Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutInitial PC Questions 3-15-23Planning Commission questions for March 21 and 22nd 1. I was reading an article and came across this: “California became the first state to pass a law requiring local government as of 2018 to add an Environmental Justice element if they update two or more aspects of their general plans.” Question: Why do we not have an Environmental Justice element in our General Plan? Staff Response: As discussed in the 2040 General Plan Existing Conditions Report: State law requires local governments in California to address the needs of disadvantaged communities (DACs). This section addresses Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), which was adopted in 2016 and focuses on environmental justice concerns. Using a variety of screening methods, including the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) from the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the California Health Disadvantage Index (HDI) from the Public Health Institute, and median income data from the U.S. Census Bureau ACS, this section evaluates whether Truckee contains DACs, per the definition of the legislation. • According to Cal EnviroScreen, there are no census tracts within the town that qualify as a CalEPA-defined DAC. • While none of the census tracts in Truckee meet the conditions to qualify as a DAC, per the definition of SB 1000, the 2012–2016 ACS shows that block group 2 within census tract 12.06, which includes the central portion of the town including I-80 and SR 89, is a lower-income community. While none of the referenced data sources point to a disproportionate pollution burden or other environmental justice issues in this area, this block group will be an area to target outreach efforts as part of the General Plan Update process. Although the Town is updating more than two elements, it must also meet the threshold discussed above to be required to add an Environmental Justice element. Regardless, the draft 2040 General Plan integrates the Environmental Justice fundamentals as previously explained in response to Nikki Riley’s prior similar comments. Discussion: I would definitely like to address three elements brought up by public comment: 2. LU-5.4 land use amendments while on septic Staff Response: The following existing Development Code performance standard is listed in every zone district and covers all uses (with the exception of legally existing single-family lots and residential subdivisions of four or less parcels) No land use shall be approved with on-site sewage disposal. Connection to sewer shall be required. Development Code performance standards must be approved by both the Planning Commission and Town Council. Prior Town Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners understood the negative environmental effects associated with septic system failure and approved the Development Code Performance Standard listed above. The 2025 General Plan already requires a connection to sewer for all new residential subdivisions of four or more parcels and all new commercial and industrial uses. What the 2025 plan did not contemplate were institutional uses not being considered as a commercial use, or a public school not being located on a public facility connected to sewer. The updated 2040 General Plan policy provides clarity to this issue. The public comments from the Waldorf school supporters make the following misrepresentations. Change in Use vs. Use Permit Amendment: A change in use is not a Use Permit amendment. A change in use would require a new Zoning Clearance, Minor Use Permit or Use Permit approval. It would be a “new” use on the parcel. New uses are already required to be connected to sewer (with the exceptions listed above). It appears that the Waldorf school is worried they will be required to connect to sewer if they request to amend their Use Permit. It is possible, but not due to the 2040 General Plan update. At time of Use Permit amendment, the Planning Commission could decide to require connection to sewer as part of the approval. Nevada County Environmental Health Department could review the amendment request and decide that the current septic system was not adequate. The amendment could require additional environmental review, and the review could indicate the need for sewer connection. This is not related to the General Plan update. However, for example, if Waldorf wanted to change the use on the property from a school to a retail development, this would be a change in use, this would be a new use and sewer connection would be a requirement (under the 2025 General Plan and the current Development Code). Town Staff publicly declared the General Plan update would prevent Use Permits from ever being amended: This is not accurate. Town staff stated that the General Plan update would require a connection to sewer if a Time Extension was requested. This is because the Time Extension findings specifically require a project to be consistent with current General Plan and Development Code standards. Town staff solved this problem for the school by encouraging the school to ask for a phased permit. The phasing proposed and approved