HomeMy Public PortalAbout2002-01-03TOWN OF TRUCKEE
TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 3, 2002, 6:00 P.M.
Town Administrative Center
10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA
CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Florian called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Schneider, McCormack, and Vice Mayor Owens.
Councilmember Susman noted as absent.
Also attending the meeting were Town Manager Stephen Wright; Community
Development Director Tony Lashbrook; Public Works Director/Town Engineer Dan
Wilkins; Police Chief Dan Boon; Assistant to the Town Manager Alex Terrazas;
Town Attorney J. Dennis Crabb; and Town Clerk Patt Osborne.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was conducted in unison by those attending.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Juanita Schneider, informed the Council and Public that auxiliary volunteers are
needed at the Hospital, and asked that the signs for the crosswalk to the Hospital
indicate "heavily used" and be moved further away from the crosswalk as cars do
not see it soon enough to stop. Public Works Director/Town Engineer Dan Wilkins
stated plans are in place to improve the situation.
PRESENTATIONS
Congestion management and snow removal update - Dan Wilkins Public Works
Director/Town Engineer stated the primary goal is to provide for the safe and orderly
movement of emergency equipment, vehicle traffic and pedestrians throughout the
community during the winter months. With the contracted work in the TSSAs and
PRDs, the Town maintains approximately 140 centerline miles of roadways. During
storms up to 18" of snowfall, it takes Town crews approximately 12 hours to plow
every street in Town. After storms, cleanup is necessary which includes cutting pack
on the streets, and pushing back berms to the full width of the street. Significant
accumulation requires the use of snow blowers which create walls of snow which
can reach 8-10' high, this effort can take more that a week. Due to each piece of
equipment being used to plow the 140 miles of roadways it is not possible to clear
private openings however, the Town works with private plow operators and
homeowners by providing predictable levels of service. Last year 400 hours of over
time was spent on snow removal.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 1
6.1
6.2
In order to meet the Town's goal of safe snow removal operations, priorities are set
as follows, Priority Order: Support for emergency agency responses; Main arterials
and school bus routes; Secondary residential streets; Cul-de-sacs; and High
elevation areas subject to high winds.
Mr. Wilkins stated there are three levels of operations: Level I Operations (Green)
less than 18" of snow, Lever II Operations (Yellow) greater that 18" of snow; and
Lever III Operations (Red) 3' or more of snow. Each operation having its own level
of service.
Mr. Wilkins indicated that areas subject to high winds and severe drifting are subject
to street closure with efforts made to reopen the streets when weather conditions
have stabilized. Donner Pass Road (Coldstream to South Shore Drive) is provided
by Caltrans with its own priority system. If needed Town crews will remove snow on
this section to ensure public safety. Certain roads in Placer County are in the
Town's plow area, an agreement with Placer County exchanges the County plowing
Sierra Meadows Subdivision with Town service on the south side of Donner Lake.
Donner Lake Road may be blocked off at 1-80 by Caltrans to limit access to the
interstate. Mr. Wilkins stated street closures and detours might be necessary at
times for public safety.
NOTE: Copies of the Town of Truckee Snow Removal Guidelines and Town of
Truckee Congestion Management Procedure are on file at Town Hall.
Councilmember McCormack asked that the information of every street being
plowed every 24 hours be added to the report.
Councilmember Schneider suggested Police Officers be used for traffic control
particularly at heavily traveled intersections.
Vice Mayor Owens asked that the report be put on the Town's Web-site.
Charlie White, Donner Lake, stated good communication helps weather situations.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Schneider asked that her concerns of mass scale, with regard to
East West Partners projects, be added to the minutes of December 6, 2001.
It was moved by Councilmember Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
McCormack and unanimously carried to approve Agenda Items 6.1, 6.2, 6.3,
6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 7.6, 6.7, and 6.8 as follows:
Minutes of November 8, 29, & December 6, 2001.
Resolution 2002-07 adopted authorizing the filing of applications, execution of
master agreements and program supplements for rural transit system grant
program projects.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
7.
7.1
Resolution 2002-05 adopted authorizing Town Engineer to accept easement
dedications on behalf of the Town of Truckee.
Classification/Compensation Survey Benchmarks approved.
Resolution 2002-03 adopted approving a 6.9% performance merit increase for the
Town Manager.
Town Engineer authorized to execute Snow Removal Exchange Services
Agreement between the Town of Truckee and Placer County for the 2001/02
season.
Resolution 2002-04 adopted authorizing Town staff to amend Resolution 2000-42,
which authorized the Mayor to enter into a cooperative funding agreement with
Caltrans for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements at the
SR267/Union Pacific Railroad Track Crossing.
November 2001 Treasurer's Report accepted.
COUNCIL IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES
COUNCIL APPOINTS TOWN HALL SITE SELECTION STEERING COMMITTEE.
