The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPublic Comment - Nikki Riley (4)r Public Comment Form Truckee 2040 Please submit a separate public comment form for each Element/Document. Questions? Call 530-582- 7776 general plan + downtown specific plan TRUCKEE2040 Click here to view the draft General Plan documents or visit truckee2040.com Element/Document: (?) * Land Use Element First Name Last Name Nikki Riley E-mail nriley@townoftruckee.com Instructions: Please use a separate public comment form for each Element/Document. Please select the item you are commenting on; if you have a general comment, select general comment. Enter the reference number given in the document, if possible. Any comments are welcome. If you have specific text changes you would like to propose, please provide the language. You may add as many additional item comments as you need. Items for Comment (?) You may add multiple comments by clicking "Add Additional Item for Comment" below Type: (?) * General Comment Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) Big Ideas: Modern Industrial Economy I have been part of the industrial economy for a good portion of my life. While there are some instances of people making a decent wage, the typical wages of industrial workers is not in line with Truckee's market rate housing. I don't think it is appropriate to assume that the emphasis of industrial and other commercial job creating uses will be in line with unregulated market forces. We have seen and are currently seeing how the Bay Area has driven up the cost of housing to levels never seen before. There is no reason to believe this will not happen with the increased density of market rate, multi- family housing. Without deed restrictions and rent control, we will make a bad situation worse. Type: (?) * General Comment Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) Plan Areas During the GP update process, multiple requests were made to focus on the existing Plan Areas before we upzone or rezone other areas peripheral to the town core. Unfortunately this did not happen. We should reconsider this decision and emphasize the importance of dedicating time and energy into these already defined plan areas. There is great concern that without a clear intent or motivation to address the issues created at PC -1, PC -2, PC -3, Railyard & Hilltop, we will see blight and unfinished projects fester. The Downtown Plan should be the starting point, not an afterthought or come secondary to other developable areas. Type: (?) * General Comment Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) Corridor Mixed Use This designation appears to represent only land connected to the Hospital Master Plan Area, aside from a small parcel west of Gateway East / Zander's and Safeway. This is concerning, especially as it is the highest allowable density in town at up to 32 units / acre and a 1.25 FAR. Three of the Planning Commissioners voted to not provide expansion of Tahoe Forest Hospital/Implementation of the Hospital Master Plan. All 5 PC members voted they were concerned about the Hospital Campus Designation and 1.25 FAR was too high. Concerned that the Master Plan is an unknown and future development needs to be in scale with existing development. It is unfortunate that this was not supported by the Town Council. Type: (?) * General Comment Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) Industrial and Business Innovation Comment* I am concerned that the allowance of housing in industrial could dilute this much needed use. I feel housing should be secondary to industrial and not be allowed without industrial as a component. This is not clear per the language. We can't claim to be desperate for industrial zoning and provide ways for developers to avoid this designation. Type: (?) * General Comment Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) Workforce Housing Terminology The use of the term Workforce Housing is used throughout this section yet is not clear about what it means or entails. It would be helpful to have a clear understanding of what it means to be a workforce housing project. Are there deed restrictions? Targeted users? Income restrictions? Etc. Type: (2) * General Comment Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (7) Sphere of Influence All properties identified to be annexed by the town in the SOI should be for open space creation and preservation. As a consistent goal throughout the 2025GP, the community does not support sprawl. We should codify this with a policy related to the SOI for land preservation. Type: (?) * Goal Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (2) LU-1 While I support and believe in this goal, I don't believe the Town Council's supported LUAs are in line with it. Increasing densities across the board for market rate housing, commercial and industrial uses without protections in place to make the housing affordable and accessible to locals and ensure that the job creating uses are not making an existing housing problem worse, does not support the environment, reduce sprawl or mitigate public safety threats. Type: (7) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (7) LU 1.1 We currently have traffic impacts that are exacerbated by regional visitors, tourists, and Truckee's non -full time homeowners. Increasing densities for market rate housing will make a bad situation worse. We should remove "reduce traffic impacts in the region." Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-1.2 Over densifying the population coupled with rampant growth in the region increases our risks for evacuation during a wildfire. More cars on the road and limited evacuation routes creates a harmful scenario. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-1.4 Town's support for development on 1-80 at Upper McIver is at odds with this policy. While the development isn't accessed by the freeway, it is adjacent to and heavily impacted by the freeway. Why are we emphasizing limitations to freeway -oriented development yet continue to propose projects on the freeway? Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-1.5 This policy makes no sense unless we go back and remove all of the increased density provided by the Town Council in the LUA process. The TC approved increasing land use intensities with no benefit, public or otherwise all across town. There should be no increased densities without clear and tangible public benefits such as deed restricted, locals' housing affordable to wages earned in the community. Not a windfall for landowners & developers who got increased densities and do the bare minimum to support workforce housing. There was a collective and continued request by the PC to make a locals' housing overlay for all areas of increased housing density so it would be serving a public good. