Planning commission approves Soaring Ranch Phase 2 change: fewer retail, 86 multifamily units with density bonus

The Truckee Town Planning Commission approved a development-permit amendment, plan development agreement amendment and zoning clearance that revise the previously approved Soaring Ranch Phase 2 plan to reduce commercial floor area and add multifamily housing using a 50% state density bonus.

Staff planner Laura (last name not specified) told the commission the revised Phase 2 proposes two buildings: a commercial building with about 23,600 square feet of commercial floor area (nine tenant spaces) fronting Soaring Way and a residential building totaling roughly 84,900 square feet and 86 multifamily units. Under the proposal the base density for the site (12 units per acre) would allow 57 units; with a 50% density bonus the allowable unit total increases to 86.

Of the 86 units, the applicant proposes 14 units deed‑restricted to low‑income households (the required 24% of base units under the state density bonus calculation). The applicant also proposes that 55 market‑rate units be deed‑restricted to rents affordable to local workers within the Truckee Tahoe School District boundary; 7 of the 14 low‑income units would also count as workforce units. The applicant presented an “alternate equivalent proposal” to meet the remaining inclusionary requirement by deed‑restricting 55 market‑rate units for local workers rather than creating an additional 1.6 deed‑restricted units.

The project requests several concessions and waivers allowed under state density bonus law: a waiver of the specific-plan requirement that commercial be a primary component of mixed‑use projects (the applicant seeks to exceed the 50% residential limit), a waiver of the maximum floor‑area ratio (staff calculated the proposed project at approximately 0.53 FAR vs. a 0.25 maximum under current calculations), and a waiver of private exterior space requirements for multifamily units. The project also requests four development‑standard modifications (reduced common open space from 21,500 to about 11,000 square feet, reduced storage area per unit, adjustments to parking‑lot landscaping where a drainage easement conflicts with the standard, and parking reductions tied to the density bonus).

Laura told commissioners that the project had been routed to utilities and special districts and that staff received a will‑serve letter from the Truckee Donner Public Utility District. Staff recommended adoption of Resolution 2025‑07 finding the project consistent with the Jorg Ranch Specific Plan as amended in June 2021, precluding further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines §15183 and Public Resources Code §21166, and approving the requested permits and density bonus concessions subject to draft conditions.

Architect Sean Whitaker (Dolan Group) said the redesign consolidated four previously approved buildings into two, separating commercial and residential uses horizontally (retail along Soaring Way, housing to the rear). He said the change was driven by financing and feasibility concerns and allowed the team to achieve a financially viable project while preserving on‑site commercial visibility.

Art Chapman, part of the applicant team, summarized market conditions for commercial and multifamily financing, noting national challenges for construction lending but saying mixed residential plus food/service commercial could still be financeable because of built‑in clientele.

Public comment included supportive letters from Mountain Area Preservation (support for additional housing but concerns about the four‑story massing and design) and the California Housing Defense Fund (comments about state housing approval requirements). Two members of the public spoke in support citing local employer workforce needs.

Commission discussion touched on massing and building height (the specific plan allows a 50‑foot/4‑story limit), pedestrian connectivity through the commercial building (staff and applicant showed a planned pass‑through), bike parking (applicant to resolve a one‑space shortfall), snow storage (on‑site and off‑site temporary locations on Parcel 3), and trigger provisions for building the RMW workforce parcel based on constructed square footage in the plan area. Commissioners noted their discretion is limited by state housing law and the project’s status as a permitted housing use under the amended specific plan.

A motion to adopt Resolution 2025‑07 and approve the development permit amendment, plan development amendment, zoning clearance and the requested density‑bonus concessions and waivers carried on a recorded unanimous vote of the commission. Conditions of approval will be finalized to address the checklist items in the staff report (bike parking correction, exterior lighting/photometrics, documented hold‑harmless for landscaping in easements, final will‑serve language and construction hours consistent with the specific plan, noise study updates, parking standards and snow‑storage arrangements).

Planning staff noted the project approval is subject to the appeal period (appeal period end referenced in staff presentation) and that subsequent development permits and building permits will be required before construction begins.