Alex Terrazas, Assistant to the Town Manager, stated at the December 6, 2001
meeting Council awarded the contract for the Town Hall Site Selection Study to
BSA Architects as well as approving the concept of the formation of a Steering
Committee to work with BSA Architects to identity and rank potential sited. After
publication by the Sierra Sun, the following individuals have offered to serve on the
Steering Committee:
· Mike Brown, Chamber of Commerce.
· Joe Burns, Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe.
· Ed Candler, Downtown Merchants Association.
· Pat Gemma, Truckee Tahoe Unified School District.
· Geoff Stephens, Glenshire Devonshire Residents Association.
· Craig Threshie, Planning Commission.
· Dennis Zirbel, HPAC.
Mr. Terrazas suggested Council might wish to appoint a member of Council to serve
as a Town Council representative on the Committee.
Councilmember Schneider suggested two members serve on the Committee.
Councilmember McCormack asked that Steve Frisch, Sierra Business Council, be
appointed to the Committee.
Councilmembers Schneider and McCormack offered to serve on the Committee.
It was moved by Councilmember McCormack, seconded by Vice Mayor
Owens, and unanimously carried to approve the Committee list presented
with the addition of Councilmembers Schneider and McCormack and Steve
Frisch.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 3
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 RESOLUTON 2002-02 ADOPTED APPROVING THE PINE FOREST AT
TRUCKEE SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AS
UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Tony Lashbrook, Community Development Director, stated this evening's Public
Hearing is with regard to the proposed Pine Forest at Truckee Subdivision,
Application #01-061 Ken, Inc., Owner; Dale Creighton, Applicant/Agent. The project
proposes the creation of 118 residential parcels and a 150-acre open space, the
remainder from a 238-acre property located generally west of the Coachland Mobile
Home Park and south west of Alder Drive.
Mr. Lashbrook reviewed for Council the following:
Proiect Proposal:
118 parcel clustered subdivision; Developed in two phases: phase one, 63 parcels,
and phase two, 55 parcels; Construct Roadways and install utility infrastructure;
Alternative access, Alder Drive only, ShaNeva Road and Alder Road; Offer for
dedication of a park; Abandon a portion of Clyne Drive right of way; abandon
existing 30-foot snow storage easement; abandon existing 20-foot PUE's on
abutting lots; realign Clyne Drive; and realign Thayer Drive on Lot 16.
Site Desi.qn:
General Plan Consistency: Density; No threat to public safety; no significant Impact
on the environment. Development Code Consistency: Residential Subdivision
Guidelines; hillside development guidelines, General Development Standards, and
open space requirement and clustering (requires 70% open space).
Issues:
Town acceptance of ShaNeva Road and Thayer Drive; Left turn lane on State
Route 89, install prior to recordation of any phase; or bond for the left turn lane and
install no later than one year after recordation of phase one; or receive approval
from Caltrans and defer improvements in order to allow for an alternate design,
such as a roundabout. Coachland concerns: access to vacant parcel, location of
park, increase in traffic, and visual appearance of subdivision.
Planninq Commission Summary:
Curb and Gutter- · Remove requirement for curb and gutter on the interior streets.
· Require Curb and gutter for Thayer Drive for either alternative access. Modify
condition No. 20.a to include curb and gutter.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 4
Left Turn Lane -
· Condition No. 24
Second Units-
· The subdivision cannot prohibit the construction of second units on the
parcels. Condition No. 35.
Public Park
· Relocate park. Condition No, 36.
Remainder of Parcel "A" -
· Potential trail alignments. Condition No. 37.
Maintenance Agreement -
· Condition No. 38.
Recommendations:
Planning Commission recommends Council adopt Resolution 2002-02 approving
the Pine Forest at Truckee Subdivision subject to conditions of approval as
summarized.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 38 be modified to include private maintenance
of the eight-foot wide multi-purpose pedestrian path.
The applicant is considering creating a Landscape and Lighting District to pay for
the maintenance and liability of the path, which will require future Town Council
action.
Mr. Lashbrook stated Council is requested to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project, project subject to the Department of Fish and Game
filing fee, approve tentative map (residential subdivision), and approve easement
abandonment (right-of-way, snow storage, and public utility easements).
Mayor Florian opened the Public Hearing asking for anyone wishing to speak in
favor or opposition of the proposed subdivision.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the proposed subdivision.
Mayor Florian closed the Public Hearing reserving the right to reopen the Public
Hearing at a later date.
Vice Mayor Owens stated the Planning Commission did an extensive review of the
development.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 5
Dale Creighton, Applicant/Agent, thanked Mr. Lashbrook for an accurate summary
of the project. Mr. Creighton confirmed the development is consistent with the
zoning and site development standards and does not ask for any exceptions. Mr.
Creighton addressed the issues of concern: Coachland, neighbors, and future
school site.