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (7) LU-1.6 Unfortunately, large, multi -family housing is synonymous with big open areas of asphalt surface parking. See Soaring Ranch, phases 2 & 3. Developers are not open to incorporating the parking into their projects to avoid surface parking, despite repeated requests for this over the years, as it increases their costs. The TC's multi -family push will inevitably result in more of what this policy seeks to avoid. We should change the language to state: "Large, continuous, surface parking will not be allowed." or we should revise the LUA outcomes to redesign what types of building we want where as this will dictate the types of parking expected by the development. Type: (?) * Goal Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-2 While I support and believe in this goal, the 15% inclusionary housing policy will not effectively support this. The reality is that with 85% market rate housing that is not deed restricted, we will see a continuation of the decades old trend of 50% locals and 50% non locals, perhaps it will get worse. With the increase in service jobs, we will likely see an increase in the already high number of commuters who drive to Truckee for their jobs. Goal could be changed to state, "Provide an adequate amount of land designated...to accommodate market rate, affordable and workforce housing needs." Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-2.1 Unfortunately this policy is not accurate in that regional traffic impacts will likely be increased, not decreased by the preferred LUA. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-2.2 This is good. We need clear and tangible ways for people to build ADUs and other local serving housing with incentives like permit fee waivers, etc. Type: (7) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (7) LU-2.5 Unfortunately this policy is not appropriate in that the increased job creating uses, coupled with increased market rate housing, will further an already deficient housing environment. Type: (7) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (7) LU-2.7 Does this include multi -family homes? The LUA process resulted in bigger and more development intensity at Donner Lake and the Truckee River on West River Street than previously allowed. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-2.8 Is the intent to help mobile home owners move into other neighborhoods with small lots? Type: (?) * Action Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-2.B Unfortunately, the densities were increased all around town with no benefits beyond the existing 15% inclusionary policy. All density benefits should be tied to community benefits beyond our existing policies. Type: (?) * Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) Action LU-2.F Comment* Why is this limited to 1 mile from downtown & Gateway? Why not Glenshire? One of, if not the largest, locals' neighborhood in town. Type: (?) * Goal Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-3 While I support and believe in this goal, I don't believe the Town Council's supported LUAs are in line with it. Increasing densities across the board for market rate housing, commercial and industrial uses without protections in place to make the housing affordable and accessible to locals will increase GHG emissions, traffic and land use conflicts. Type: (?) * Action Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-3.A While I applaud and support this action, I fail to see how this can be implemented. We are unable to create an inclusionary housing policy in excess of 15% yet somehow there are other incentives at our disposal? Type: (?) * Goal Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (2) LU-4 Unfortunately the average job created by industrial uses or maker uses does not come with a high wage. This will put the already limited and heavily competed for housing units in more demand. Type: (,) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-4.1 I do not support the rezoning of any land to industrial until we assess its appropriateness for this use. Additionally, we should not rezone land with the intent of relocation of existing uses without a clear plan for how it will be done. Incentives must be identified to assist businesses with the impact of moving. There appears to be enough land for industrial but we are restricted by existing, non -conforming uses and land owners who are unwilling to do anything with the land. Perhaps the town should offer to buy the land and redevelop it at West River Street? I am supportive of exploring land on Joerger Road near the Sanitary District and Bus Barn for industrial uses. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-4.2 I don't support this. If we keep emphasizing how dire it is to have industrial land at our disposal, why would we allow someone to change the designation? Similarly, we should not let the industrial uses be turned in to housing only. Type: (?) * Action Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-4.A Where did the 5 acres come from? If this can't be found in town limits, looking next to the airport is advised as stated in above comment. Type: (?) * Action Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (2) LU-5.A I encourage the town to work closely with the Sanitation Agency to ensure the citizens are not being harmed by their actions. The ongoing air pollution released by the SA seems toxic and unhealthy. We deserve better. More oversight is encouraged regarding their operations. Type: (?) * Action Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-5.D Comment* Is it typical to review a budget every 6 months to determine funding mechanisms? Type: (?) * General Comment Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-6.6 Can we include language that states no one will be displaced from an affordable housing unit by a developer who seeks to demolish or renovate a unit and sell it or rent it at market rate prices? Similar to the mobile home park language? Type: (?) * Goal Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-7 While I support this goal and the goal in the specific plan requiring 50% of jobs created to provide housing, no housing has been built to date. We should either remove this goal, amend it to remove the housing provision, or commit in the next year to building housing for the workers created at Joerger/Soaring Ranch. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-7.4 This needs to be addressed ASAP. This should be a number one priority for council. Type: (?) * General Comment Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) Figure LU-4 Should this map be revised to reflect the Hospital's Master Plan? They appear to occupy most of the property in this map from Safeway to the Villager nursery. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (7) LU-8.3 How do you reconcile this and other policies re: to use when the land is owned by the Hospital and governed by their master plan? Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (7) LU-8.8 There should be no blanket support for the Hospital Master Plan without a clear understanding of the intent, impacts and benefits to the town. They are not mutually exclusive. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-8.9 I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY DEVELOPMENT ON UPPER MC IVER! This is an environmental justice issue and a poorly thought out decision with huge impacts. Traffic, air, noise pollution. Access, scenic corridor, wildfire hazard, topography issues, etc. This should be returned to its original designation as open space. There are other properties appropriate for development of this intent. Look at Hope Court. Type: (?) * Policy Comment* Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?) LU-8.7 This is laughable. Does anyone really think limiting the size to ensure affordability will work? Has anyone been to SF, LA, Manhattan, Paris the list can go on and on. Small sized units that are prohibitively expensive. There need to be real measures in place to create affordable housing for the locals. Local housing overlay anyone? Do you have reference documents to upload?* 0 Yes 0 No L J