The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPublic Comment - Suzie TarnayPUBLIC COMMENT FROM SUZIE TARNAY: I really struggled with this element. I thought I was ready to send my comments about 12 hours ago, but something didn’t feel right. I had to go back and spend some time with the element itself and figure out what was making me feel so imbalanced. I finally found my bearings. I understand how much hard work was put into this plan, and I think we’re almost there, but please give serious consideration to the Overarching Challenge and the Main CAP Shortfall below. Thank you everyone so much for your time and hard work on this epic challenge. My strong opinions are at the top, followed by policies that I’d like to see discussed, then a mixture of staff questions and things I totally love, and finally some quick edits. I love how this quote sets the stage for major change: Page 4 and 5 a quote from the IPCC August 2021: ”We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviors at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions, and governments. We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”1 Overarching Challenge The really good news is that we are all coming into this Climate Action process with a common, very specific goal! The town Renewables Resolution created a concrete goal of 80% GHG emissions reductions by the year 2040. And conveniently, this is the 2040 General Plan! Through some arithmetic we have arrived at the conclusion that we need to reduce our yearly emissions by 102,570 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) by 2040. Excellent, a very clear (if awkward to pronounce and not terribly relatable) goal. In the next step, it appeared that each of our CAP Goals were just vague category in a table. A closer look revealed that the tables were the actual goals, and we have very specific numbers for each goal. So CAP Goal 1 is to reduce GHG’s through VMT reductions by 1,372 MTCO2e. CAP 2 is 1,472 MTCO2e of reductions through Bikeablilty and Walkability measures. And so on. So these numbers are still awkwardly large, but they are clear and measurable, and (pleasingly) add up to our main goal. (Almost.*) But then, in our policies and actions, where we should be defining the steps to achieve each goal, and indicating how each one advances the cause, something went amiss. There is no indication of how each of the policies and actions relate to its governing goal. There are no estimates of “This action will remove 100 cars a year from our roads” or “This policy will enable 25 families a year to retrofit their home to be carbon neutral,” and how each one would affect the main 102,570 MTCO2e number. I fully understand that not everyone is mathematically inclined, but the General Plan, to quote Denyelle, is “Our roadmap to development through the year 2040.” And right now our roadmap is lacking both signposts and mileage indicators. There are so many of these goals, policies and actions that are amazing, wonderful and unequivocally the right thing to do. But they are currently unrelated to the goals. So many of my Staff questions were about “how does this action further our goal?” And without concrete numbers, any plan reader will be at a loss. I do not doubt that the math has been done, and that there are answers somewhere, but they somehow got lost in translation. So I am asking, can we put some of these signposts back in to our actions and policies? Can we use human scale relatable numbers like “miles not driven”, or “houses fixed”, or “pounds composted” in each of our actions? I love a collection of awesome policy, but I love a concrete road map even more. *Disagree ‐ Main CAP Shortfall Page 13: “This CAP Element is primarily focused on achieving the 2030 target and aims to make substantial progress in achieving the longer-term targets in 2040, 2045, and 2050.” The general plan extends through 2040, and therefore should be primarily focused on achievingthe 2040 target at a minimum. So from page 13, we need to reduce 102,570 (MTCO2e) and our plan produces a reduction of 70,817. So how close are we to our Town Resolution? (70,817 / 102,570 = 69% of the way there.) A solid D+, not something I’d like to see on a report card. CA wants carbon neutrality by 2045, which is only 5 years after this plan is expires. I think we need to go back to the former brainstorming records, and add some new policies and actions. We cannot kick the can down the road for the next decade or two. We must take transformational action now, because never, in the history of time, has a project randomly worked out ahead of schedule and under budget, and here we are counting on it for the literal future of our community. We can do