Vice Mayor Owens asked if open space and trails would remain the same.
Mr. Creighton stated dirt roads and walking trails would be left in their natural state.
There is a condition for a conservation easement, which will allow for access by a
public entity.
Councilmember McCormack asked about a mechanism for trail maintenance, and
the issue of curbs and gutters on Thayer Drive.
Mr. Lashbrook stated Condition No. 38 is being modified to include the
maintenance of pedestrian walkways.
Mr. Wilkins stated it is Engineering's recommendation that curbs and gutters not
be required on any of the subdivision streets just standard roadside ditches
including along Thayer Drive.
Councilmember McCormack stated there are a number of decisions on items that
were based on the standards that are in the Town's new Development Code: the
relationship of this site to industrial activity; noise requirements for those industrial
activities; 8% road grade and open space zoning.
Councilmember Schneider asked Mr. Lashbrook to review the timing of the left
turn lane on High Way 89 and Alder Drive.
Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the three option conditions for the left-turn lane as
described in the staff report. Depending on which option is selected the time
element could be anywhere from completion before any phase of the subdivision
is recorded, to a bond guaranteeing completion within one year, to Caltrans
approval of deferring to a later date.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Owens, seconded by Councilmember McCormack
and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 2002-02 approving Application
No. 01-061/TM-ABN (The Pine Forest at Truckee Subdivision) with an
amendment to Condition No. 38, the addition of private maintenance to
pedestrian trails.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 6
8.2 RESOLUTION 2002-01 ADOPTED DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 0'1-009, ZONING
CLEARANCE AND HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW, FOR PROPOSED
REHABILITATION OF THE TIN CAN BUILDING LOCATED AT 10116 JIBBOOM
STREET, STEFANIE OLIVlERI~ APPLICANT~ TOM GROSSMAN, APPELLANT.
Tony Lashbrook, Community Development Director, stated the Public Hearing
involves an appeal of a November 14, 2001 decision by the Planning Commission
to approve a Zoning Clearance and Historic Design Review application allowing the
historically accurate rehabilitation of an existing residential structure (commonly
known as the "Tin Can") and conversion of the structure into a mixed use
retail/office/residential project. The Planning Commission decision is a confirmation
of the September 27, 2001 Community Development Director decision to approve
the same project, considered by the Planning Commission on appeal filed by the
same appellant, Mr. Grossman.
Mr. Lashbrook stated the appeal primarily challenges the procedure and
methodology used in approving the rehabilitation, arguing that this project be treated
as a demolition and be subject to the same Certificate of Economic Hardship
process undertaken by Mr. Grossman in the recent past for two "district
contributing" buildings located in Historic Downtown. Lack of enforcement for recent
building modifications, lack of traffic study, displacement of affordable housing, and
incompatibility with the surrounding properties and neighborhood are also cited
within the appeal application.
Mr. Lashbrook stated the existing Tin Can has historic resource with draft non-
contributory status, no historic features, no historic materials, and retains a simple
historic form. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation have two main
objectives: 1 ) Assure the preservation of a building's important "character-defining"
architectural materials and features, and 2) Make possible an efficient contemporary
use. Also, Rehabilitation Hierarchy, in order of preference is protect & maintain,
repair and replace. That the Tin Can approval rehabilitation consists of
deconstruct/reconstruct existing structure - protect historic form, salvage and reuse
historic materials - repair (if any - unlikely), and reestablish historic identity -
replace known features and materials. In addition complimentary detail - trim,
doors, railing; minor relocation within property - back and right; historically
appropriate additions - rear and sides; change residential use to mixed use - office,
retail, residential, and on and off-site improvements - parking, landscaping,
sidewalk.
Mr. Lashbrook noted for the record a letter with regard to the project was received
from Pat Davison, CABPRO Field Director.
It was noted Councilmember Susman joined the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 7
Tom Grossman, Appellant, stated for the record that he had no animosity or hard
feelings to anybody about his project whatsoever. He was here for a different
reason--fairness and treating all applicants equally, for having one set of rules for
one person and another set of rules for different applicants. He then reviewed his
experience with the Planning Commission and the Council, on appeal, for his
Brickelltown project. He expressed concern that the current applicant received a
process without so much as a public hearing, and he felt there were no differences
between his project and the Tin Can project. He said that Council had already set
a policy, asked them to hold to it, or create a different policy.
He felt the two projects were equal except that the Tin Can project uses the term
"deconstruction" rather than "demolition". He further expressed his concern that
people fighting projects under the guise of historic preservation when it is really their
own economic interests downtown.
He felt the subject building on Jibboom Street should come down; he had no
problem with the applicant's design of the replacement structure. His concern was
that the design did not receive an equal amount of scrutiny as his project received,
and that the applicant should have to go through the economic hardship process.
