HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-10-16
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
TOWN COUNCIL
2025 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DELIBERATION
October 16, 2006, 6:00 p.m.
10183 Truckee Airport Rd, Truckee, CA 96161
1. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Ingalls called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Threshie, Susman, Green, Vice Mayor Anderson, and
Mayor Ingalls.
Also Present: Public Works DirectorlTown Engineer, Dan Wilkins; Community Development
Director, John McLaughlin; Town Planner, Duane Hall; Town Manager, Tony Lashbrook; and
Town Clerk, Judy Price.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Nancy Richards.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT -
Stefanie Olivieri, Downtown Merchants Association, requested Council agendize an urgency
ordinance prohibiting ground floor office uses in the Commercial Row area. Response: This
item appears on this agenda. At the last Council meeting Staff was directed to separate this
issue from the General Plan Update deliberation for Council consideration. The item will be
before Council in November.
5. WORKSHOP ITEM.
5.1 Council continued the deliberation of the remainina discussion items to follow the
October 19, 2006 reaular meetina business.
Duane Hall, Town Planner, provided the following presentation:
. Public Hearing:
o October 2ed
. Accepts public comment
. Public comment period was closed.
. Council identified topics to be discussed.
o October 16th - Council begins discussion and deliberations.
o November 16th - Scheduled date for adoption.
. Topics to be Discussed:
o Commission Recommendations.
o Comments from MAPF, WHATT, CATT, TRWC, and TSBOR.
o Other topics raised by Council Members.
o Council may add other tops for discussion.
. Staff Assumptions
o Council is considering adoption of the 2025 General Plan as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
. Commission's recommendations will be incorporated into the General Plan
unless otherwise stated by Council.
Town of Truckee
October 16. 2006. Cieneral Plan Deliberation
Page 1
o No changes will be made unless the Council discusses changes and consensus is
reached to make the change.
. If staff cannot determine if consensus has been reached by Council, staff will
ask the question to clarify Council Members positions.
. If there appears to be disagreement, the Council may take a straw vote which
will be reflected in the minutes.
. Council's objectives:
o To agree that Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is ready for certification.
o To identify specific changes to be made to the 2025 General Plan in order to
adopt the General Plan.
o To identify specific changes to be made to the Implementation Program priorto its
adoption.
. The Implementation Program is a separate document and easier to change
than the General Plan.
o Next step:
o Staff will make necessary revisions to the General Plan and Implementation
Program to reflect the Council's agreed-upon changes.
o Staff will prepare the findings and resolutions for Council's certification of FEIR
and adoption of the General Plan and Implementation Program.
o Staff will return the matter to the Council for final action at the November 16'h
meeting.
o California Government Code - Section 65356
o "Any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously
considered by the commission during its hearings, shall first be referred to the
planning commission for its recommendation".
o Council should discuss how to consider the list of topics:
o Staff recommends: Go down the list, topic by topic, and add any remaining topics
not previously discussed at the end of the deliberation.
Council Deliberation Topics:
1. General
a. Additional Time for Comment.
o Source and Issue:
o Tahoe Sierra Board of Realtors letter requested an extension on the
comment period.
o Discussion:
o It has been over 30 days between the time this was considered by the
Planning Commission and the time given to Council for consideration.
o Direction:
o No changes were made.
b. Application of Policies before Implementation.
o Source and Issue:
o Contractor's Association ofTruckee Tahoe (CA TT) letter requesting Town not
apply new policies and standards on a case-by-case basis, but after
implementation programs have been defined.
o Discussion:
o In some instances, there was a desire to have the policies apply immediately
while the General Plan calls for implementation through other guiding
documents.
Town ofTruckee
October 16,2006, (icncral Plan Deliberation
Page 2
a For projects already submitted to the Town, and through processing prior to
June, the new policies do not apply.
a If the objective of the new policy is to immediately change the way the Town
is doing business, the policy should apply to development review projects
after the General Plan adoption.
. If the objective is to be proactive on a future problem or issue, the
implementation program will be defined prior to their application.
a Several of the policies identified in the CA TT letter were part of the 1995
General Plan and are already implemented by Development Code standards.
. Regarding the open space policies identified by the General Plan,
policies would not apply to development until an Open Space Plan is
adopted; in the meantime current policies apply.