better. Strongly Disagree ‐ “Natural Gas” Page 35: CAP-7.1 Renewable Energy Sources Support utility providers in achieving 100 percent renewable energy by increasing renewable energy sources, including renewable natural gas. NOTE: Natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is found in rock formations deep below the surface of the earth, it is formed from plants, animals, and microorganisms that lived millions of years ago. Renewable natural gas mainly comes from landfills, livestock operations, and wastewater treatment. Either source of gas is not carbon neutral, therefore does it further our ghg reduction goals? Should it be eliminated all together? What capacity to we have to produce/capture renewable gas locally from the WWTP and or the landfill? Page 36: CAP-7.B Renewable Natural Gas Supply ***I remain skeptical as to the wisdom of promoting RNG… “Strive to achieve the use of 25 percent renewable natural gas by 2030.” ***25% isn’t very good, that’s 75% traditional fossil fuel use and does nothing for 80% ghg reduction by 2040. Strongly Disagree Page 31: LU-2.4 Appropriate Location of Affordable Housing Development ***I cannot express again how this phrase makes integrated affordable housing sound “inappropriate” ***If this policy is to stay, I must be reworded, but I would propose that it is not appropriate and should be removed. Affordable housing is appropriate in all locations. LOVE Page 16 : “These goals focus on reducing the over‐reliance on personal vehicles as the primary mode of transportation in Truckee while supporting programs and physical improvements in the town that support more sustainable transportation options including transit, bicycles, walking, and opportunities to avoid vehicle trips altogether.” Suhweet!! Policy Discussions Focus on Existing Buildings Page 16: “Since existing buildings are where most emissions are generated currently, there is a strong emphasis on increasing energy efficiency in existing buildings, building electrification, and the use of renewable natural gas in existing development.” So many concerns here… ***Retrofitting for efficiency/carbon neutrality is incredibly expensive, approximately $30,000 to $50,000 per house?! (Heat pumps, windows, heat/water, appliances) And every measure here must be met/duplicated by the PUD to provide power. Where is the indication that this goal is achievable? ***How many houses would we need to retrofit by 2030 for the listed reductions, how many for 2040? ***Will these measures exclude our defacto affordable housing in mobile home parks? How about apartment renters? How would this work in those situations? Would the remaining SFR would have to exceed 20% to make the math work…? ***Natural gas again. Element Format Issue Again Page 36: CAP 7.A -“identify and incorporate funding options and subsidies for low-income households to ensure equitable participation in the program” ***Do we have any ideas for funding sources? How do we implement this, as most low income households are either in mobile home parks or rental apartments? -“strive to achieve a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption in existing residential uses and a 15 percent reduction in existing nonresidential uses by 2030.” ***This is not an action, it is a goal. Is it a achievable goal? Policy Discussion Consider Strengthening Page 18: “M-1.2 Transportation Demand Management Measures Support community partners, including existing and future businesses and public and nonprofit employers, in expanding the use of transportation demand management (TDM) measures including discounts, rewards, and parking cash‐out programs that divert automobile commute trips to transit, walking, bicycling, or digital/remote working. [Source: 2025 General Plan, Mobility Element, Policy 9.1, modified]” This is too vague to be of use to developers, especially when our code currently says otherwise. We have the power to take transformative action! Can we change the wording (and subsequent actions) to be something like these: “Support existing and future businesses by lowering our code requirements for new construction- and new use- parking and/or allow cash out programs that directly benefit transit and cycling infrastructure” and/or “Explore a program for protected bike lanes on major thoroughfares to increase ridership of locals and tourists alike in a safe and fun manor. And/or “Explore a town program of street trees to increase pedestrian usage of sidewalks along major thoroughfares in a safe and equitable manor while decreasing vehicle trips and sequestering green house gas emissions. Policy Discussion LOS Page 18: “M-1.