HomeMy Public PortalAbout1999-05-13 Town of Truckee
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
May 13, 1999, 6:00 P.M.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room
11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA
CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Susman called the special meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmembers: Drake (left the meeting at 9:10 p.m.), Florian, McCormack,
Schneider, and Mayor Susman
Commission Members: Owens, Threshie, Werchick and Chair Richards
ABSENT: Comrmssion Member Tryggvi (excused)
ALSO PRESENT:
Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community
Development; Duane Hall, Town Planner; and Vicki Soderquist, Town
Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
WORKSHOP
4.1 Planned Community 2 (PC-2) Economic Analysis Public Scoping. Recommendation:
Council and Commission accept public comments and discuss possible revisions to the scope of work.
Mr. Lashbrook stated that the purpose of the analysis was to provide information necessary to
determine Plan consistency with the economic policies of the General Plan, as well as technical
information on fiscal effects which would be incorporated into the EIR. He then reviewed the PC-2
development scheme from the Summary Plan which included four phases. Mr. Lashbrook introduced
Steve Wahlstrom of Applied Development Economics.
Mr. Wahlstrom stated that they would not be asking anyone their opinion on anything, but would be
collecting indicator data and purchasing patterns. Chamber information from the RRC Tourism
Profile would also be utilized. Mr. Wahlstrom then reviewed the focus of the proposed project,
economic issues to be addressed, data sources, retail market analysis methodology, golf course analysis
methodology, fiscal analysis, and project outcomes.
Mr. Lashbrook noted that the market feasibility of a golf course was included but the level of analysis
was less than required to finance a golf course. It was important because the whole of the design of
the project was based around a golf course. If it were not feasible there would be the question as to
whether it was an appropriate design for the planned community.
Mr. Wahlstom stated they would address the type of residential design, i.e. scattered (large parcels)
or clustered (village) and what would make the project site work better. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the
issue that would be addressed was if there was a difference in uses between the two sites, i.e. the
ability to be successful and/or significant differences. Mr. Wahlstrom then reviewed the three types
of surveys that would be utilized. He felt the data received could have a life of 3-5 years for future
planning.
Councilmember Drake stated that the greatest interest to him regarding the survey was input from the
locals and he felt the survey should be distributed in post office boxes, as there would be a greater
response. He further suggested that if they were looking for local responses that the interviews be
conducted Monday through Thursday, away from the Downtown commercial core.
Commissioner Threshie questioned how they would identify the 1,000 second homes to be surveyed,
as some were in Town for I day and some 200 days which created different impacts for
demancVcontribution. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that they would use a stratified random sample and by
chance would get some of the 200 day people. The survey was to identify their behavior, i.e. what did
they bring with them or buy here, to what extent, and how to quantify.
Commassioner Owens questioned the methodology used to insure there was no bias. Mr. Wahlstrom
replied that they would stay away from opinions and focus on hard information as to how people were
spending money. Commissioner Owens stated that residential design clustering and advice on
marketability were opinion driven. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that they would not be asking
shoppers/businesses/households about design as statistical data and design was unrelated. There was
a small amount in the budget to get a housing developer's unbiased view of the site as a housing site.
Councilmember Flor/an questioned the usual percentage of return on mailed surveys. Mr. Wahlstrom
replied that 5% was good, but he expected a higher response due to local interest. Councilmember
Flonan questioned how they could ensure that the sales tax data received was correct. Mr. Wahlstrom
replied that they would also check with the State Franchise Tax Board. Councilmember Florian
questioned if the golf courses would provide the requested information. Mr. Wahlstrom responded
that there were no assurances but rounds played were well documented in the golf industry. Private
courses may be more reluctant, but public courses were public information. They could also use
national data or another method if necessary.
Commissioner Threshie questioned how they would address market development since there was no
freeway marketability. Mr. Wahlstrom stated that the Downtown was established with no freeway
visibility and they would have to look at what a new center could leam from Downtown. Mr.
Lashbrook stated that marketing of the Downtown area was not in the scope of work. Commassioner
Threshie questioned how design input and project outcome would be presented to them and whether
there would be proposed design solutions. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that there would not be a
professional design.
Councilmember Schneider felt they would be remiss in surveying only second homeowners and not
renters. She also cautioned using the verbiage ',tourist". Mr. Wahlstrom replied that in order to survey
renters the Town would have to put in a lot more resources and wait until next winter to talk to ski
rentals but noted that the Chamber survey data was done over a year's time. Mr. Lashbrook stated that
if they had a database of ski rentals, they could be incorporated as part of the second homeowners
survey.
Councilmember Schneider stated that there was a potential for the area to become regional even if the
Town did not set out to do that. A~er the survey they may find a significant amount of leakage and
that some people would rather have it that way. She questioned if the information would tell them
whether a smaller grocery store would be sufficient for Truckee or if one grocery store would kill
another, other than Downtown. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that the data would show spending patterns
and it was possible that if they built another grocery store it could result in a loss of sales to an existing
store, not result in closure of a store but a shin.
Town of Truckee
May 13, 1999 Special
Page 2
Commissioner Richards questioned if a survey of 1,000 homeowners was a viable sample. Mr.
Wahlstrom responded that the Gallup Poll only surveyed 500-700 people. The Chamber had surveyed
1,300 people over a long period of time. One thousand was a lot and to do more would be more
expensive. Commissioner Richards questioned the number of response needed from second
homeowners. Mr. Wahlstrom stated the standard rule of thumb in order to have significant data was
200 responses, if they received only 100, they would have data with less significance. If there were
a deficiency in responses the Town would have to decide whether they wanted to do a follow up.