. Policies relating to the Rating System cannot be applied until it is
developed.
a The 1995 General Plan policy regarding application was, "anything that didn't
preclude future planning options" as judged by staff.
a An appeal process exists to appeal the decision made by Staff or the
Planning Commission.
o Direction:
a No changes were made.
2. 2025 General Plan
a. Open Space Lands (Page 2-11).
o Source and Issue:
a Tahoe Sierra Board of Realtors' letter requested that the Town increase the
amount of open space to reflect the amount of open space required by new
residential development.
o Discussion:
a The challenge is that the open space requirements do not apply
systematically to all land within the land uses. Most are developed with no
open space up to 30%.
a After the Development Code, the development meets the threshold
established in the General Plan.
o Direction:
a For clarification, include a footnote on the table on page 2-11, to identify
that there is approved open space in land use designations in addition
to that shown under open space.
b. Ponderosa Golf Course Land Use Designation (Page 2-26).
o Source and Issue:
a See Letters A (Albert), G (Duerr), I (Himsl), J (Kielhofer), K (Lawrence), V
(Paukert), Y (Renwick), Z (Schwab), BB (Stansfield), DO (Swofford), and MM
(Carter).
o Discussion:
a The letter from Mr. Renwick containing an offer to purchase the golf course is
contingent on approval of his development application for PC-3.
. Council should consider that there are people willing to purchase the golf
course to operate it as a golf course.
a Council may not have enough information on the viability of the golf course to
determine the best use. A special study area may allow more flexibility to
preserve the golf course.
a The public is clearly behind keeping it a regulation golf course.
Town of Truckee
October 16,2006, (,eneral Plan Deliberation
Page 1
o The property owner may not maintain it as a golf course regardless of the
open space recreation designation.
o A General Plan amendment will be required to develop this property beyond
five-units if it is designated OSR.
. Council can consider up to four General Plan amendments annually.
o It is more difficult to process a General Plan Amendment versus
implementation though special study or a master plan process.
o There is no significant impact to the Environmental Impact Report by
removing the traffic volumes from 150 units. Traffic capacity on the corridor
is not constrained by development.
. Direction:
o Support the Planning Commission recommendations.
c. Planned Community {PC)-1 Developable Area (Page 2-29).
. Source and Issue.
o Relating to changing the PC-1 area and allowable number of units to include
property purchased and including in the plan. A 20-acre increase.
o See Revision #2e in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
. Direction.
o Support the Planning Commission recommendations.
d. PC-3 Policy 3 and Policy 7 (Page 2-31).
. Source and Issue.
o Modification of the policy regarding workforce housing and the Brockway
corridor design guidelines.
. See Revisions #2f and 2g in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
o Found the policy is consistent with the Housing Element.
o Modified the Brockway Road Corridors to keep it general and
not identify specific items to be addressed in the guidelines.
. Discussion.
o The Commission believes buffers may not be appropriate or possible on the
PC-3 site. The decision will be made when the PC-3 Specific Plan is
reviewed.
. Direction.
o Support the Planning Commission recommendations.
e. Donner Lake Neighborhood Area Policy P1 (Page 2-41).
. Source and Issue.
o The language regarding neighborhood compatibility is too strong.
. See Comment #6 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o This language has the same intent, if not the same language, as the 1995
General Plan.
o Policy already exists; however, the result of the update may strengthen the
language.
o The Development Code contains the design guidelines; however, the design
vocabulary will be evaluated for potential changes in the Development Code
update.
. Direction.
o No changes were made.
f. Land Use Action 1.1 (Page 2-50).
. Source and Issue.
o Develop a system whereby Development Projects are rated by degree to
which they meet goals for preservation.
Town ofTruckee
October 16. 2006. General Plan Deliberation
Page 4
o See Comment #7 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o The purpose of this action was to implement growth control, not through a
numeric standard or cap, but by raising the community benefit standards
expected from new development.
o Additional levels of standards are currently required. The purpose of this is to
raise the bar on the qualitative standards to be applied to future development
review.
o The context and intent of this was debated.
. The intent was to provide priority to projects that met the communities'
goals.
. Providing priority to projects that met all the standards based on the
rating, not to subjectively rate the projects.
o Prioritizing the processing of projects to manage growth.
o This is not a way to manage growth by of number of units but by ranking
projects.