Discussion ensued about using a large hammer (Grossman) or a small hammer
(Olivieri) for demolition the end result is the same, the material ends up in the
dump. Mr. Grossman also discussed hypocrisy and his interpretative view of how
it applied to this case. He felt strongly that people should be treated equally, and
when the Council makes a decision the Council needs to make everybody abide by
that policy, whatever their affiliation. He requested the Council make any policy
changes in public, and urged the Council to require the applicant to go through the
economic hardship process, and treat everybody equally.
Comparisons were also made between the Grossman, Olivieri, Hunt and Clarin
projects, demolition, deconstruction, reconstruction and rehabilitation terminology,
and various state and federal guidelines and that Truckee has a higher standard
than the state.
Discussion ensued between the appellant and Councilmember McCormack as to
comments said, the size and scope of the Brickelltown project, and the
requirements for an economic hardship determination.
Bob Tamietti, Legal Representative, reviewed two items that he learned during
the Grossman project that citizens in the Town are not bound when defined terms
in the Downtown Specific Plan are compared to the definitions found in the State
Historic Preservation Code. The other item was that since the Town was on the
cusp of historic preservation the Town would proceed slowly and take the most
cautious approach, and the Town's use of a "safety valve", being the statement of
economic hardship. He felt the same logic was not being applied to the Tin Can
project.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 8
He cited several reasons why this project should be considered a demolition and
quoted each meeting's significant comments by staff and the applicant's
representative that this project really is a demolition, not a rehabilitation, because
the original materials are being thrown away, building a new building in a different
location on the property and with a different use and using different materials. He
claimed that was a demolition, not a rehabilitation. He then reviewed the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for replacement of historic features on reconstructed
buildings. He claimed the applicant's design indicated replacement of the front
porch that was found in a historic photo. He claimed that the only historic feature of
this building is its rectangular shape and alleged the applicant was destroying it
through demolition and recreating it after it was destroyed. It was not a deteriorated
part of the feature, the rectangle was still there; but it was disconnecting the term
from any recognizable meaning because it was expedient, because it permits the
applicant to do something so we can excuse ourselves from a larger problem. He
said the "larger problem" was the economic hardship process, and he felt the
applicant should be required to endure that process as Mr. Grossman did.
Mr. Tamietti felt that to apply the label of rehabilitation on the front end of the project
and ignore what was really happening was allowing ourselves to ignore what was
really happening--tearing down a building, and building a new building with new
materials in the same location with some resemblance to the building that was being
torn down. He alleged that was a demolition and a replacement, not a rehabilitation.
He charged the Council allowed itself the option to adopt someone else's definition
of these terms, but the Town was free to adopt terms that make sense in the
context of the Downtown Specific Plan. He requested the Council make it a
requirement for anyone wanting to destroy a historic resource in this Town you have
to do a Certificate of Economic Hardship until the Town has the full historic
preservation program in place.
Dennis Zirbel, Project Architect and Representative, emphasized the applicant
has not proposed a demolition and creating a new building. He claimed from the
beginning his client's charge has always been to rehabilitate this building. Mr. Zirbel
explained the deteriorated condition of the structure, and so far there have been no
salvageable materials found. He did say, however, that during the deconstruction
process that if any materials were found those materials would be re-used or
replicated. He said they would be using like-kind materials. He reiterated the
applicant has used the Secretary of Interior's Standards throughout design of this
project to date. Defining characteristics such as the majority of the form, roof, front
porch and the like, and Mr. Zirbel said those areas were being recreating, or
rehabilitating, the same building. He concurred it was unfortunate that the existing
materials weren't there to repair them. He reviewed the Secretary's Standards and
how they applied to this project. He also said that pursuant to the Dept of Interior's
Standards the applicant was allowed to add on to a structure and that those
additions were in the rear of the building. He said the new structure would be similar
to the existing one in that the addition to the existing building contained different
size siding, different windows and different moldings. Those types of differences
would also be incorporated into the project.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 9
He concurred with staff's recommendation.
Mayor Florian opened the Public Hearing asking for anyone wishing to speak in
favor or in opposition of an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application
No. 01-009.
Pat Davison, Field Director for CABPRO, urged the Council to treat all applicants
fairly and equally during the historic preservation process. She said their
organization would not take a specific position on specific points, did not want to see
any more regulations or burdens on any applicant, nor anything that would be done
by the Town to remove the qualifications for the rehabilitation tax credit. She felt the
fatal flaw was the use of the word "rehabilitation". She felt this building was a
demolition in that it was being removed piece by piece, and requested the Town
address the confusion and misapplication of different terminology. Examples were
given. She wanted some flexibility and be able to provide future applicants with
some ways to go through a streamlined process. She then reviewed the Secretary
of Interior's four options for historic building treatment: preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration, and reconstruction.
She said that the CABPRO organization would be examining every word, every
definition, and every application so the misunderstandings and confusion can be
avoided in the future as the Town prepares its historic preservation program.
