Minutes captured by Ronda Tycer
General Public Comment
Evacuation Plan inadequacies
Capt Blaine Beard
We’ll have the updated plan. We’ll make sure all are informed.
IV Substation – now awaiting for the remediation and electrical issues are fixed in the next 2-3 weeks. Justice Court will be on Alder. Back in the substation by the end of May.
Evacuation is #1 on my list.
What is the model? What are the underlying assumptions?
Could you speak about the incident on the roundabout? There were safety vehicles.
Two cars crashed – one person taken into custody. There were 2 incidents: one incident in the day and one in the evening. NV State police are investigation. The two cars were parked on the roundabout.
Is the bus hub on the agenda? The WCSO was flooded and moved. That was an opportunity to make it into a bus hub. I suggest you move the Sheriff to OES and build workforce housing.
We’ll be discussing these options. There are better options for our substation. Once I have those, I’ll make a statement and keep you updated.
I’m from the East. Know that rotaries are more dangerous than intersections. Why do people want more roundabouts? Do you have an opinion on this?
Roundabouts cause a lot of issues, more than they prevent issues from occurring.
Roundabouts are more dangerous. People don’t understand the laws of yielding and right of way. But the engineers have the final decisions when studying flow, accidents, etc. My opinion is it’s their ultimate decision.
I’m involved in the mobility hub committee. Why more roundabouts?
Call me at my desk. Working hand in hand to get extra signage and address safety issues. You’ll see results soon.
Beth and Jon Davidson
Support Carole’s comment. Roundabouts were much larger and safer – than these small roundabouts.
Support Kathie’s comments –concern about evacuation plans and roadway assessment. I won’t be available for the March 23rd meeting. The information needs to be far more detailed and more available to the public. And send to people who have 2nd homes.
The Main Street project is considering upgrading the roundabouts. How much damage was there to the roundabout? Did the most recent accident affect the art?
Decorative items and landscaping. I don’t know if there was damage to the art. TTD will deal with that through insurance companies.
I read and study traffic. I recommend a book called “Traffic” and Websites “strong towns” traffic design. They all indicate roundabouts are safer because they eliminate t-bones and head on collisions. Far fewer fatal accidents and fewer injuries.
Last CAB I asked help adopting fire hydrants. We’re now switching gears. We’re starting our seasonal crews May 22. We’re gearing up for the summer season. There’s a prescribed burn on the south shore—all is in check.
Is your defensible space app up yet?
No – we’ll let you know and provide instructions for access.
Relative to fire evacuation… Will a study include all the new projects being built? After 3 -6 projects are built. Are any studies on this yet?
Every project permitted has to supply its own evacuation plan. Then Washoe has a plan.
From the WALT meeting, the Governing Board is asking local jurisdictions to engage in a basin-wide evacuation plan. We need to know everyone’s plan.
Our concern is that each individual project is doing its own analysis. But it doesn’t include the carrying capacity of our roads. What does it mean to “Shelter in Place” if our 2-lane road is blocked both lanes? We would like to show you NDOT’s numbers of cars at Sand Harbor. Maybe we could have a meeting with you to go over these numbers. Kelly seems competent and interested in those numbers.
I work in Incline Village and am well aware of the numbers. Let’s get together and go over the notes.
On Item 7 – Evacuation, I share my frustration with Sommer’s fire department. When I ask about disaster preparation, I’m referred to Washoe County. So I feel this disaster plan that the County has had since 2008 is woefully inadequate and I don’t trust it will suffice. They have us evacuating to Fernley. There’s so discussion about the roundabouts in Kings Beach.
When I call the NLTFPD office, I get sent out. Kelly doesn’t understand our community. There wouldn’t be the plan from 2008. It needs to be much more open.
Relative to the evacuation, I don’t see any evidence we’re taking into account visitors. How will we get out?
Address the things Carolyn brought up—the lack of cooperation from Washoe County. We don’t have representation we need. We need better communication and support. Washoe County needs to participate in the evacuation process.