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Standards Implement the adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) standards and thresholds and evaluate new development projects using the adopted VMT analysis methodologies, thresholds of significance, and mitigation strategies. [Source: New policy]” And in addition eliminate LOS as it allows initial development to avoid the costs of impact, and places them on the last developer at the intersection, street, or roundabout. Policy Discussion Page 21: “M-2.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Roadway Improvements Use roadway, roundabout, and intersection improvements as an opportunity to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connections, where feasible. [Source: 2025 General Plan, Mobility Element, Policy 10.6, modified]” ***Can we be specific here, and discuss changing town policies? -no parking in bike lanes for loading and unloading, penalties, ticketing, and towing. -painted bike boxes for cyclists at traffic signals -signs that say “yield to bikes” and “bikes allowed to use full lane” to raise awareness of cycling rights -ensure all signals detect cyclists, indications where cyclists should stop to trigger signal -allow pedestrian “scramble” in all directions -shorten wait times for pedestrian cycle -provide shady intersections -provide cycling connection all the way into and through downtown Policy Discussions ‐ protected bike lanes Page 21: M-2.1 Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan “Maintain, implement, and update the Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to continue to expand the town’s interconnected system of multi- use paths, bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks throughout the community that is safe and accessible to all users, including children, persons with disabilities, and seniors. [Source: 2025 General Plan, Mobility Element, Policy 10.2 and 10.3, modified]” ***Please note that heavy reliance on “multi use trails” is not safe for all users, and that the system only works when sparsely used. It is unsafe for the elderly, mobility challenged, and dog walkers to use while cyclists and ebikers use their vehicle to get efficiently where they need to be. (I don’t want to demonize either category of user!) ***Paint-protected bike lanes are not safe for children, or tentative cyclists, and really not actually safe for confident cyclists either! We must add a goal/policy to explore the features and benefits of structural protected bike lanes to encourage mode shift. These can be protected by curbs, parked cars, removable bollards, planters, etc. Policy Discussions ‐ protected bike lanes Page 22: M-2.A Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update “determine which roadways are suitable for implementing reduced vehicle lane width, traffic calming measures, or expanded bike capacity to more safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists;” - LOVE ***Or would this be a better place to specifically mention exploring protected bike lanes, or recommend a pilot program? ***Again, would this be a better place to specifically mention bike lanes in downtown, and how easy it is to replace “angle in” parking with parallel parking and a bike lane. Do we want to provide facilities to store people’s cars, or facilities for people to actively use? Transformational Action! ***Would this be a good place to mention the Donner Creek bridge on West River Street, where the bike lane narrows abruptly and dangerously? Policy ‐ Protected Bike Lanes Page 28: M-2.12 E-Bike Infrastructure ***E-bike infrastructure should include protected bike lanes, specifically as ebikes travel too fast for sidewalks and multi use trails, should have the safety of bollard protection for our middle school and high school students who have wholeheartedly embraced this technology… I see this addressed in M-2.P E-Bike Trail Use Policy Discussion Page 37: CAP-7.G Water Conservation Education How about we as a town clarify our policies on water use alternatives, such as composting toilets, grey water reuse, rainwater capture… etc? Policy Discussion ‐ fare free Page 24: “M-3.6 Transit Use and Transfers Work to increase ridership by maintaining a “fare‐free” system, reducing headways from current one-hour headways, increasing service area coverage, and expanding route connections, including transfers between different modes of transport such as Reno/Tahoe International Airport, Truckee Tahoe Airport, bicycle, rail, and interregional bus service. [Source: New policy] ***Can we be specific on our headway goals here? ie. 10 to 15 minutes! ***Can someone clarify for me if free fares or reducing headways should take precedence? (I personally would buy a bus pass and use it if system ran every 10 to 15 minutes. ) ***Would charging