Steve Frisch, commented on an inaccuracy that the Sierra Business Council
jumped on him (Mr. Grossman) for his project at public hearings four years ago. He
noted the Council never commented on any of his projects, nor did they attend any
of the public hearings four years ago.
Guy Coates, expressed his support for the applicant's project. He reviewed the
differences between the Brickelltown (Grossman) project and the current project on
appeal. Mr. Coates supported the applicant's desire to bring back some of the old
character of Jibboom Street; make the street more pedestrian oriented noting that
the Brickelltown neighborhood is a stand-alone area, whereas Jibboom Street is
part of the downtown core historic. He reiterated the applicant's experience is
historic preservation over the last 40 years, citing Cabona's, the Loading Dock, the
Truckee Hotel, and now the current project. The attempt he saw between the
subject project and the Grossman project in Brickelltown was that the applicant was
trying to restore Jibboom Street and the character of the area. He personally
supported the project.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 10
Sharon Arnold, said she was a member of the Historical Society, member of the
Town's Historic Preservation Advisory Commission, and sat on the Preservation
Steering Committee, but she was here to express her personal support for the
applicant's project. Briefly reviewed the history of the Tin Can, Ms. Arnold stated
that Cecil Sellburn operated it as the "Blind Pig" which was a bootlegging operation.
Sellburn lived in Hobart Mills and the tin on this structure came from Hobart Mills.
She claimed the original contractor was a Mr. Richardson. Judge Fosten Wilson
purchased this property and replaced the tin siding. She said the tin was added in
the late 1930s or early '40s when Hobart Mills was shut down. The building was also
used as a brothel. Scott Brandos purchased the building and gutted the whole
interior. She said the structure was not listed on the Historic Inventory and if it would
have been included, she said she would have requested the applicant to save the
building. Ms. Arnold said the project brought before HPAC was well designed, well
planned and it was approved 100%.
Juanita Schneider, suggested the Council think about sidewalks on both sides of
the street if the applicant was thinking of making the area more pedestrian friendly.
Mayor Florian closed the Public Hearing reserving the right to reopen the Public
Hearing at a later date.
Dennis Zirbel, stated in closing that the applicant was not looking at demolishing
the building and then create another building. He stated their intent from the
beginning was to recreate what was there, rehabilitate what is there. The problem
is that there is not anything found to date other than its historic form and some
assumptions they can make as to roof covering, what the siding was, the front porch
being those items that can be repaired. He said it was a tough project because of
the lack of historic materials. He reiterated that going through the hierarchy you
don't necessarily have to use like kind materials, but the applicant's proposal is to
use like kind materials from what they can assume was there. He supported staffs
recommendation.
Bob Tamietti, reiterated their concern that the applicant was demolishing and
rebuilding the structure. He wanted the Council to call it that and deal with it like the
Council deals with demolitions. He reviewed three alternatives: 1) Follow staff's
recommendation and uphold the appeal and render the term "rehabilitation"
meaningless in the Town. 2) You can uphold the appeal and tell the applicant to
come back and apply for a Certificate of Economic Hardship. 3) Revisit the policy
dealing with demolition of historic properties and he suggested this was the
appropriate time for that to happen, not behind closed doors in a staff hearing. He
felt that policy is changed in staff hearings and the problem is acute in Truckee. He
urged the Council to be consistent and tell the applicant to apply for the Certificate
of Economic Hardship. He felt option three was appropriate and beneficial for the
community but did not know if the Town was geared up for the extra workload, data
base to articulate a new policy. If not, then the Town needs to apply the policy
currently on the books.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 11
Tony Lashbrook reviewed three options before the Council: 1) Uphold the appeal
which would deny the application based on the determination that it was not a rahab
but a demo and therefore requires an economic finding before it could go forward.
He pointed out this action would halt the project for the time being as the economic
finding needed to be conducted in a public hearing. That would set some precedent
that would be different than that applied to other projects that have not been
considered by the Council (Clarin and Hunt) as they have been approved, vested,
and not affected by this decision, but it would affect future decisions. 2) Uphold the
appeal denying the zoning clearance based on some issue not related to rehabs
and economic hardship, but because the Town did not perform a traffic study, etc.
3) Deny the appeal because you think something is wrong with the proposed historic
interpretation of the new building and it needs to be changed to be historically
accurate. 4) Create a process and modify the code through a policy discussion
following up with proper ordinances, etc. that would allow governing bodies to say
that yes, this building is more than 60 years old but it doesn't have historic
significance and therefore it could be rehabbed, replaced or whatever. He said to
enforce that process the Council would first need to uphold the appeal or deny the
appeal and say we're going to pursue that because that is a place where we want
to go.
Mayor Florian requested clarification that the Council was not going to be put in the
same predicament again, that all projects would be put on hold until the policy
concerning demolition was adopted.