We will have a drill in July. We will circulate the date.
The Washoe County Commission approved the Transportation Plan for IVCB. This is very exciting news. We’ll start budgeting. And look for grant opportunities for trails, roadway connectivity and safety.
At the next CAB we’ll have the Washoe Tahoe Housing Plan, which is developing workforce housing. We’ll want your input starting in June and July. Re: TRPA’s plan, Karen will give a sneak peek.
We’re compiling the Mobility Hub input from the community. HDR is collecting data and presenting it to the committee. Folks had subscribed. So complete the survey.
The survey closed yesterday.
I’ve been following the housing discussion and am looking forward to Karen’s presentation. She said there were 30 deed-restricted properties – but TRPA didn’t have a way to enforce them.
There are 96 properties. TRPA has been getting compliance. There are 20 left. They are in a really good place with deed-restricted properties.
We are looking for budgeting for Transportation Plan items. What’s in the $600K for a study?
I’m asking for microtransit – Tart Connect. And funding to extend the trail from IV to Crystal Bay. I’m asking for money for a snow remover for trails. I’ll post on the website all my funding requests to WCC—ARPA funds or fiscal year budgeted funds
Could you post that on the CAB website?
I don’t know how, but I’ll work with you when they’re posted on the website.
Transportation plan – no one is claiming responsibility for cleaning the sidewalks along 28. How are they maintained? So much sand/crap – I can’t walk on them. I contacted WC Roads – they said they’re not responsible. NDOT says they aren’t. IVGID says they aren’t. Someone needs to be responsible.
You say there are 96 deed-restricted houses. I had a client in Pine Brook, I suggested she not buy the property because of what’s going on with deed restrictions.
20 aren’t in compliance – they aren’t STRs. Karen has the details. It’s a TRPA restriction, not WC.
I’ll touch on that in my presentation.
I’ll express appreciation – for the study on Transportation. It’s a good start with good recommendations. Amy did a good job on finding grant money. My concern is with State Rt 28 – and the crash rate. She recommended we could bring that down with better pedestrian crosswalks, a reduced speed limit, intersection improvements. But this is 5-10 years out. We need those improvements sooner. Can the County put a push behind those?
Alexis, thanks for the update. On Transportation, Amy’s done a good job. I’m on the Washoe Tahoe Housing Partnership. I reviewed a draft Roadmap – that may be going to the WCC for approval. It needs to have the the kind of public consultative process that Amy had with her study.
It concerns me that the Roadmap is being approved by a number on the committee. That’s not public input/consultation. We’ve had no public workshop to discuss the Roadmap. I have 5 pages of comments – I’ll share with you. I want more robust public engagement.
I request that the Transportation Study include recommendations for local employees/employers. Our demographics have changed. We have seasonal employees driving in from Reno/Washoe Carson, etc. In the study there’s a component to survey and engage employers and employees to understand what their transportation needs are.
Having another multiuse path (from IV to CB) is not desirable. That’s not a priority. The issues of the East Shore Trail haven’t been resolved—parking, trash, traffic. Until we’ve dealt with those issues, we don’t need another multiuse path from IV to CB.
I’m also on the Washoe Tahoe Housing Partnership. I agree Kathie—we need more meetings. I don’t want to hold up the Roadmap, but to allow the community input. It’s wonderful. It will work to implement. and we need all on board to do it.
I’m from TRPA and here to introduce Karen Fink. She’ll discuss development rights, building, and rules, and we’re talking about this within the urban boundaries of the basin.
We have a new web site —the Regional Plan Story Map. It shows remaining parcels for development. How much development potential is available in the basin? We have this limited amount of development potential, so we need focused development to develop what the basin needs.
Karen Fink – Housing manager for TRPA
I’ll share my screen and my presentation:
• Tahoe Living Housing and Community Revitalization Initiative
- Proposed code changes – this is one of our first public outreach presentations:
- Phase 2 updates
- Innovative solutions to make housing more affordable
- Development standards how do they affect cost?
