Our Mission

To inform the community about the risks of the Alpenglow Sawmill + STOP the project coming to Klondike Flat.

Our Demands.

Our group has several critical objectives we urge the Nevada County Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors to consider:

One:

Deny Approval of the Sawmill Project: Reject the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Two:

Deny Approval of the Glulam Factory.

Three:

Pause the Approval and CEQA Review Processes: Allow sufficient time for community discussions to understand the projects and their impacts, especially since there has been inadequate outreach in the Town of Truckee.

Four:

Extend the Hearing Date: Postpone until fall or winter 2024.

Five:

Require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): An EIR is necessary instead of an MND due to significant and underestimated impacts - for noise, traffic safety, property values, and effects on neighboring properties and surrounding community.

Six:

Establish a Separate Ingress and Egress at the Top of Highway 89 Hill (South of Klondike Flat Rd. at OHV):

  • Provide an emergency evacuation route.

  • Reduce noise from Jake brakes and emissions from trucks.

  • Decrease air pollution affecting residential properties.

  • Eliminate traffic on Klondike Flat Road (KFR), a residential access road.

  • Avoid the need to realign KFR as currently proposed.

  • Ensure traffic safety on KFR, preventing truck-human interactions.

Seven:

Install Dedicated Turn Lanes on Highway 89 at the KFR Intersection: Improve public highway safety in both directions.

Eight:

Limit Hours of Operation: Restrict to Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM, to preserve the enjoyment of our properties. The current proposal allows operation from Monday-Saturday, 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM.

Nine:

Install Sidewalks/Bike Paths: Enhance pedestrian and public safety.

Ten:

Require Design Review by Neighbors: Minimize light pollution and ensure other design elements meet community standards.

Impact Analysis:

Noise: Logging and lumber trucks will generate excessive noise from Jake brakes going downhill and from revving gears going uphill at the Highway 89/KFR intersection.

Air Quality: Increased diesel emissions from trucks will settle in the low point at Prosser Creek, adversely affecting nearby residences.

Special Findings.

Are you aware that the Nevada County Planning Commission has the authority to make "Special Findings" to approve development projects that don't meet the County's own requirements? They do.

Imagine if we could make "Special Findings" to drive over the speed limit or avoid paying taxes. Absurd, right?

Yet, the Planning Commissioners can approve "Special Findings" to bypass and undermine the regulations set forth in the County Code, which was updated and reaffirmed by the Board of Supervisors just two months ago, in April 2024.

Specifically, Section 12.05.052 "Development Permit" on page 771 outlines the County’s requirements for the proposed Alpenglow Sawmill and Glu-Lam Factory development.

Here are some critical points:

Nevada County Code Development Requirement #6: The proposed use and facilities must be compatible with, and not detrimental to, existing uses on abutting property and in the nearby surrounding neighborhood or area.

The construction and operation of a Sawmill and Glu-Lam Factory is one of the most incompatible land uses with our long-established rural residential area. A "Special Finding" should not be used to bypass these recently reinforced requirements.

Nevada County Code Development Requirement #8: Highways, streets, and roads on and near the site must be adequate in width and pavement type to handle the traffic generated by the proposed use, and adequate provision must be made for both project-specific impacts and the cumulative effect of traffic generated by the proposed use.

A separate, primary access road for trucks entering and exiting the project would have to be required at the existing Prosser Hill OHV entrance. This road would be south and uphill of Klondike Flat Road. Alternatively, another project site should be found to avoid the several significant and dangerous impacts, including:

  • Traffic safety at the Hwy 89 and Klondike Flat Road (KFR) intersection.

  • Safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists on KFR.

  • Excessive diesel emissions affecting air quality in our rural residential area.

  • Significant noise impacts from jake brakes at the Hwy 89 / KFR intersection.

  • Unacceptable noise and air quality impacts from diesel engines revving uphill from the Hwy 89 / KFR intersection.

  • Public safety risks with no emergency evacuation route.

  • The need for multiple points of ingress and egress for a large industrial project to avoid significant public safety risks and potential catastrophes.

  • Loss of property value and equity for homeowners sharing the sole access road with a steady flow of logging and lumber trucks.

A primary access road at the Prosser Hill OHV entrance - or finding another location for the project - would eliminate the need for Dedicated Turn Lanes on Hwy 89 at KFR.

The developer has blamed the Forest Service for allowing only a single access point to private property across USFS land. If the County can break its rules to approve the project, so can the USFS!

Effective leadership involves working through challenges to get Congress to approve an exception. Contact Kevin Kiley, Marie Alvarado-Gil, and Brian Dahle.

The Forest Service’s policies have led to poor forest health and increased wildfire risk.

They are the largest property owner needing solutions to dispose of forest fuels from mismanaged forests and are even providing grant funding to this project, acknowledging their responsibility.

The USFS should be urged to find an alternative location on its property to help solve the problems it has helped create.

If the USFS fails to provide an easement and exception to its rules, the project should be denied based on the unmitigable impacts of using Klondike Flat Road as the primary access route.

I am a CEQA planner and wanted to offer some additional insight on the comment period. I think you have identified the right issues to mention. It isn’t enough to just state opposition to those issues though. You should make sure to state in comment letters where and why those issues are not adequately addressed in the analysis and proposed mitigation in the IS/MND that the county is approving and adopting, and why those impacts would actually be “significant and unavoidable”. It is good news that the project has only published an IS/MND and not an EIR because that means that they are claiming that no impact can’t be mitigated, and I think you’re right that impacts to land use, population and housing, transpo, and maybe wildfire too could be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated and therefore the IS/MND would be “fatally flawed” and fails to fully address and mitigate for impacts caused by the proposed project. An IS/MND is easier to fight than an EIR because an IS/MND needs to prove no impacts where an EIR just needs to acknowledge them. But comments on and IS/MND don’t need to be formally responded to. So one strategy for you would be to prove to the county where the fatal flaws of the IS/MND are and why an EIR level of review should be required, making them go back and re-publish an EIR, respond to all comments they receive before the county could approve. Also remember that CEQA is the basis for litigation and legal challenges and that can also hold up a project from development even after approval from the county within the statute of limitations. Showing up to the county meeting in person would also be important.
— Anonymous

We believe these actions are essential to protect our community's health, safety, & quality of life.