provides the school six years to complete entitlements, with six years is the maximum time allowed under a time extension request, thus preventing the need for the school to request a Time Extension. Piping Rock and Waldorf school are non-residential parcels. This is not correct. Both Piping Rock and the Waldorf are located on residential parcels (Rural Residential). Piping Rock Equestrian is affected by this change in the 2040 General Plan. This is not correct. The policy does not change the requirements for Piping Rock (A commercial use and already required to connect to sewer via the Development Code and the 2025 General Plan. Waldorf school cannot physically connect to sewer. Town staff, including the Town Engineer and Acting Town Manager, Dan Wilkins, met with Blake Tresan from TSD to discuss the sewer connection for Waldorf school. At that meeting, TSD stated that providing sewer connection to the Union Mills Road parcels was certainly possible, but likely cost-prohibitive to the applicant. You may also recall that Prosser Creek Charter School was required to connect to sewer and the plans for this connection had already been reviewed by TSD at that time. Staff does not support intensifying development on septic parcels (with the exceptions for residential uses listed above). Septic systems can fail when not properly maintained or if they are overburdened. Expanding uses and large-scale development on septic parcels is not sound planning and comes with the potential for environmental impacts. Staff finds that ignoring potential environmental impacts and weakening the General Plan to allow a single property owner to expand development beyond what has already been approved is short-sighted and not in line with overall community environmental goals which include protection of Truckee watersheds. According to the EPA: • A failing septic system likely discharges untreated wastewater, which contains pathogens (e.g., E. coli), nutrients and other harmful substances directly into the groundwater or onto the ground and into surface waters. • Surfacing untreated wastewater from a failed drainfield is a direct public health hazard to anyone exposed to it. Children and pets can unknowingly be exposed to this hazard which can cause illness. • Straight pipes can discharge untreated wastewater directly into ditches, streams and other water bodies causing a direct public health hazard and also a regional public health hazard to anyone who comes into contact with the untreated wastewater. • Drinking water from groundwater wells and from surface water sources can be contaminated by untreated wastewater and require filtration and disinfection to remain potable. It is common in Truckee that properties served by a private septic system are also served by a private water well. • Excess nitrogen contamination in surface or groundwater supplies can impact drinking water systems requiring special treatment. • Chemicals that may be discharged into septic systems can negatively impact water quality and public health in both groundwater and surface water sources, even in very small amounts. 3. How to prioritize the 10 concerns brought up by MAP and many comments Staff Response: This is a topic you would raise with fellow Commissioners as part of deliberation. 4. The misrepresentation of seismic and liquefaction danger.  Staff Response: Staff will be presenting the following change in the staff presentation to address Judith Zachariasen’s comment: Change the wording to, “Truckee is not located within any of the zones of required investigation established by the California Geological Survey pursuant to the Seismic Hazards Map Act (SHMA) and the hazards of liquefaction are currently unassessed.” Ascent has verified that this change is consistent with the Draft EIR. 5. How are our Spanish Speaking community members receiving outreach around this process and being included in the Planning Commission and Town Council hearings? Staff Response: Spanish-speaking outreach with the General Plan Update process has been a learning process and one that has demonstrated the importance of the Town’s hiring of a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion staff position. Staff provided various forms of outreach earlier in the process (e.g.-partnering with the Sierra Community House, Spanish-speaking GPAC liaison, translated workshops and documents, outreach and coordination with the School District, etc.) and found that not many community members were reading the available material when translated or participating in ways we planned. Staff hosted a housing workshop with in-person translators and this resulted in a modest-level of participation. The Spanish-speaking community members that provided input were primarily interested in these main topics: • Interest in creating more mobile home parks for homeownership opportunities • Interest in more convenient public transit • Interest in more affordable groceries, housing, goods and services (e.g.