- Height density coverage parking and set backs…. How to modify to encourage affordable housing?
- Close to town centers and where people can walk.
- Our codes currently encourage single-family dwellings (SFD) for second-home owners.
• Technical summary:
- Affordable housing – how to get the market to deliver.
- We brought on a consultant.
- affordability levels –
- affordable = making less than 80% of AMI $52K/person
- moderate = 120% of AMI $78K/person
- workforce = 120-180% $100K/person
How do we get the price of housing into these ranges?
We’re developing within Town Centers, areas zoned for multi-family units.
• IV has buildable parcels:
- Zoned Tourist – 147 parcels
- Commercial – total of 241 parcels that are buildable, i.e. vacant and eligible for redevelopment
• Town Center Analysis
TRPA Code: Currently allows:
- 25 units/acre
- 70% of parcel coverage
- 4 stories
- no roofline restrictions
- Local parking codes:
Minimum parking 2.25 spaces per unit for 2+ bed
1.25 space per unit –less than 2 bedrooms
• Identified Barrier: #1
- Maximum density caps housing development to 6 units on a standard lot:
- The number of units per acre is the primary barrier to building higher-density multifamily housing in Town centers
- requires 2 bedrooms and 2 car spaces
As a result developers build larger
Rents are affordable for people making over $235,000
Proposed solution: allow greater density – double the units on the parcel
– still requires 15 parking spaces
— add another story to lower building costs and bring down rents
• Barrier #2
- Parking spaces take up space. We require 15 parking spaces for 12 units
- Right now, in practice, we only allow 59% coverage even though code allows 70%
- What if you lower parking requirements to less than 1 space per unit? – allows additional 8 units on site –
- cost goes down to the range of 3300 to 3000 / month – a 9% reduction
The building form remains the same
- cost goes down to the range of 3300 to 3000 / month – a 9% reduction
• With the greatest level of all possible changes, rents will still require 120% of area income – so affordable housing will probably still need government subsidies.
• TRPA is proposing land use changes:
- Only for deed-restricted housing – which can be affordable, moderate, or achievable.
- Even if TRPA changes, the local jurisdictions would still need to approve in their area plans
1 – Allow greater coverage – allow development to go over 70% if they are part of an area-wide stormwater system
2 – Allow multl-family zones – allow up to 70% coverage for multifamily housing
And allow up to 1200 sq ft for ADUs that can fully treat storm-water with BMPs
3 – Allow greater building height
Proposing 5 stories in town centers
Height up to 48 feet total. Allow additional 15 ft or 48 total.
- Developer must still make applicable findings: e.g., can’t extend beyond tree canopy, etc.
4 – Allow greater density – “Allow densities that support transit and walkable communities”
We are removing the density cap for town centers. Encourages smaller units within the same building envelope.
There is no density cap for both deed-restricted and market-rate units (which don’t get height and coverage incentives). The units would sell on the open market but be more affordable.
Multifamily Areas- Allow increased density of up to 60 units per acre
5 – Redefined achievable housing
We’ll also incentivize housing for the “missing middle.” We updated the code last week to redefine achievable housing. We added a requirement that at least one of the inhabitants must work for a local employer 30 hours a week. It must be your primary home. You must submit an annual certification.
Existing Deed restrictions in IV
Currently IV has 95 deed-restricted units that were put in place in 2018. We’ll have a robust compliance program moving forward requiring an annual form showing compliance. The early form language was too simple and brief. It was intended to be self-enforcing. Now we’re working with all 95 units to assure compliance with the terms of the deed restriction. Some sold for more than the allowable price. We’ll see if we can bring them into compliance.
What categories of professionals would fit into the requirements? Who would have an income (120% of AMI) that allows them to live in deed-restricted or achievable housing: Teachers, firefighters, ski patrol?
There isn’t any professional category – as long as they are employed by a local employer.
I’m worried if they can afford the rents. Does a teacher make 120% AMI?
