Laserfiche WebLink
Judy Price <br /> From: Jeff Loux <br /> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:15 PM <br /> To: Truckee Town Council <br /> Cc: Andy Morris; Denyelle Nishimori <br /> Subject: Community Reaction to the General Plan Staff report <br /> Dear Council Members. I thought it might be wise for me to write some brief comments about the General Plan memo <br /> for tonight's discussion, in light of the various community responses that have been coming in, particularly about the <br /> possibility of a "moratorium." First and foremost, it is disappointing that there seems to be little to no interest in the <br /> many critically important, long term policy issues and opportunities posed by updating an entire General Plan for a 20 <br /> year time horizon for all of Truckee. Nor is there much interest in the robust and inclusive public process that is <br /> articulated in the staff report. So be it. The response centers on a process detail—albeit an important one—of what to <br /> do with all of the many potential development applications that are either flooding in or might flood in while we work <br /> on the General Plan update. <br /> First, I want to note that nearly every community that has embarked on a General Plan (GP) update faces this same <br /> question. Some choose to allow all applications to proceed; some put a pause on any new discretionary applications, <br /> and lots of middle ground in between. Second, tonight we are not specifically deciding on a "development pause/partial <br /> moratorium" or what form it might take. If Council wants us to,we will bring that to you later(likely in March). However, <br /> some broad Council direction tonight would be valuable. Most of the responses I have seen have taken the word <br /> "moratorium" and assumed the worst for their project or constituents, and some assumed it was some staff driven <br /> attempt to change Truckee land use policy without telling anyone (nothing could be further from the truth). <br /> Third, Council is not required to do any type of moratorium or pause. The reasons to consider any type of moratorium <br /> are articulated in the staff report, but include: (1) staff work load and capacity to do the GP (and it appears that there is <br /> already a "rush"to get applications in before the GP process starts); (2)the awkwardness and confusion of processing <br /> major projects that require some form of GP, Specific Plan or zoning change,while asking the community what sort of <br /> GP, SP, or zoning type changes do we all want to see Town-wide; and (3)with 9 potential hotels, 3 grocery stores, a <br /> couple downtown projects, Railyard, Planning Working Group, housing policy priorities, and all the usual applications, it <br /> will drain the staff and community's capacity for engagement and the capacity of the both the Planning Commission and <br /> Council. <br /> All of that is why we are likely to recommend some form of a carefully crafted, limited or partial moratorium on certain <br /> plan areas and projects that would benefit from community engagement in the GP process. From staff's perspective, <br /> fully approved projects ready for building permits will certainly not be slowed down. All areas (like Railyard)with a <br /> Development Agreement cannot be affected by a moratorium by law. We are likely to continue to recommend that <br /> affordable housing and legitimate work force housing projects go forward. The only ones we are likely to recommend be <br /> put on "pause" (moratorium) are projects or plan areas that request General Plan amendments, Specific Plan <br /> amendments or major zoning changes. The staff report outlines this in general terms. There are a couple "grey area" <br /> project areas which we will more fully assess when we bring the item back. <br /> It is certainly understandable that project proponents and others are concerned about a slow-down, but for some land <br /> areas, being a part of the General Plan conversation may actually be a benefit. True,the process takes a few years, but <br /> during that time, developers will be able to make their case (for higher densities or land use changes for instance) and <br /> then could wind up with the what they want with CEQA review completed. <br /> I hope these comments are of some value. I will make some these points at tonight's meeting if appropriate. <br /> 1 <br />