-Walmart, more diverse housing options) Staff considered all input received in developing the draft 2040 General Plan and added the following Community Character Action specific to fostering an improved public outreach outcome. CC-6.A: Public Outreach Review the Town’s policies and programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Create policies for equitable public outreach, including targeted outreach to underrepresented community groups, ensuring the availability of bilingual materials and interpreters for all community meetings and conducting meetings in accessible locations. [Source: New action] Responsibility: Community Development Department, Assistant to the Town Manager Time Frame: Short term Based on the work done earlier in the update process, along with the Town’s DEI Coordinator, Erica Mertens’ work since starting the DEI position, staff is working on Spanish-speaker engagement on future outreach about the 2040 General Plan focused on implementation/priorities. This will be a coordinated effort with other community partners and part of a larger work program Erica is developing on diversity, equity and inclusion. 6. How were the Focus Areas determined for the Land Use Alternative process? Who made this decision? Staff Response: The focus areas were initially developed by staff and Ascent after review of 2025 General Plan Land Use Designations, current zoning, assessment of areas of potential change (i.e., vacant/underutilized land), and community input on opportunities, challenges, vision, goals, etc. These focus areas were then refined through a months’ long process with the GPAC and the Committee weighed in on and provided final direction on the various focus areas. They were developed to facilitate discussion on various parts of the community. 7. Can Town Staff please provide me with a copy of the Upper McIver EIR addendum? This was referenced in the FEIR and I have never seen this document. I believe it will be helpful to know how an intensification of uses from RC/OS to high density residential on this site, was evaluated. Staff Response: Here’s a link to the addendum for the Upper McIver site (starts on Page 15): https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59344703&repo=r-6a91ddbc The Upper McIver site was designated Commercial, which allowed for 12 dwelling units per acre for standalone residential, since 2005. The previous Commercial designation allowed for development on this site; the overall action to change the land use designation and zoning to High Density Residential brought the zoning into compliance with the General Plan. Additionally, any future development of the site will require its own environmental analysis. 8. Why wasn’t the decision to implement a self-mitigating EIR a community decision? Why was this done without community involvement? Staff Response: This is ultimately a question for the Town Council, however staff will note that the Town of Truckee typically does not rely on community consensus on the format or analysis within CEQA documents. Self-mitigation is not a new concept for General Plans. Rather, it is an intrinsic property of an appropriately prepared General Plan and is in fact, required by CEQA and recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The Town implemented OPR’s General Plan Guidelines, which state that a city or county should coordinate General Plan policies and environmental mitigation measures during the planning process so that the mitigation measures will be reflected in the Plan policies and those policies realistically can be implemented. . 9. When were the existing conditions for the GP2040 evaluated and completed? Staff Response: The baseline year for the existing conditions is 2018, which is when preparation of the General Plan Update began. The Existing Conditions report was published in early 2019 following work done to prepare the report during 2018. 10. Re: Policy CC-1.2 • How can we ensure “that any new development in Truckee’s lowland (flatter) areas, including its forested areas and meadowlands, and in the Truckee River Valley, does not reduce water quality or carbon sequestration, while also contributing to the scenic quality and visual harmony between the natural and built environment?” Staff Response: Many of the policies created will be implemented through specific actions. Development Code amendments and objective design standards can be used to implement this policy. Further, projects subject to CEQA review are required to look at impacts to water quality and climate change. 11. Please help me understand the intent of this comment: • Policy M-1.4, which is identified in Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” (p. 4.3-15), Section 4.6, “Energy,” (p. 4.6- 7), Section 4.