Teachers make a little below and a little above. These units could be rented to people who work locally. TRPA doesn’t set rents/prices. There’s a reduced subset of people who qualify to live in them. That will also affect the rental rates.
Do we have that data? Our teachers, our firefighters, our other service people… What are their salaries?
Some might be shown in the Roadmap.
These are changes to incentivize developers to build needed housing. Are they the same whether parcels are private or publicly owned?
Yes, there is no difference. If it’s a publicly donated parcel, it reduces the cost.
But the incentives are the same?
I’ve lived here 30 years, Increased density was what TRPA wanted to get away from. Why is increased density now desirable?
In the 2012 Regional Plan, we focused on increasing density in town centers to get people to walk and use transit. In order to have people near transit, we allowed 15 units per acre. But with all the streets, roads, parks, etc. taking up space, you now need 25 units per acre. We’re now getting only 4 per acre, doesn’t make transit viable, and makes units expensive. We’re focused on increased density near transit in town centers.
To clarify, the increased density is from a pool of that would have been there in the remaining development potential in the basin.
You cited two documents — local Vail and Telluride studies – which showed how to provide workforce housing. They used deed-restricted housing effectively. It would be useful to talk about real enforcement. How do you enforce in perpetuity? They talk about governments committed to providing workforce housing. How do we get our basic service workers to live here? They made a requirement of subsidies from counties. They found that local affordable workforce housing provided a great return on the investment and upped their economies. Should you make requirements for local subsidies?. The annual certification – done by TRPA or WC – is minimal—just people looking at the certification documents.
Vail and Telluride demonstrated the value of having local workers living in the towns. There was a positive return on subsidized housing. Teachers, firefighters, etc. are in the category that can afford that housing. Subsidies should be for restaurant workers, grocery workers, etc. those are the ones who can’t afford housing.
IV is concerned about enforcement. There needs to be funding for enforcement in place. We need to generate revenue to increase enforcement.
There will be more staff time. There could be some sort of fee to generate revenue. Locals doing joint enforcement.
Consider mandatory ongoing payments by developers. They have ongoing obligations. And they check the accuracy of the information. The developers can have an ongoing fee.
I moved here in 1983 and raised children and grandchildren. My rent just went up 22%. And long COVID prevents me from usual jobs. I helped publish North Tahoe Magazine. I’m concerned about the narrow view of people who would need this kind of housing. The checkers at Raleys make $17/hr. All workers doing property maintenance, babysitting, house cleaning, they need their own vehicles. They can’t use a bus.
I’ve been a resident since 1976. I’ve seen a lot of changes… I’ve seen things that TRPA has done that are not honest. I’m looking at the statistics in these proposals and they are all seriously flawed. The slides are not realistic. The idea of reducing parking per unit to 1 ¼ spaces per unit is unrealistic. If they are even just a couple, they need two cars… even with public transportation. Buses won’t deliver them to their place of work. And 2 bedroom units are minimal… perhaps a family with only 1 child. But that’s not normal. Famillies have 2.3 kids. So you exclude the family population – with minimal parking and bedrooms. And $3800 per month is still a lot of money.
TRPA has always “paved paradise and put up a parking lot” – These proposed rules are ludicrous.
Studies are from 2019 from Vail and Park City or wherever. Since then real estate prices have escalated exponentially. The proposals are seriously flawed. Nurses, firefighters clerks… they have families. Maybe 1 in 20 families doesn’t have kids. But you are discriminating against family ownership.
And who’s going to do the enforcing?
Thanks Karen for the presentation. I’ve been selling real estate here for 25 years. I’ll confirm some of the deed- restricted units were sold for more than they were supposed to. In fact, every one of the 96 sold for more than the deed restriction amount. Going forward the trouble I have with all these developments—947 and WALT. You had to change the zoning for 947 which affected workforce housing. So what you do and what you say aren’t the same. You’re approving bigger buildings. We’ll need a four lane road around the lake. You’re not addressing the fire evacuation needs. We won’t even get through Kings Beach. People are starting to look at this. TRPA is not concerned with our quality of life. You say the right thing but do the wrong thing.