. As long as a project meets minimum standards, it should be processed in
the order received.
o Our minimum standards should provide a benefit to the community, or the
minimum standards need to be raised.
o The role of the Plans are to provide the developer with guidance of what is
required in order to base the purchase price of the land on those factors.
o Clarification of the policy was provided to amend the Development Code by
adding the additional standards. It will include additional aspects such as
environmental sustainability, and minimization of sprawl.
o The goals are here; however, we may be precluding projects that do not meet
the minimum standards and producing unaffordable development.
o This item would not be applied to development until a plan is implemented
through the Development Code.
. Direction.
o Delete "and to preclude approving projects that do not meet community
standards".
g. Land Use Goal 2 (Page 2-51).
. Source and Issue.
o Approve amendments to the land use map which intensify the land use types,
intensities and densities only if it is shown such an amendment would benefit
the community.
o See Revision #21 in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
. Direction.
o Support the Planning Commission Recommendations.
h. Land Use Goal 5 (Page 2-57).
. Source and Issue.
o To require buffers and screening between industrial and residential uses.
o See Revision #20 in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
. Discussion.
o The policy is to revisit the Development Code to determine if additional
standards are necessary where industrial uses are adjacent to residential
uses.
o The Development Code standards would determine if these standards apply
to existing developments.
Town ofTruckec
Odober 16, 1006, (iencral Plan Deliberation
Page 5
. Past practices have been to only apply standards to new or substantial
expansions of industrial uses.
. Direction.
o Add "require buffers, setbacks and other measures for new or
substantially expanding existing industrial uses".
i. Land Use Policy 5.6 (Page 2-57).
. Source and Issue.
o Strengthen the language in the policy requiring residential component in
Downtown mixed use development.
o See Comment #3b in Letter R (MAP F).
. Discussion.
o The strength of the language was discussed.
o The language requires housing Downtown.
o The issue of no net loss of housing is larger than this single policy.
o There are unintended consequences of a broad sweeping statement as
requested by MAPF.
o The Downtown area experiences specific issues. This request is to add
language to include a residential component in all mixed use projects where
feasible.
o The proposed language may be too restrictive, and the policy should be
refined as part of the Downtown Zoning and Specific Plans.
o Strike the words "feasibility of'. Stating: Require that residential uses
including affordable housing be included as part of any mixed use
development proposal for Downtown, and to the extent feasible, is
incorporated into final project design.
o State as a goal: "no net loss of housing" in the Downtown area.
. Direction.
o Support the Planning Commission recommendations.
o Staff will address policies regarding residential uses in the Downtown
Zoning and Specific Plans.
j. Land Use Policy 6.1 (Page 2-57).
. Source and Issue.
o See Revision #2q in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
. Direction.
o Support the Planning Commission recommendations.
k. Goal LU-7 Clustering (Page 2-60).
. Source and Issue.
o The issue is clarity. Is clustering required or encouraged.
o See Comment #3 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o (From the 1995 General Plan) There is no inconsistency in regards to the
language used.
o There are other benefits to clustering beyond open space.
. Direction.
o Support the Planning Commission recommendations.
I. Sphere of Influence I Annexation Policies I Provision of Services (Page 2-63).
. Source and Issue.
o May interact with discussion on TDC Program I Open Space Protection.
o Includes Distanced Based Fees for Service.
o See Revision #2s in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
o See Letter S (Owens).
Town of Truckee
Uctober 16. 2006. li(:ner<lJ Plan Deliberation
Page 6
o See Comment #3e in Letter R (MAPF).
. Discussion.
o The Town's 2025 General Plan is consistent with the County's General Plan.
o It's critical that Town work with the County on this issue.
o The sphere of influence issue should be decided with Local Area Formation
Commission (LAFCO) and the County.
o Planning Commission:
. If appropriate, properties in the sphere of influence could be included in a
Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) program because they would be
furthering Town goals and objectives.
. No TDC program will work without the collaboration of Nevada County,
LAFCO and effected property owners.
. Direction to staff to work with stakeholders regarding the issue soon.
o Charging the real cost of services to unincorporated areas may encourage
annexation of those areas.
o The Town has multiple Memorandums of Understanding with adjacent
jurisdictions in the spirit of collaboration, and in some cases to buy down the
cost of services to Truckee residents.
. Direction.
o State: "encourage in collaboration with Nevada County and Placer
County..."
Mayor Ingalls adjourned for a five minute recess at 8:15 p.m.
m. Transfer of Development Credits Program / Open Space Protection.