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” (p. 4.8-18), Section 4.17, “Transportation,” (p. 4.17-24) has been revised as identified below. The analyses of potential impacts in the Draft EIR are not affected by these modifications. The policy expresses support for transportation innovation, and the nature of the policy is unchanged. The policy does not include mitigating actions designed to achieve environmental impact reduction essential to the impact determinations in the Draft EIR. Policy M-1.4: Transportation Innovation. Promote transportation innovation with a focus on emerging technology and Mobility as a Service and encourage transportation network companies to reduce greenhouse gases through improved technology, curb space management, and micromobility alternatives. Staff response: The intent of this statement is to clarify that this policy is not functioning as a required “mitigation measure”. Policy M-1.4 was listed in the Draft EIR under the subheading “2040 General Plan Update” in the identified resource sections. This section identifies all policies related to the impact area. The policy includes potentially beneficial, but soft language. For this reason, it was not cited in the impact analysis. The proposed changes do not affect the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR. 12. How does Town Staff feel we currently doing in this regard and how do we ensure this resiliency for today and the future? • Policy M-4.2: Consideration of Climatic Conditions. Ensure that existing and future roadway, sidewalk, and bikeway standards, and the implementation of such standards, take Truckee's climatic and geographic conditions and resiliency (such as heavy snow fall and steep and varied terrain) into account as well as all users, including children, persons with disabilities, and seniors. Staff Response: In general, staff consistently works to develop or revise standards that address the items above, whether it be through formal adoption, or through general guidelines used by staff in project development and review. For example, Engineering staff regularly corresponds with Facilities and Public Works staff to discuss snow removal operations during design development and works with Facilities Landscaping staff to ensure chosen plant species will thrive with little maintenance (including watering). Terrain is used to evaluate erosion potential, user experience and safety, ability to meet ADA standards, etc. In other words, as public and private infrastructure projects are being designed and/or reviewed, Town staff factors in a number of climactic conditions into the final design. The Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan and the current draft of the Public Improvement and Engineering standards (which is being updated by Town staff), have made efforts to consider all types of users. That said, staff also recognizes there is always work to be done in this area and the upcoming Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update presents an excellent opportunity to engage a larger variety of users to help inform the plan and associated standards. 13. What are the potential improvements that would provide for transit or high-occupancy vehicle priority in this location. Policy M-5.8: Opposition to Development Necessitating Widening of SR 267. Actively oppose development in the Planning Area, outside of the town boundaries, that would necessitate widening of SR 267 north of Brockway Road or south of Truckee Airport Road to four travel lanes with the exception of improvements to provide for transit or high-occupancy vehicle priority through the corridor. Staff Response: Placer County prepared a Resort Triangle Transportation Plan (full report) that identifies corridor improvements for SR 89, SR 267, and SR 28, which makes up the “Resort Triangle” that connects Lake Tahoe, the mountain resorts, and the Town of Truckee. The plan prioritizes programs that “reduce traffic, get people out of their cars, encourage alternative commuting options and address congestion. Proposed programs and projects in the plan include a transit-only lane for the state Route 89 and 267 corridors, a paid parking program, a micro-transit program and more.” Town staff has been involved with the plan development and will be involved in future phases of concept design. 14. Why was clear cutting removed from this policy? • Policy COS-6.4: Support Integrated Forestry Planning and Management Activities Staff Response: The policy language from the 2025 General Plan was updated to reflect the most current forest management practices, which, in some cases, may require forest thinning. 15. Why is there a policy that references vulnerable and disadvantaged populations when this document goes on to state that these communities don’t exist? According to this screening tool, no disadvantaged communities have been identified by CalEPA in Town of Truckee. Policy SN-6.2: At-Risk, Vulnerable, and Disadvantaged Populations. Prioritize the needs of at-risk, vulnerable and disadvantaged populations during emergency response and disaster recovery efforts, including increasing awareness of defensible space requirements and promoting understanding of evacuation routes Staff Response: While the Town does not have disadvantaged communities that meet the definition of SB 1000 that triggers the need for an Environmental Justice Element, the Existing Conditions Report does identify a small portion of a census tract that is considered a lower-income area; however, this area is not considered large enough to meet the threshold of SB 1000. That being said, the Town elected to include policy considerations within the General Plan for these communities. In other words, this policy talks about disadvantaged populations (who could be living anywhere in Truckee) whereas disadvantaged communities refers to geographic areas/neighborhoods that are disadvantaged. 