Thanks John. I’ve lived in Incline since 1973. The Southwood Apartments are an example of what TRPA wants to do. They only planned for 1.5 cars/unit. So we have cars parked everywhere on the street. There’s concern about people crossing the street. We’ve already lived this. The same problem will exist. It’s not realistic. The biggest problem is the more population the more there are to get out of here. That’s our major problem.
I was in the Oakland Fire – where people died because they couldn’t get out. You’re trying to get more people living here? No.
I have four questions for Karen:
1 – related to research – Are you addressing STRs? If they were better managed, and the number reduced it might impact achievable housing availability. We know friends who’ve lost their housing converted to STRs.
2 – There’s no recent environmental impact study (EIS) done to protect the basin’s natural environment.
3 – You’re saying we need to do this higher density to make transit viable? Why is that a goal? Why is that TRPA’s goal?
4 – What about 947 Blvd. We had limitations and restrictions on our town center. TRPA and WC are changing the zoning rules to allow 947 to happen.
TRPA says one thing and does another.
So, analyze STRs, explain why transit is a TRPA goal, and know that 947 doesn’t meet any of the requirements you mentioned today.
1 – We are required to do an Environmental Analysis. The draft will be available at the end of May. It will mitigate any significant impacts.
2 – And about 947. How come it doesn’t comply? Because the rules aren’t in place yet. They are developing under today’s rules. A change is proposed to development allowed in town centers. We do allow SFDs in town centers throughout the basin. The restriction was specific to WC.
3 – Why do we want to make transit viable? Nearby housing supports transit which helps reduce cars, traffic, emissions, and VMT. That is one of our thresholds – more effective transit.
4 – fewer STRs might help. There could be more restrictions on STRs. But a survey in South Lake Tahoe found that of the STRs only about 10% were likely to convert to long-term rentals.
Agree with Sara that STRs have undermined our employee housing. We need to get a cap.
2 – As far as the deed restrictions – 95? I’m part of the WC Tahoe Housing Partnership which says there are 54; I have to go to the assessors records address by address. There’s no real transparency. I could not get a list. I have to go through all 8000 properties to find them.
3 – TRPA isn’t an enforcement agency. You should be focused on protecting the lake, not enforcing deed restrictions.
I don’t know if there is a capacity to enforce. What are we talking about? How much time will it take to get properties into compliance? There’s no silver bullet. I have no confidence that we can rely on deed restrictions. We need real commitment and resources with WC and TRPA and private sector providers.
4 – workforce housing versus your definition of achievable… $90K people who make close to $100K – that’s high.
Karen I appreciate that you have a thankless job. They’ve set you up for failure here. You heard us say that the number of people in Tahoe today can’t be safely evacuated. It makes no sense to add more height, density, and vehicles. So before any dirt gets moved – you need to move people. Adding more people – without understanding the implication – is a disaster film in the making.
What is the Roadmap? Why doesn’t TRPA do a downtown assessment? Then let’s find out how many STRs are in the basin. Not just within jurisdictions, but in the total basin. We need to know the real risk. What is the growth and road carrying threshold?
This isn’t an answerable question. It will come up more often. It’s challenging for us to address this question. There is no silver bullet. Roadway capacity of the basin isn’t anything anyone can control. We control a very small amount of potential development.
There are slow management policies – so that growth will be measured. There is time for these things to be addressed as they come.
We have an obligation to look at existing rules – for applications – for 947, WALT, etc. We’re seeing the same things – feeling the same pressures – We’re coming forward with solutions. But on what basis can we reject an application?
We’re trying to work with evacuation plans around the basin, but all the potential development will not happen tomorrow.
Karen won’t be able to address this.