. Source and Issue.
o May interact with discussion on Sphere of Influence/Annexation Policies.
o Includes TDC receiver sites.
o See Revisions #2t, #7c, #7d, and #7e in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
o See Letters Q (MAPF) and S (Owens).
o See Comments #2 and #3a in Letter R (MAPF).
o See Comment #2 in Letter EE (TSSOR).
. Discussion.
o The wording assumes there will be a TDC program within the sphere of
influence.
o The Goal is a collaborative process to determine the feasibility of the
program.
o There is not a significant amount of land in the Town to transfer rights into.
o A TDC program has multiple issues to be worked through.
. Appropriate transfer credits.
. Receiving and sending sites.
. Effects on community character.
o The language has been viewed as overreaching.
. Direction.
o Modify Action 8.3 to read, "Explore the development of a TOC program
within the Town. Explore the possibility of development rights within
the sphere of influence to be transferred to the Town. Involve property
owners, Nevada County, and LAFCO, in the development ofthe program
and in the consideration of including properties in the TOC within the
Town ofTruchee
October 16. ~006, General Plan Deliberation
Page 7
within the sphere of influence."
n. Land Use Goal 9 (Page 2-66).
. Source and Issue.
o See Revision #2u in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
. Direction.
o Support Planning Commission recommendations.
o. Land Use Policy 9.4 (Page 2-66).
. Source and Issue.
o Support the provision of housing within the planning areas outside the Town
limits to meet all demands created by new employment generating
development in these areas.
o See Comment #8 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o Remove the word "all".
o The purpose of the policy is to provide for general direction.
o In addition to the direction from Town to Nevada and Placer County, the
language will assist in the Town's support of projects such as Sawmill
Heights.
. Direction.
o Replace the word "all" with "the".
p. Community Character Action 5.1 (Page 3-36).
. Source and Issue.
o Consider the inclusion of form based zoning. Work for inclusion to apply
throughout the Town.
o See Comment #11 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o Replace the word "consider" with "promote" or "work towards".
. Direction.
o No changes were made.
q. Ground Floor Offices in Downtown Core (Page 3-38).
. Source and Issue.
o See Letter NN (Wood).
o See Comment #3f in Letter R (MAPF).
o See Comment #1 in Letter HH (TDMA).
. Discussion.
o Staff does not recommend addressing this issue in the General Plan.
. Direction.
o Direction to Staff to return to Council outside the context ofthe General
Plan with an Urgency Ordinance for consideration.
r. Community Character Policy 9.3 (Page 3-42).
. Source and Issue.
o Language change request; the wording may be too limiting.
o See Comment #12 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o There is a potential conflict between neighborhood retail centers in proximity
to housing being required to supply housing as part of the mixed use.
o The policy may be too restrictive.
o Examples of mixed use centers that have an unsuccessful residential
component were discussed.
. Direction.
Town ofTruckee
October 16.2006. General Plan Deliberation
Page 8
o Add to the end of the sentence "...unless determined to be
incompatible" .
s. Community Character Policy 12.2 (Page 3-46).
. Source and Issue.
o A request to delete a policy "Requires residential development to incorporate
materials, color schemes, and architecture styles that allow it to blend into the
landscape and rural mountain environment and be less visible from adjacent
roadways. The use..."
o See Comment #9 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o The policy addresses rural residential development.
o The policy addresses development, not single family construction.
. Direction.
o Change "developments" to development.
t. Community Character Action 15.2 (Page 3-49).
. Source and Issue.
o See Comment #3c in Letter R (MAPF).
. Discussion.
o MAPF supports the Planning Commission action 15.2.
o Modify action 15.2 to include reference to specific outcomes.
o The industrial uses are on both sides of West River Street. The Planning
Commission addresses the South side of West River Street recognizing the
industrial zoning on the North side of West River Street.
o The MAPF language addresses the replacement of industrial uses with other
industrial uses.
o The wording is "suitable".
. Direction.
o Support Planning Commission recommendations.
u. Community Character Policy 16.1 I Action 16.1 (Page 3-50).
. See Comment #1 0 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
o Source and Issue.
. Discussion.
o The language was expanded from the 1995 General Plan to include
"adjacent neighborhoods".
. Direction.
o No changes were made.
Item "X" was taken out of order, as requested.
x. Neighborhood Protection I Deerfield Drive (Page 4-31).
. Source and Issue.
o See Revisions #4i, #41, and #4m in Commission Resolution 2006-19
o See Letters B (Blanton), E (Deal), H (Fahey), L (Maple), M (Marshall), N
(Mattson), 0 (Meggett), P (Miller), T (Pilaar), and U (Pilaar).