16. If we are severely limited to imposing design / siting restrictions on new housing &/or mixed use development, how can we regulate the design / siting of new development at Donner Lake or elsewhere? Will Donner Lake be subject to something different than the ‘objective design standards?’ GPU policies would preserve the scenic qualities of Donner Lake by regulating the design of new development to ensure compatibility (Policies CC-1.109 and CC-1.1110). GPU actions would further ensure that impacts to scenic resources are minimized because the Town would review and amend the Development Code regulations related to scenic resources Staff Response: As part of the General Plan implementation, the requirements for development along Donner Lake will be reviewed and amended, if necessary. Specific objective design standards for the Donner Lake area could be incorporated into the Development Code. All multi-family residential/mixed- use development will be subject to objective design standards. 17. Are we limiting or prohibiting large parking lots? There seems to be both types of language in the GP2040 i. Further, the GPU would continue to limit freeway-oriented commercial development to the existing developed interchanges (Policy LU-1.6) and limit large continuous surface parking lots (Policy LU-1.86). Staff Response: This discussion will be part of the objective design standards discussion. Policy CC-3.13 prohibits development of surface parking lots that dominate the parcel frontage specifically while Policy LU-1.6 is looking at surface parking in general. The policies are slightly different in their intent. But, if there’s something more specific that the Planning Commission would like to change, a recommendation can be forwarded to the Town Council. 18. What if there was a rail or semi-truck accident to occur in the vicinity of the schools that released toxic gasses &/or materials? As described under Impact 4.9-1, above, users of hazardous materials are subject to federal, state, county and local laws which ensure that hazardous material use, emission and transportation are controlled to a safe level. The combination of regulations described in previous sections, and GPU Policies SN-7.2 and SN-7.2 related to hazardous materials use, storage, transport, and disposal would ensure that the risk to schools of hazardous materials or emissions would be less than significant. Staff Response: As noted above, there are existing regulations to address commercial transport of hazardous materials and response plans in place should an event occur. Further, established routes generally do not pass in close proximity to schools. 19. Does Town Staff believe we currently have a healthy jobs-housing balance? Is the intent to maintain the current conditions regarding jobs and housing for the workforce? What is the metric for health? • The Town would also utilize information from the North Tahoe Regional Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and future housing needs studies into the Town’s housing strategy to maintain a healthy jobs-housing balance in Truckee (Policy LU-2.5) Staff Response: Staff’s opinion on the current state of Truckee’s job-housing balance is largely irrelevant. Rather, a primary focus of the 2040 General Plan is to ensure that Truckee has a balanced job-housing balance and the 2040 Plan recognizes that the 2025 General Plan can be improved upon in this area. Maintaining a healthy/balanced jobs-housing balance in a resort community is an ongoing challenge and the 2040 Plan works to implement necessary changes to find this balance. 20. Where is the Truckee community in this process? Aren’t we the ones who live here and understand and experience it to a greater degree than technical experts, CEQA practitioners and even Town Staff, some of whom don’t live in Truckee? Where are our voices? Our input? Do the paid consultants have experience living in a high elevation mountain town? • Page 3-6…the policies and actions included in the GPU have been developed through an iterative process that sought input from Town staff, technical experts, and CEQA practitioners to identify a robust policy framework that incorporates feasible modifications and additions to the GPU that would mitigate the effects of anticipated future development. The GPU should not be viewed as only a tool for guiding growth and development; it is also an instrument for enhancing the existing environment. And the EIR must consider the “whole of the action,” and the proposed policy framework is a key element of the project. Staff Response: Over the course of the last five years, there have been numerous public meetings, workshops, and outreach that have engaged the community. Early on in the process, the Town Council appointed the General Plan Advisory Committee, which was made up of nearly 20 community members representing a variety of stakeholders, community perspectives, and interests. Over 36 agendized meeting and over 60 additional workshops, GPAC meetings, and other engagement activities were conducted to gather community input. All of the input gathered during this period has helped inform the General Plan update. The General Plan consultants pulled together the framework of the General Plan based on community input and prepared the EIR. However, locally-based Town staff drafted the policies within each General Plan Element. 