Mr. Lashbrook said that Mr. Grossman's project was first and the economic
hardship process was developed, and Mr. Grossman agreed to participate
financially in the historic building survey. That survey was done and then the
community came forward and suggested there were other categories that would be
relevant to Truckee. Then that process was stopped and determined the total
project would be larger than anticipated. Through that process Mr. Grossman
received his demolition permit, not that those structures were historically significant
or not wasn't important. They were over 60 years old; they went through the
economic hardship and findings were made and approved. Giacomini-Taylor got
caught up in that time frame and their structure was old and didn't appear
historically significant and that decision was made as a one-time approval because
of the circumstances related to the timing of that particular application. He said it
would be about a one-year process to bring all the standards to clarity and
appropriateness for the community so everyone knows what the rules are and can
abide by them.
Councilmember McCormack requested Mr. Lashbrook to carry that logic through
to the Clarin and Hunt buildings and how those tie in to the age, historical
significance. Mr. Lashbrook said those buildings were determined to be historically
significant because they were over 60 years old. So the discussion focused around
what could be done with these buildings, recognizing their current condition, the lack
of historic integrity, etc., can we rahab them. Mr. Lashbrook said Town standards
allow and promote rahab of historic buildings, and similar to this project, the Clarin
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 12
buildings have some siding that has value, its been moved, stored, uncovered and
preserved. He said for the most part they are very similar in that the buildings will
be taken apart and anything of historic significance is going to be preserved and
reused, but for the most part a new building is going up in a slightly different
location. Those projects have been approved. Mr. Lashbrook said those building
had more historic significance than our current information indicates that the Olivieri
building has.
Councilmember McCormack stated the Grossman project differed from the others
in that the discussions were for a single building much larger and in no way a
reconstruction of the two existing buildings. That, at no time did Grossman propose
replacement of the existing buildings.
Mayor Florian asked whether those buildings were being relocated or rebuilt on the
same location. Mr. Lashbrook said they would be on the same site like the Olivieri
project but he thought they both would be moved to a minor degree.
Councilmember Schneider thanked the speakers and Pat Davison concerning
language, policy, and consistency. Councilmember Schneider asked for candid
dialogue among Councilmembers. She felt that Mr. Coates' comments were very
good but since the Town doesn't have a historic program in place yet, they are not
relevant yet. She agreed with Councilmember McCormack that it was a matter of
"definition". She felt strongly it was a matter of definition, that the Council needed
a dialogue about consistency and policy. We stated during the Grossman project
that the State standards don't apply. State standards do not apply because Truckee
has not adopted the District yet and Truckee will be taking a stricter stance than
what the State has. She pointed out that throughout the Planning Commission said
that the State standards and definitions were clear and this project complies with
those standards. That may be but Councilmember Schneider said that the Council
never agreed that those standards were the ones that Truckee would use, and
unless and until that decision is made there is an issue of consistency and how the
Council applies the rules. She said that everyone involved in the Grossman project
learned a lot and they were blazing a new trail with their project. She felt that Town
staff was attempting to find a process that would work better than the Grossman
project. She commended Town staff on their innovation and solution finding
philosophy, but she expressed concerns on the inconsistency of application of
policy. She doesn't feel the Town has been consistent, and that should be a starting
point for discussion.
She felt this was a good project but was not a rehabilitation unless you torture some
State definition to say it is. But we've never said we were going to use the State
definitions. She was concerned that a different process might be used for each of
the projects discussed earlier and she felt that would be a huge mistake. She
wanted to find a process that works as an interim process until the historic inventory
and program are in place, or we need to say we can't do this anymore until the
historic program is in place.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 13
Councilmember McCormack commented there was some inference that Council
may treat friends differently and he found that offensive. He felt that everyone was
in accord with the project itself, in terms of what it does, what it can accomplish and
all its benefits and that is not an issue. Other questions include traffic, housing, etc.
were addressed by the Planning Commission and are not residual issues for the
Council. The issue is the process and how we get there. It leads me to question if
there is any other assistance that staff can give me between deconstruction and
demolition. He referred to Mr. Grossman's analogy of using either a sledge hammer
or a hammer, and Councilmember McCormack's analogy would be going at it with
a D-8 tractor or a crowbar. There is a difference in how you go about removing the
building. If you're trying to retain anything you might find a value versus just going
about it with a loader, knocking it down and hauling it away. Is there any satisfactory
distinction between what we're calling deconstruction and demotion?
Mr. Lashbrook responded by saying the Town's working definition of
deconstruction is part of a process to reconstruct a historically accurate rehabilitated
or replacement building. In this case maybe the building doesn't have anything of
historic value on it anymore, but it is part of a process that guarantees a new
building, reconstructed or rehabilitated building will be in place when the project is
done. When an applicant receives a Certificate of Economic Hardship and you
demolish a building, there is no mandatory requirement that you replace it with
anything.
