HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment - Sarah Kane (3)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: (?) *
Mobility Element
First Name Last Name
Sarah Kane
E-mail
sarahfosterkane@gmail.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: (?) *
Policy
Comment*
Reference Number: (Example: CC -1.A) (?)
M 4.11
This comment is in reference to the council's decision to delay approval of the Truckee 2040 general plan to May 9th in order to give community
stakeholders time to ask for minor changes in the final document. I hope this comment will be considered as part of that process.
I am dismayed at the restrictive language used in M 4.11 as follows:
M-4.11
Roadway Connectivity
Encourage roadway connectivity, prohibit gates on new roadways or on
new connections to existing roadways, encourage the elimination of
existing gated roadways, and discourage culs-de-sac. [Source: New policy]
While I hope that the source of this language is a reference to the town's aversion to gated exclusive communities, I fear that this will severely limit
options for neighborhood traffic calming in future development. Hopefully, this consequence is unintended. As this is an issue with which I have some
involvement, I will use my neighborhood as an example/plea for a change of language.
The Joerger ranch specific plan includes plans to build a new road through the property behind the old Truckee winery, allowing traffic from the
proposed development to exit into the adjacent neighborhood, and providing a new "cut -through" route for vehicles avoiding traffic on brockway road.
The town's own data from the Brockway Corridor traffic study suggest that Reynold Way would see an increase in traffic of 35 vehicles PER HOUR with
this connection, and this is based on 2018 data. Given the current traffic crisis in Truckee, these numbers would likely be much higher. Our
neighborhood is worried, and we have some real safety concerns with this roadway plan. We, and the future developer, have asked town staff to
consider a removable pilon to make the neighborhood connector accessible to EMS, snow removal, bicycles and pedestrians, but not vehicular through
traffic. Several neighbors have asked for meetings with town staff and elected officials to discuss our concerns and ideas, but so far have been
unsuccessful.
My guess is that when town staff see a proposal like this, there is a knee-jerk "gate" reaction, with the assumption that this is just homeowners trying to
limit access to their neighborhood, and a blanket prohibition in the general plan is a logical solution. This ignores the potential use of roadway design to
maintain safe access to neighborhoods for all residents, new and old. Estates drive, Martis Drive and Reynold Way combine to form the main access
routes to the Truckee river for residents of Truckee Pines, Village Green, and the senior apartments. Our streets are full of residents of these
communities making their way to the legacy trail. It is wonderful! How will a steady stream of vehicle traffic affect equitable access to our river and trail
system? Both for these residents, and those of future development in Joerger Ranch? The new proposed road connecting to Brockway near the 267
intersection will create "cut -through" gridlock on busy days, similar to the situation on Palisades Drive in Sierra Meadows. What will happen when dial -a -
ride and Truckee Fire can't access the senior apartments due to standstill traffic?
These examples aren't just meant to draw attention to our plight, but to illustrate my concern over a one -size -fits -all prohibition on any traffic barriers.
There are legitimate reasons that these could be considered that have nothing to do with gated communities, particularly in a mountain town where
other traffic mitigation measures like speed bumps aren't possible. Other municipalities, San Diego and Berkeley for example, have procedures for
neighborhood traffic calming (see attached), including EMS only traffic barriers, and willingly acknowledge that decreased traffic volume on residential
streets is a legitimate goal worthy of pursuing. I cannot understand why Truckee does not agree.
To bring this comment back to the general plan, I ask that the language in M 4.11 be changed from "prohibit" to "discourage", and add something along
the lines of "traffic barriers/calming measures will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis for community benefit." This will allow more flexibility in future
decision making and allow more options for neighborhood advocacy.
Do you have reference documents to upload?*
Yes
No