21. Please help me understand how the new or revised language in these policies has been made more strongly worded and enforceable as described in the paragraphs below? A partial list of the amended policies is included below the FEIR text with the “so-called” strongly worded policy language. Page 3-11 - … public comments did accurately identify some instances where the Draft EIR’s analysis identified policies worded such that the Town’s specific level of commitment cannot be ensured. For example, Impact 4.4-1 (described in detail in Master Response 1) identified implementation of Policy COS-1.3, which commits the Town to “[e]ncourage” development patterns that maximize preservation of land in open space.” Other policies and actions were included in this list that also include flexible language, including COS-3.6 and COS-3.D. In fact, in many of the Draft EIR’s impact analyses, there were a few of these lower-commitment policies included among the proposed GPU policies identified for achieving impact reduction. Each of these instances has been reviewed, and, in all cases, the lower- commitment policies identified were superfluous to the impact reduction achieved by the other policies. However, the point raised in public comments is well-taken; including even a few lower-commitment policies among a group of policies and actions designed to achieve environmental impact reduction muddies the clarity of the analysis, even if those lower-commitment policies or actions were not actually essential for achieving the level of impact reduction necessary to reach a particular level of significance. To enhance clarity, the following list of policies and actions that did not include firm commitments, were replaced with other more strongly worded policies and actions or removed: • Policy LU-1.3: Infill Development – encourage… • Policy LU-2.9: Estate Parcel Subdivision – discourage… • Policy LU-2.11: Open Space through Clustering – consider… • Policy LU-3.1: Mixed-Use Development - strongly encourage • Policy LU-3.3: Complete Neighborhoods - encourage • Action LU-3.A: Residential Development Incentives – develop effective incentives… • Policy LU-5.2: Public Facility Planning – cooperate with… • Policy LU-6.1: Mix of Uses – encourage a mix of uses… • Action LU-8.D: Housing on Excess Public Property – collaborate with • Policy LU-9.1: Variety of Uses in West River – support a variety of… • Policy LU-9.5: Productive Infill Development in the West River District – support infill • Policy LU-10.1: Housing and Neighborhood Services at Donner Lake – support…promote • Policy LU-12.3: Coordinated Regional Review of Major Projects – seek agreement • Policy LU-12.4: Support for Housing Development – support… Staff Response: The listed policies were not revised or amended and Ascent has not made claim that they are "strongly worded" - in fact, quite the opposite. Ascent acknowledges that these policies were included in the impact analysis despite not being relied upon to reach the significance conclusion. To reduce confusion, the listed policies were removed from the analyses in the EIR. Because they were used for context, not mitigation, removal of the policies does not change the conclusions in the EIR. 22. Joerger Ranch / Hope Court was suggested as a receiver site for Upper McIver density, among other locations during PC / TC meetings. Why isn’t this an appropriate location? Why are assumptions being made about possible receiver sites being located in less-developed areas? The comment suggests that the EIR should consider a change to the land use diagram that does not designate the Upper McIver site for residential development to mitigate wildfire hazards. The comment cites fire risk associated with hillsides and ingress/egress constraints as evidence that the proposed redesignation would mitigate the effects of wildland fires. The Draft EIR does include an alternative land use diagram (Alternative 3) in Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” that would change the designation of this site to open space. The alternatives analysis finds that the wildfire impacts could increase under this alternative because redesignation of this property and other highly visible locations of interest to the community would require transfer of the development rights. Because the Town has made a concerted effort to locate high-density land near the town center, it is anticipated that these development right transfers would result in the development of lands in less- developed areas that are closer to the wildland-urban interface and further from major transportation routes used in an evacuation. Therefore, this alternative would not reduce the risks associated with a wildfire as compared to the proposed project. Staff Response: From a CEQA standpoint, there is not a TDR program in place now or any assurance that the development would be transferred to any specific site, so a reasonable assumption was made in the EIR that was appropriately conservative and one that can disclose the potential effects of the action to the public and the decisionmakers. 