We’re afraid for our lives and the lives of tourists. And to say you can’t consider that—that you have to approve development—that’s not accurate. TRPA does not have to keep approving more people. We want a real evacuation plan and to know what the assumptions are and the modeling. This is very serious for us. We’re living here. The Governing Board members don’t live in the lake area. Why do they care if we’re at risk? Do they know someone who … shelter in place? We’ll look at this later. We need TRPA to help us.
We need more data before more development is approved. Don’t greenlight more projects before knowing how to move the existing population.
I agree with everything Pamela said. And we don’t have time. This is all… We’re going to have a fire, and we’ll be in trouble. We’re looking at more and more development and your superficial overlays…
Back to Karen’s presentation – specific comments:
1 – there needs to be some way to make housing affordable to service people
2 – more density adjustments for market rate units? We don’t need any. 947 will go forward. Other than increasing tax rolls and profit margins – it’s not needed housing in the community.
3 – adjustments need to be added housing for folks who want to live and work here
4 – what’s there to prevent affordable housing being used as STRs? That undermines purpose of this housing.
I’m a resident of IV. To speak to the issues:
TRPA has no data to support decisions; all data is subjective, arbitrary, and capricious
You lumped into the discussion: achievable, affordable, workforce, missing middle. Why ? why not start with workforce? Address first the levels of income. And how will you assess salaries for these levels of housing? Will you evaluate the gross, the net? Retirement pensions? 2nd jobs? You’re going down a slippery slope. And by helping one group you discriminate against others.
From Tahoe Clean Air.org –I’m concerned about fire evacuation. You’re pushing development into town centers. During a wildfire evacuation – pushing increased height, density, and coverage into town centers will make it that much harder to get out of town centers in an evacuation. TRPA is aware of the hazards. They’re not informing us of the facts of peril.
On environmental impact and evacuation, how do people evacuate without a car? As far as deed restrictions, that should be the job of the title companies as part of the closing process. They should do a search.
Regarding housing studies, on page 19 there is the excellent analysis of the contribution of workforce housing to the economy. Instead of commuters parking –
The proposed TAP- amendment allows for luxury development without a definition of mixed use.
Alexis is absent…
I’ll reiterate 2 points:
Relative to STRs we have no cap in IVCB. If just 10% converted to LTRs – instantly we’d have 120 housing units available without any subsidies or building high rises. It’s the cheap way to do this. We have a two lane road in and out of IVCB. If you put more people within a town center, increasing the density, together with the 947 development, and now WALT, no matter –you still have just 2 lanes in and out of Incline. From the Camp Fire we know that a wildfire moves 100 yards every 30 seconds.
Karen Fink thank you for your excellent presentation. Please put a copy on our website.
Agenda Item 7 is the presentation to Washoe County Commissioners of issues of concern to us—special things about us they don’t know. Kevin Lyon is preparing a draft presentation.
Kevin is out of the area. He proposed a Flash vote survey on issues of most concern to IV
Then for us to give feedback on those issues. What should be in those issues . We will put them on a website: Send your suggestions to kevin@???.com. We’ll prepare a list of the most important. A preliminary list might include:
1 Emergency preparedness
2 Planning and Zoning
3 Transportation and Traffic
4 Local control and accountability
7 Protection of the Lake And Environment
We’ll give this information to the new commissioners. They don’t know what is TRPA. They don’t know the IVCB community. So we’ll mainly be giving email input to Kevin for his Flashvote presentation.
What are the five most important issues? Based on comment tonight, it appears that 1, 2, and 5 are all interrelated and on the forefront of concerns
They are all really good topics. They deserve a fuller discussion for planning purposes. The top 3 are all very interrelated.
WCC Alexis Hill is familiar with our issues. She’s our only representative. She’s on all the boards. Until we can get honest representation – we’re fighting a losing battle.
Flashvote is a good product and we can give input.