monthly/yearly fee for pass help offset costs and get to lower headways quicker? Policy Priority ‐ outreach Page 26: M-3.F Community Outreach and Marketing Campaign All the outreach won’t increase ridership on a system that runs once an hour. I think we should save our money until we can increase frequency and then perform outreach. Policy Discussion Page 31: M-1.1 Integration of Land Use and Climate Action Planning and Decisions This policy talks about “pedestrian-oriented development;” ***Can we begin the process to codify the specifics of this? We could specifically mention providing shade infrastructure along sidewalks (trees!), street furniture, building design guidelines with fenestration requirements, define deep inviting entryways, allow sidewalk displays of store goods, promote food truck culture, pop- up sales, use of outdoor spaces as more than barren concrete. Policy Priorities Page 31: LU-2.5 Healthy Jobs-Housing Balance ***We currently have a very unbalanced Jobs-Housing balance! Local businesses cannot find employees, perhaps for now, we need to focus less on job creation and more on workforce housing definition and creation? Policy Discussion Page 42: CAP-10.1 Single-Use Items “Increase recycling and reuse, and reduce the use of single-use items throughout the community.” ***I would suggest we consider a policy similar to National Parks and phase out single use plastic products in our boundaries. Let’s get transformational! Policy Discussion Page 32: LU-2.A Workforce Housing Strategy ***First and foremost we need to define workforce housing. Policy Discussion Page 32: LU-2.F Incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units Extend this program beyond 1 mile from downtown. Policy Discussion Page 33: CC-1.C Tree Preservation Standards Review the Development Code for opportunities to strengthen the tree preservation ordinance to protect mature, significant trees, strengthen regulation on unpermitted removal of trees and grading disturbance, and ensure tree succession planting where possible in the project development process while ensuring that regulations are not in direct conflict with wildfire management goals. [Source: New action] ***I would go further and request that we retain the services of a fire fuels specialist (periodically, quarterly?) to ensure wildfire management actions are effective and appropriate for the WUI. Cutting down all trees is not appropriate, and yet, it has been suggested. Mature trees have been conflated with fire fuels, and this is a misnomer. Mature trees can help to lower neighborhood temperatures, slow winds and fire spread, and retain soil moisture. The path to fire safety does not come through indiscriminate removal of all trees. We must make it a priority to hire a professional to make those determinations. Policy Priorities Page 33: CAP-6.2 Open Space Restoration Protect, increase, and restore open space while working to expand the carbon sequestration potential of land. [Source: New policy] I would add to this plant local drought tolerant trees where possible to add carbon sequestration capacity and enhance our Town’s open space experience. (Specific example: along the multi use trail between the Raley’s and the bike park. Scary Staff Question Page 5: “a project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions may be determined to be less than significant if the project complies with the applicable measures in a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions” ***What if the plan includes some theoretical proposals that haven’t been approved yet as individual plans? Then the development is allowed anyway because it complies with an untested Climate plan? Staff Question Page 18: “M-1.4 Transportation Innovation Promote transportation innovation and encourage transportation network companies to reduce greenhouse gases through improved technology, curb space management, and micromobility alternatives. What is curb space management? Staff Question Page 19: “M-1.A Transportation Demand Management Program” -“unbundled parking strategies” Yes, lets allow businesses to unbundle parking! So the subsequent action needs to be to amend the development code, right? -“subsidized transit passes” Transit passes are literally free. This incentive is outdated, shouldn’t we remove it? Love Page 19: “M1-B VMT Mitigation -“contributing to regional transit enhancements, particularly ongoing operations funding;” Yes!! -“managing parking inventory through participation in a regional or district-wide parking pricing program;” Yes!! Different pricing for local downtown residents than tourist pricing? _”reducing parking supply rates, or unbundling parking spaces from residential units;” Yes! Allowing