23. Why was there a MAP Alternative included in the DEIR without consulting MAP about the details of this alternative to ensure appropriateness and consistency? Pg 3-168 - As discussed in Response to Comment 7-4, the Town carefully reviewed MAP’s proposed alternative that was submitted as part of the GPU land use alternatives process. Based upon the April 24, 2022, NOP comment letter, the Town developed the “Reduced Development in Focused Areas” Alternative for the EIR. It is unfortunate that MAP believes the alternative was mischaracterized, but the Town made a genuine attempt to capture the key points submitted by MAP in this alternative. The Town has done its due diligence and has made a good faith analysis of the alternatives in accordance with Section 15126.6(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines. See Response to Comment 7-4 for additional responses regarding MAP’s alternative. Staff Response: Alternative 3: Reduced Development in Focus Areas was developed and evaluated in the Draft EIR based on MAP’s NOP letter and based on a request from MAP to include an additional alternative in the EIR, which outlined the components of the land use alternative. Adequate details were provided to develop a comparative evaluation of the alternative for the purpose of CEQA. The Town had no reason to believe that MAP had an understanding of the alternative beyond that provided in the NOP letter such as differences in policy language that were never mentioned, so there was no apparent need to consult with MAP about the details of this alternative. 24. Doesn’t the RC / OS designation have a housing density of 1 unit / 80 acres? pg 2-10 Staff Response: The 2025 General Plan does not identify a residential density or nonresidential intensity allowed in this land use designation. The RC zoning district allows for single-family residential dwelling on a parcel. 25. Aren’t we already intensifying the land use densities with the new Land Use Alternatives Focus Areas without any benefits and maintaining the 15% inclusionary & 85% market rate levels for housing / mixed use? What is the likelihood that developers will increase the already increased densities given the propensity for underdevelopment of most sites in town? pg 2-13 LU 1.5: Land Intensification Staff Response: Historically, underdevelopment has occurred where developers prefer to build residential units that serve the second homeowner population rather than the local the local population where larger units are more desirable. In the current Housing Element and Development Code, there are policies that require development of multi-family projects at 90% density unless additional affordable housing is required or an environmental constraint exists .In recent years, staff has noticed greater interest in developing at the required densities, or beyond the allowed densities through the State Density Bonus Laws. The State Density Bonus Laws have changed substantially since the 2025 General Plan and are now resulting in virtually all houisng projects coming in with a Density Bonus request at the outset. In general, staff’s perspective is that the Town should plan for what it believes is in the best interest of the community rather than trying to anticipate what developers will propose. 26. Given the State laws related to site & housing design how is this feasible? • CC-3.1 High-Quality Design Require all new development to incorporate high-quality site design, architecture, and planning to enhance the overall quality of the built environment in Truckee and create a visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing town environment. [Source: 2025 General Plan, Community Character Element, Policy P5.2] Page 2-2; 2.3 - Same with this Land Use Designation Intention in the Downtown Plan • Individual project densities will depend on environmental constraints, such as steep slopes, floodplains, and preservation of natural features such as unique rock outcroppings and existing tree groves. Staff Response: Objective design standards are intended to achieve high-quality design. The Development Code already identifies locations of sensitive environmental areas that prohibit development and these environmental constraints often reduce the development capacity of a site. 27. Is this likely to happen? Is Caltrans selling the land to the Town? Where would they go? Page 2-9; LU-R-3 Rezone the lands owned by Caltrans to a high density zoning designation upon change of ownership or relocation of the maintenance facility Staff Response: Caltrans is not currently anticipating vacating their property; the purpose of the Downtown Truckee Plan is to plan for opportunities that may arise in the long-term. 28. Who and how would this be determined? DTP: Page 2-17; 2.6.1 Subsequent environmental analysis may be required for projects exceeding the area totals assumed by the environmental analysis Staff Response: If proposed development is inconsistent with the Downtown Truckee Plan, then additional environmental analysis will be required and/or an amendment to the Downtown Truckee Plan would be required.