We’re not getting reliable and accurate data. We’re getting the fluff version. For example, that Lake Tahoe is the clearest it’s been in 80 years. But the lake water turns over so it is cleaner on the top. But that’s not presented. The TRPA takes responsibility for the lake clarity, but they don’t mention in the newspapers that the clarity is due to the lake turning, not to anything TRPA is doing. What about the algae blooms? TRPA is so concerned about height, density, and coverage in housing, but what about the muck in the lake? It was full of slimy muck. TRPA is supposed to be doing stuff. How do changes to height, density, and coverage address lake clarity? It’s fragile. They were tasked with that 20 years ago. TRPA is not doing their job.
TRPA – you should understand the importance of your role. The Washoe County evacuation plan for IVCB tells you how to get to the California state line. Their disaster plan goes to the state border and stops. It ignores that it takes an hour to get through Kings Beach because of congestion and roundabouts. The stats talk about capacity of roads. But we won’t be able to get through California. People will die.
The old plan has been in place since 2008. No County people have thought about it. There’s no community preparedness involvement. We don’t trust a plan that doesn’t involve all the factors.
That’s a perfectly adequate list. But our #1 problem is that our county commissioner refuses to listen to the community. Our issues have been discussed . But until we have a representative who is interested in truly listening and engaging with the community … Where are we with incorporation? We are not represented. We are not being listened to. We’re reaching out to other commissioners who will listen.
In assessing emergency preparedness we need to know what roads will be available. You need to add a roadway-by-roadway evacuation capacity for Washoe Tahoe and the entire basin.
As far as protection of the basin environment. You need to do a cumulative EIS since 2012 –for the entire basin before any more projects are approved.
I don’t disagree with anything already said. But the question is how to organize this. We need
2 or 3 bubbles
- – safety emergency preparedness;
- protection of environment;
- living –
We need to focus on higher level categories and then become more specific. My suggestions are organizational – not content.
I’m struggling with #4. How to present? More from the standpoint of living in the community.
As far as optics – when presenting to the Commissioners – we need a cluster of overarching components. Just to better engage the commissioners.
Our roads aren’t big enough – we have to do something.
The shorter the list, the better. I’d focus on emergency planning and zoning, then housing.
They are all interconnected. The county commissioners deal with them. TRPA deals with the environment.
We need local control and accountability. NDOT deals with transportation and traffic.
Thanks to the CAB. All are important. Housing could be grouped with planning and zoning.
Transportation and streets… We have no input to NDOT. The Board of Commissioners is easier.
I was frustrated at the March RPIC when the chair recommend passing the TAP amendment because the Commissioners were unanimous in approval. But they all deferred to our commissioner.
I’d like to remind everyone we have a community forum meeting this Friday.
I’m concerned. I hear they are to have a planned evacuation in July or August. But right now the plan is for us to go to the border with California and then find Fernley. They don’t have credibility yet. Before we have a practice evacuation we need to discuss the plan with the public
I thank this board for all your input and for the opportunity to say things that have been on our minds. This board is listening to community concerns. It’s great to have a TRPA Representative and presentation… the typical TRPA dance. You’re on the right path and I am grateful to you.
I forgot to say that the evacuation that claims the number of cars is half the number of people. When we evacuated, we had 2 cars full of our stuff, so the plan should say twice the number, not half.
It’s really important to make our comments. There’s a difference between a common evacuation plan generated with Federal money which is valuable to show streets and arrows, and give instructions and identify resources. But those plans are used as a glide path for agencies to rubber stamp and check the box and say we have a plan. There’s a big difference between that and a roadway-by-roadway capacity evaluation. All projects under CEQA should undergo an analysis of evacuation impacts after considering roadway-by-roadway capacity evaluation. TRPA knows about this but fails to act. Paradise, Butte County, ignored the recommendation to halt multifamily dwellings, and 85 people died.
Mark, thanks for listening. I remind everyone to read the Envision Washoe 2040 document and fill out the survey – on our Tahoe character plan which is part of the larger Envision Study. We have until May 7 to provide comments. What’s the vision of the character of Washoe Tahoe? We should have our input. I encourage you all to do that.
End of meeting.