In Mr. Grossman's case the project was conditioned that the demolition should not
occur until there was a project approved and a building permit in hand or replace the
building did not make any sense to sacrifice that structure without any plan. Those
were the two distinctions. One is in conjunction with a historically appropriate rehab
or reconstruction, and the other is a stand-alone demolition.
Mr. Lashbrook stated that at the time the demolition was proposed, the applicant
was not proposing to reconstruct or replace the historic structures.
Councilmember McCormack asked if replacement was a better term in this
application. Mr. Lashbrook said.it was in this case because the rahab is a replace-
ment as far as the Town can tell. Councilmember McCormack said that this project
may lack the features of the Clarin and Hunt projects which had some architectural
features that could be saved for the replacement rahab, the current project only has
the form. But it is still a mechanism to dismantle, trying to recover any potential
materials although it appears there won't be any, but the process is the same,
allowing us then to replace with the fact that the replacement style is more historical
from photographs, but it seems to justify the slow approach to deconstruct or
remove.
Vice Mayor Owens reported he made some inquiries of a contractor in the Bay
Area who does remodels and restorations concerning the term deconstruction. That
term is almost like an archaeological situation. You deconstruct it because you may
discover materials that are not yet known that you may be able to use in some form
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 14
or another in the rehab of the structure and that is the difference between a
demolition. With a demolition you obliterate everything. He cited the White House
restoration project which was actually a deconstruction in 1948 through 1952--the
whole interior was completely gutted. But the timbers that were the structure of that
building were rehabbed into other materials, paneling in rooms that didn't exist prior
thereto. Is that your understanding of the difference of deconstruction and
demolition?
Although the appeal raises issues with a question of policy, the appeal is not the
proper vehicle to bring those concerns forth. The policy requires further study by
staff and Council and should not be determined simply on the dais without that
benefit. Nor should a pending project be penalized. These issues should have been
brought to the Council simply as a policy concern.
Mr. Lashbrook said yes and it is a part of an overall program to replace this
building with something that is more historically accurate.
Councilmember Susman thanked the appellants for clarifying the appeal. He
expressed his concern after a review of the paperwork that this may have been a
vindictive act and references made to Hunt, Clarin, and Giacomini. He further
agreed that this is an issue of process versus project.
Upon completion of a discussion with regard to historical preservation and Town
Policy, it was Council consensus to direct the Mr. Lashbrook to return in two
meetings with a summary of the Town's rehabilitation and demolition policy for
historic preservation in the downtown area.
Councilmember Schneider reiterated that, in regards to Councilmember Owens'
remarks, it was exactly the issue that Truckee had determined during the Grossman
project that we would use our own definitions, and that reverting back to State
definitions in absence of a police decision to do so was the inconsistency that was
the issue at hand. Further, she questioned why staff's decisions were "policy" when
the Council set policy. In other words, staff did not set precedent for Council actions.
It was moved by Councilmember Susman, seconded by Councilmember
McCormack to adopt Resolution 2002-01 denying the appeal and upholding
the Planning Commission's action to approve the project. The motion was
carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Susman, and
McCormack and Vice Mayor Owens; NOES: Councilmember Schneider, and
Mayor Florian; ABSENT/ABSTAIN: None.
8.3 RESOLUTION 2002-06 ADOPTED MAKING FINDINGS TO RETAIN AB 1600
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES~ IN AN AMOUNT OF ~671~912~ COLLECTED IN
EXCESS OF FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 2000/2001 FISCAL
YEAR.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 15
Dan Wilkins, Public Works Director/Town Engineer, stated the information provided
in this item allows for the continuation of the Public Hearing which was opened at
the December 6, 2001 meeting, regarding the AB 1600 Traffic Impact Fee Program
and fulfills the Town's public reporting requirements under the California
Government Code.
Mr. Wilkins stated $750,748 in fees was collected and $270,174 of interest income
was earned during the 2000-2001 fiscal year. During the same fiscal year $590,174
was spent on implementation of AB 1600 projects including the SR267/UPRR
intersection, the Third Tahoe Donner Connection and the SR267/Bypass Ramps
projects. There are some funds which have been collected in excess of five years
ago that remain unspent primarily due to project development timing issues, and the
fact that the primary AB 1600 project that the Town is currently working on the Third
Tahoe Donner Connector, requires more funds than would be collected over a
typical five year period.
Mr. Wilkins stated in order to fulfill the Town's report requirements staff presents the
following information drawn from the December 6, 2001 public report:
1. At the conclusion of the 2000/2001 fiscal year, the AB 1600 Traffic Impact Fee
Program Fund contained $671,912 in funds, which had been deposited in the fund
in excess of five years prior to the end of that fiscal year.