. Discussion.
o The changes from the Planning Commission are based upon direction
received.
. 1) Should the connection of Deerfield Drive be a local road connecting
the neighborhoods?
. 2) Should it be an emergency connection only forever? Where should it
be located?
Town ofTruckce
October [6, 2006, (icncraJ Plan Deliberation
Page 9
o 3) Should it be designed as a local connector gated with an emergency
connector in the near term?
a The neighbors support the language in the original draft of the General Plan
Update.
a Alternative connection feasibilities should be evaluated.
a The traffic analysis assumed for the life of the General Plan would not be a
local access road connecting these neighborhoods.
. Direction.
a Add "Deerfield Connector - Emergency Access for the near term" in
dialog box on the map.
a Change "...could be used..." to "...is to be used..." in the first
paragraph.
a Second bullet on 40-31. Modify the language to analyze the various
alternatives for connection to Deerfield Drive.
v. Public Art and Cultural Amenities Goal, Policies, and Actions.
. Source and Issue.
a See Revisions #3e, #3i, and #3m in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
a See Letters C (Bradford) and AA (Sesko).
. Discussion.
a Concerns that this may become an unfunded mandate. Placing the Town in
a lead role on public art.
a Stakeholders should come to the Town with proposals.
a Change to the Town supporting pubic art.
a The discussion is descriptive and doesn't mandate Town taking a lead role.
a Future Council can determine the extent of the funding level of support.
a The funding will be determined by future Councils as the issues arise.
a Basic disagreements in the level of Town participation in a public arts
program.
a The language and intent in the General Plan will support future grant
applications.
a Tying public art to economic development.
a Public art in a collaborative environment.
a If the artists come to the Town collaboratively, it will be effective.
a Suggested language changes:
o The Town will analyze playing a lead role.
o 21.4 Assist in hosting an annual summit.
o When reviewing our CIP, consider public art.
o 21.5 Citizens should come to Truckee.
o Support and facilitate art exhibits.
o Public assistance can help insure success.
o Second paragraph change "will" to "can".
o Third line, modify the language to reflect promoting, not requiring
assistance.
. Direction.
a Staff is to bring language changes back to Council.
o Soften the lead role aspects of the wording to make it more
collaborative reflecting the Town a partner, not the lead agency.
w. Downtown Circulation, including Bridge Street RR Crossing (Page 4-27).
. Source and Issue.
a See Revisions #4j and #4k in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
a See Letter W (Porter).
Town ofTruckee
October 16. 2006. (jeneral Plan Deliberation
Page 10
o See Comment #2 in Letter GG (TDCC).
o See Comment #2 in Letter HH (TDMA)
. Discussion.
o Planning Commission softened the language to reflect that the Easterly
under-crossing is not a preferred alternative, but one of alternatives to be
considered. Examined as part of the Railyard Master Plan. Do not state it is
preferred in the General Plan.
o The closure of Bridge Street at grade crossing is a possibility but not a
preferred alternative.
. Direction.
o Identify what these areas are, but not to memorialize the potential
closure of these intersections.
o Remove language that memorializes the closure of the Bridge Street at
grade crossing from 17 and 18.
o Modify the text boxes to refer to the policy discussions.
y. Transportation Alternatives / Transit.
. Source and Issue.
o Includes Ski Shuttles / Park and Ride Lots.
o See Revision 4a in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
o See Letter X (Rebbeck).
o See Comment #3d in Letter R (MAPF).
o See Comment #1 in Letter GG (TDCC).
. Discussion.
o Additional language recommended by MAPF.
o The language exists to facilitate the park and ride lots under policies 4-49.
o Placement of mid-block crosswalks may cause a false sense of security and
increase danger.
. Controlled intersection crosswalks do not have the same safety issue.
o Language from Caltrans was added regarding West River Street and
Highway 89.
o Language added to include encouragement for alternate fuel vehicles.
o The language exists in the circulation element to address Ms. Rebbeck's
concerns.
o The fiscal implications of transit.
. Fare box recovery strives to maintain 10% recovery of costs, transit is
90% subsidized.
. Direction.
o Support Planning Commission Recommendations.
o Modify Policy 9.1 to include language to identify Downtown as a
destination for Park and Ride lot activity, and "Encourage development
of Park and Ride Facilities..."
o Include "pedestrian traffic" to item 10.12.
o Include Green Building recommended language changes regarding
transit "Non-motorized modes".
z. Trails on Private Property.
