to submit modified proposal | SierraSun.com

Canyon Springs delayed again; developer wants more time to submit modified proposal

Staff report

From left, Truckee Planning Commission members Hardy Bullock, Heather Beckman, Seth Kielas, Stephen Ramos and David Tirman listen to public comment during the Nov. 16 meeting at town hall.

TRUCKEE, Calif. — A Truckee Planning Commission hearing planned for next week regarding the controversial Canyon Springs development proposed near the Glenshire subdivision has been canceled.

The town of Truckee issued the notice of cancellation late Wednesday afternoon, citing the applicant has requested additional time to submit a modified project proposal.

A new date for the continuation hearing has not yet been determined, but it is anticipated to be held in January 2016, according to the town. Once the date is selected, the meeting will be re-noticed.

It was originally planned for the Truckee Planning Commission to resume its public hearing on the project Dec. 1 after holding a two-night meeting in mid-November.

In a unanimous vote Nov. 17, the five-member commission decided to continue the matter after roughly five hours of clarifying questions directed toward town staff, the project applicant and consultants on the multi-acre development.

Topics included traffic impacts, greenhouse gas emissions and thresholds, deer use of the project site, cumulative impacts and adequacy of the environmental document.

Recommended Stories For You

The commissioners' questioning reflected issues raised by the public and environmental groups Nov. 16, when public comment was taken and nearly 70 individuals made remarks.

No additional public comment was planned to be taken at Tuesday's special meeting. Instead, commissioners were expected to deliberate and possibly vote on the project.

Canyon Springs outlines 203 lots — 177 single family market-rate lots and 26 single family affordable housing lots — to be built out in phases on a roughly 284-acre plot of land at the eastern end of town, a portion of which will be preserved for open space and public trails.

Visit townoftruckee.com and canyonspringsoftruckee.com for more information regarding the proposed project.

Considering the timing of Wednesday's announcement with the Thanksgiving holiday, the Sierra Sun will update this story as more information becomes available.

Additional commentary

Below are passages of additional comments the public provided at the Nov. 16 Truckee Planning Commission hearing regarding the proposed Canyon Springs project:

Kathy Karlovic, Glenshire: “I’ve watched the Sierra Bluffs development go in as well as Elkhorn Ridge. Both of those have successfully paved green areas and unsuccessfully built and sold houses. Why are we tearing up forests to pave roads to have empty lots sit vacant yet again? We need more open space, less ghost town neighborhoods.”

Neil Doerhoff, representative for the Teel Property in unincorporated Nevada County: “We started very neutral to the project, but the further it’s got and the more trespassers we have and the fewer people that respect private property, the more I’m convinced I need Canyon Springs. Is it sprawl? I don’t think so. To me it’s not any different than Glenshire, Hirschdale, Martis Peak Homeowners (Association). … It’s a buffer for me, so I am strongly in support of it.”

Mark Bunge, Truckee: “My comments focus on the deficiencies of the EIR, especially its repeated failure to consider cumulative impact in its analysis and conclusions. … There was no discussion of cumulative impacts for other developments near the project site — the full build out of Elkhorn Ridge and other existing developments, as well as the Teel Property that Mr. Doerhoff just stood up here and said will be developed. The cumulative impact of those additional build out areas need to be considered along with the existing empty lots in order to be CEQA compliant, and the lack of that consideration makes the final EIR legally and grossly deficient.”

Dan Haas, Truckee: “Much of Truckee’s economy is driven by snow-based recreation, and (in) the last four years it has become clear just how precarious our situation is. Our town is on the frontline of climate change, and we must take a stand to ensure our community’s future prosperity. … Seven miles away from the town core and with very few services nearby, residents of the development would be entirely dependent on their cars to transport them the long distances to work, school, shops and entertainment. … Greenhouse emissions more than the myriad of other issues threatens our livelihoods and the success of our town. The town of Truckee cannot afford to sacrifice our future just to make a buck today.”

Laurel Lippert, Truckee: “Consider the traffic impacts alone. How can we add more cars to our already burden streets? We have no room for more or wider roads, here or in any direction from Truckee. More cars will bring traffic, accidents, air pollution and noise, choking us to death.”