2. The source of the $671.912 deposited but unspent in the AB 1600 Fund in
excess of five years prior to the end of the 2000/2001 fiscal year was $227,249 in
interest which was earned on the fund balance in the 1995/1996 fiscal year, and
$444,663 in fees which were deposited in the fund during the 1995/1996 fiscal year.
Mr. Wilkins stated staff is recommending Council make specific findings to retain
these unspent funds resulting in a retention of $671.912 of AB 1600 funds collected
in excess of five years ago. Specific findings to include:
1. Funds which were deposited in the Town of Truckee AB 1600 Traffic Impact Fee
Program Fund in excess of five years prior to the end of the 2000/2001 fiscal year
are intended for expenditure on future elements of the SR267 Bypass (Truckee
Ramps) Project, and the Third Tahoe Donner Connector project which are included
in the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program Capital Improvement Project
List. The entirety of these funds is currently programmed for expenditure in the
2001/2002 fiscal year.
2. The funds which are on deposit in the AB 1600 Project Fund, which were
collected in excess of 5 years prior to the enc of the 2000/2001 fiscal year, or are
on deposit in excess of the prescribed five year limit established by Government
Code Section 66001, Article 4, for the following reasons:
a. Implementation of certain projects in the current and previous AB
1600 Traffic Impact Fee Program Capital Improvement Project List is
dictated by schedules of other agencies, which preclude expenditure
of these funds within the prescribed five-year time frame.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 16
b. Interest, which is earned on AB 1600 Fund balances will be used
to offset increases in construction cost inflation.
c. Certain projects within the AB 1600 Fee Program will require funds
in excess of those, which could be collected within a five-year time
frame.
d. Certain projects within the current and previous AB 1600 Fee
Program Capital Improvement Projects List require in excess of five
years project development time due to the complexity of engineering,
permitting and environmental requirements necessary for the
implementation.
3. Given the information in the Findings, no funds deposited in the AB 1600 Fee
Program Fund in excess of five years prior to the end of the 2000/2001 fiscal year
shall be due or refundable to the sources from which they were collected.
Mayor Florian opened the Public Hearing by asking for anyone wishing to speak
in favor or in opposition of the proposed resolution.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the proposed resolution.
Mayor Florian closed the Public Hearing reserving the right to reopen the Public
Hearing at a later date.
It was moved by Councilmember Susman, seconded by Councilmember
Schneider, and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 2002-06 making
findings to retain AB 1600 Traffic Impact Fees in an amount of $671,912.
8.4 COUNCIL APPROVED AMENDMENT TO POLICE DEPARTMENT'S APPROVED
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2001 TO AUTHORIZE 1) EXPENDITURE OF
$1007000 AS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES UNDER THE CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS)
PROGRAM (AB 1913); AND 2) EXPENDITURE OF $34,407 AS AUTHORIZED BY
THE STATE BUDTET ACT OF 2001 (AB 440) TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
TECHNOLOGY FOP, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Dan Boon, Chief of Police stated the State outlines specific conditions related to
the expenditure of the $100,000 received pursuant to AB 1913 which are:
Town establish a separate interest-bearing fund to record the receipt and
expenditures of monies received pursuant to AB 1913.
Funds be used to supplement existing police services and that the funds not
be used to supplant any existing funding for law enforcement services
currently being provided by the Town.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 17
· Funds only be appropriated following a public hearing at which interested
persons may comment on the proposed appropriations submitted to the
Council by the Police Chief.
· Town Council must consider these requests separate and apart from the
Town's annual General Fund allocations for the Police Department.
Chief Boon stated the $34,407 received pursuant to AB 440 requires the Town
provide a yearly report to the State Department of Finance to include the following:
· Show how funds received in fiscal year 2001-2002 were expended or how
the funds are proposed to be expended and when.
· Description of the expenditure and how they will benefit public safety.
· Summary of the public safety budget for the most recent fiscal year.
Chief Boon stated staff's recommendation to purchase the following items with the
monies received pursuant to AB 1913 are as follow:
Police Records Management System
Twenty-five ballistic helmets/face shields
Six hand-held portable traffic radar units
Non-lethal weapons/munitions
One digital video camera
Twenty-five cassette tape recorders
Cassette tapes
VHS tapes
Breathalyzer Unit (I year lease)
Time lapse VCR
Radio voting/repeating site
$ 40,000
7,800
11,200
9,200
2,000
3,300
2,000
8,000
6,000
500
10,000
$100,000
Chief Boon stated staff's recommendation to purchase the following with monies
received pursuant to AB 440:
Six in-unit audio/video recording units
$ 34,407
Mayor Florian opened the Public Hearing by asking for anyone wishing to speak
in favor or in opposition of the proposed expenditures.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the proposed expenditures.
Mayor Florian closed the Public Hearing reserve the right to reopen the Public
Hearing at a later date.
Town of Truckee
January 3, 2002 Regular
Page 18