. Source and Issue.
o Comment from a private citizen.
. Discussion.
o Loss of historic trails on private property as development occurs.
o If the trails are of community value, they should be identified in the Trails
Master Plan.
Town of Truckee
October 16,1006, (icncral Plan Deliberation
Page 11
o The Master Plan is undergoing minor revision.
o Public access to trails.
. Direction.
o No Changes were made.
aa. Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus.
. Source and Issue.
o See Revision #5r in Commission Resolution 2006-19.
o See Letter 00 (WHATT).
o See Comment #5 in Letter EE (TSBOR).
. Discussion.
o WHA TT is looking for specific language changes to exempt affordable
housing projects from Town fees.
o Staff and the Planning Commission agreed the discussion should occur
as part of the Town Council Policy discussion regarding the granting of
fee waivers and reductions for affordable housing projects.
o Fee waiver requests are encouraged and evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
o An action in the Housing Element includes policy development to insure
equal treatment of projects.
o Rental housing overlay addition to the General Plan map.
o Establish the overlay as part of Zoning.
o Annual inventory of rental sites, identify sites and encourage
development of rentals on the site.
o The overlay would identify appropriate areas for rental housing.
o Should rental units be included in all development areas?
o In the 2005 Housing Element, aggressive steps were included to insure
multi-family land use inventory does not result in high-end for-purchase
condominiums and town homes.
o Staff is in support of identifying the sites and determining appropriate
action, in the annual inventory review.
o Affordable housing application of incentives and density bonuses policies will
be discussed by Council as part of the Affordable Housing policy discussion.
. Direction.
o No changes were made.
jj. Safety Goal? (Page 9-15)
. Source and Issue.
o See Comment #6 in Letter GG (TDCC).
. Discussion.
o Email broadcasts as part of emergency preparedness will be decided as
part of the development of the Emergency Response Plan.
. Direction.
o No changes were made.
3. Implementation Program
a Funding of Implementation Program
. Source and Issue.
o See Comment #1 in Letter F (CA TT).
. Discussion.
o A financial commitment report to identify potential costs and staff resources
necessary to implement the 125+ action items early next year.
Town of Truckee
Octo her 16. 2006. General Plan Deliberation
Page 12
o The circulation improvements will be part of the Traffic Impact Fee
discussion in the next couple of months.
. Direction.
o No Changes were made.
It was Council consensus to continue the deliberation of the remaining discussion
items (listed below) to follow the October 19, 2006 regular meeting business.
2. 2025 General Plan
bb. Economic Development.
. See letter from Ronnie Colby, previously provided to the Council in the package
of comments considered by the Planning Commission.
cc. Economic Development Actions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 (Page 6-6).
. See Comment #4 in Letter GG (TDCC).
dd. Economic Development Policy 1.3 and Action 2.2 (Pages 6-6, 6-8).
. See Comment #4 in Letter F (CA TT).
ee. Economic Development Policy 8.1 / Action 8.2 (Page 6-13).
. See Comment #5 in Letter GG (TDCC).
ff. Conservation and Open Space Goals 4 and 5 (Page 7-30).
. Includes buffer areas for sensitive habitat.
. Includes fee waivers for permanent protection of sensitive habitat.
. See Comments #3 and #5 in Letter F (CATT).
gg. Conservation and Open Space Policy 5.2 (Page 7-33).
. See Comment #6 in Letter F (CA TT).
hh. Stormwater Management / Water Quality.
. See Letters II and JJ (TRWC).
ii. Green Building.
. See Letter FF (Green Building Committee).
3. Implementation Program
b. Stormwater and/or Water Quality Management Plan Priority.
o See Letter JJ (TRWC).
6. ADJOURNMENT - 11 :05 p.m.
To the regular meeting of the Town Council, October 19, 2006, 6:00 p.m. at 10183 Truckee
Airport Rd, Truckee, CA 96161
ReSpeC,tfuy submitted,
"'. \. )....
_ Ii ~
I ,- .,
~ / i' /\...-",_1'-"'''"_
Judy Pr ce, CMC, Town Clerk
: ,i
APPROVED:
,/~/~ (~
_l~ ~il L
Beth Ingalls, Mayor
Town of Truckce
October 16,2006, (ieneral Plan Deliberation
Page 13