residential units without parking in our code! Staff Question ***Can we find somewhere to put “Allow pedestrian usage of the east side of Bridge Street across the rail road tracks”? LOVE Page 21: “M-2.13 Bike Parking Requirements for New Development” Yes! Page 21: “M-2.14 Adequate Bike Parking at Major Facilities” Yes, town hall does not have enough bike parking! Page 21: “M-2.17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Education” Can we specifically call out a major outreach to the high school and middle schools about helmet usage, the state requirements, considering the high percentage of ebike adoption in this population? Can we consider publicizing the state $25 fine for riding without a helmet? Staff Question Page 22: M-2.5 and M-2.E look and sound the same. ***What differentiates the policy and the action here? Page 23: M-2.J Downtown Bike and Pedestrian Connections Notably missing Donner Pass Road. LOVE Yes to M-2.K, M-2.M and M-2.N LOVE Page 25: M3.8 Bus Shelters - YES! (ADA, bike racks, maintenance stations, lighting, NextBus) Staff Question Page 25: M3.9 Low/No Emissions Fleets - ***Have we found these to be workable in our climate? School bus routes are currently too long for EV’s in cold weather… Staff Question: M-3.I is exactly the same as M-3.8. ***What differentiates the policy and the action here? Staff Question Page 30: CAP-4.A Incentives for Zero-Emissions Vehicles “Explore incentive programs to convert existing van, shuttle, taxi, rideshare, and call-up ride services to zero-emissions vehicles” ***What kind of incentives? Would they apply to other districts or just private industry? (ie the school district?) I love CAP-7.1 Retrofit Incentive Program Staff Question Page 44: CAP-11.A (fourth bullet) “establishing a permanent funding source for the collaborative to ensure GHG reduction strategies can be fully implemented. Use funding to implement GHG reductions strategies while ensuring businesses, low-income households, and disadvantaged communities are not unduly burdened by the costs and impacts of strategy implementation.” ***What brainstorming has happened on this? Are we adding another property tax? Sales tax, TOT? Are there truly viable options for this? Staff Question Page 45: CAP-11.B Sustainability Coordinator Hire or appoint a sustainability coordinator, by 2023, to lead implementation and monitoring of the CAP as well as to collaborate with internal staff and regional partners on climate action. ***Is this to be a full time position? ***If part time, can we combine with with a WUI fire fuels specialist? Staff Question Page 45: CAP-11.F Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory “Update the Town’s GHG emissions inventory every 4 years and update the CAP at a minimum of every 6 years to incorporate new technologies for GHG reductions…” ***Why emissions inventory 4 years and CAP 6? Shouldn’t it be 4 and 4? Easy Edit Page 10: “Wastewater Treatment: Generation and treatment of wastewater.” Surely you don’t mean generation of wastewater? Easy Edit? Page 10: “Truckee’s community-wide inventory information items include electric on-road vehicles, transit vehicles, and the collection and transportation of community-generated solid waste because emissions from these activities are counted elsewhere in the inventory.” Do you mean excluded? Why would you include it if it were counted elsewhere? Editing? Page 22: M-2.A Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update (bullet number 1) and M-2.I New Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ***These are nearly the same thing, with one being slightly more specific. Can we combine them and eliminate M-2.I? Edit? M-2.O Shower and Locker Room Incentives ***With ebikes are the showers as necessary? Editing Page 26: M-3.B Long Range Transit Plan -increased headways on all transit routes; -expanded and enhanced dial-a-ride programs for on-call and ADA rides through better ride scheduling and booking technology; and -new neighborhood connection routes in critical places such as Tahoe Donner and Glenshire, including bus shelters, local and regional mobility hub centers, and service expansion ***LOWERED HEADWAYS - INCREASE FREQUENCY Aren’t the second two bullets already accomplished? Shouldn’t we edit this accordingly? Edit Page 31: “Truckee Artist Lofts provides workforce housing.” Is this statement correct? Doesn’t the Artist Lofts provide Affordable housing, not workforce? Edit Page 42: CAP-10.3 Refurbishment, Repair, and Reuse Support development programs that teach refurbishment, repair, and reuse, while increasing education and awareness campaigns that focus on reuse and repair as a first priority. ***Honestly reduction is always the first priority, then reuse.