Commissioner Richards questioned when they would survey shoppers. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that
it would be after the middle of June to get a mix of visitors/locals. Surveys would be conducted on
weekdays and weekends both for balance.
Councilmember McCormack stated that the lodging and golf course were a major part of the proposed
development. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that the future growth in golf in general was a question mark
and there were some indications that it was slowing down and they would have to take that into
account. If the golf course were ever built more market research would have to be done. The basic
information would give them an idea as to whether a golf course was a good centerpiece for the
project. Councilmember McCormack stated that residential design was very market driven and it was
important that the consultant have knowledge of the market in Truckee. Mr. Wahlstrom stated that
a critical part oftbe plan would be the unbiased developer's view. Mr. Lashbrook stated they were
trying to get feedback on the issue of the triangle versus the other site for commercial development,
i.e. to the developer were they equally as marketable. Councilmember McCormack questioned if they
would address integration of other facilities with residential but mix some of the condos with that. Mr.
Lashbrook stated that a lot of money would be required to include residential design. The survey was
try/ng to determine what made the most sense and provide some information because at the present
time there was none available. Comrmssioner Owens agreed that the developer should have
experience in an alpine environment.
Mayor Susman stated that at the workshops there had been discussion regarding types of residential
developments, not to have the project designed but alternatives other than what was presented by the
project proponents. Infrastructure costs to the Town of the proponent's project versus alternatives and
what were the cost balances. Mr. Lashbrook replied that no designs had been presented.
Councilmember McCormack questioned if the consultant would give an opinion regarding a
residential community or mixed community. Mr. Lashbrook replied that would be included.
Mayor Susman questioned if the report would identify the ability of existing square footage to fill the
demand of existing and future needs. Mr. Wahlstrom stated that just because there was leakage it did
not mean they had to build a store. They would find out what the limitations were of existing
sites/stores, i.e. existing capabilities to expand and corporate interest.
Mr. Lashbrook then reviewed the letters received from the Truckee Donner Chamber of Commeree,
Fred Zabell, and Matt Kowta on behalf of Stefanie Olivieri (copies on file).
Milan White assumed there was a business plan with a feasibility plan and questioned to what extent
that data would be used. Mr. Lashbrook replied that the Town had not seen any marketing data from
the developers, but would compare data if presented.
Jana Caughron stated she was concerned about the independence of the consultant as he was being
paid by funds from the proponent. She was also concerned that people were not clear as to whether
it would be a test function or audit, it was very subjective and leading questions could be asked. Mr.
Lashbrook stated that the Town would pay the consultant with the funds coming from the proponent.
Town of Truckee
May 13, 1999 Special
Page 3
The consultant would be trying to do as scientific a study as possible using professional expertise and
assumptions. All information would be documented well so it could be tested over time.
Rich Griese expressed his concern that any retail/commercial in the triangle would not be pedestrian
oriented. He felt the economic study should take into consideration public transportation. Mr.
Lashbrook acknowledged that the commercial triangle and pedestrian access was an issue of the
General Plan but the consultants would only be looking at whether there was a significant difference
in feasibility if moved to the other site, i.e. would it still work as a grocery store. The EIR would look
at traffic issues and transit and that was where pedestrian access would be addressed.
Barbara Green questioned what input had been received from the special districts regarding the cost
of delivery of services; the phasing of construction of roads; and TROA issues. Mr. Lashbrook replied
that most of Ms. Green's questions would be addressed by the fiscal analysis, but it was assumed that
as development occurred services would have to be sufficient. The Town would not want all roads
to be constructed at the beginning. The developer would pay all impact fees, which were adequate to
cover those costs, and the Town would be talking with the special districts to address those issues.
Elizabeth Eaton questioned if there would be an increase in property taxes due to the increased
number of students in the school and who would pay for traffic lights if required due to increased
traffic. Mr. Lashbrook stated that a school site had been identified (middle school) and ali new
construction would pay impact fees. Up to the present time the School District had not asked for an
analysis. If traffic lights were required as a direct result of the development, the developer would pay.
If not on their property there could be a cost sharing by other development as well. The real purpose
of a specific plan was to provide a detailed and long-term tool for exactly what was required and when
for infrastructure. Ms. Eaton encouraged the consultant to utilize a residential developer familiar with
alpine towns.
Jae Gustafson expressed her concern that spending pattems were much different in Truckee. She felt
that data from second homeowners should only be collected from the Truckee area only. Mr.
Wahlstrom stated Ms. Gustafson's point was valid, as there were differences in lifestyles. There were
lifestyles clusters (40) that were used by marketers for distinct shopping patterns and they could look
at those as well.
Don Colclough questioned who was paying for the survey. Mr. Lashbrook stated that $37,000 was
being paid by Hopkins and $10,000 by the Town to expand the survey to include all retail businesses.
The Town would pay the consultant and the developer would pay the Town.
Kathy St Clair stated that it appeared the surveys were geared to higher incomes and questioned if
those with less income were going to be squeezed out of the community. Mr. Lashbrook stated that
there was a problem with the demand versus availability of affordable housing but noted that the
proposed project was required to include 20% affordable housing. Mayor Susman noted that no one
would be excluded from the survey due to income.
Ms. Olivieri requested confirmation that the consultant would not study the impacts of PC-2 on any
other proposed project, just the existing commercial areas. Mr. Lashbrook replied that the General
Plan required that the Town understand the impacts on Downtown and the consultant would study the
impacts on the existing commercial areas. Ms. Olivieri felt it important to include the analysis of the
impacts of the bypass on the Downtown economy, as it was an unknown. If the impact of the bypass
was 10% but an additional impact was added from PC-2, it could be sizeable and recommended that
Town of Truckee
May 13, 1999 Special
Page 4
the analysis of the impacts from the bypass be added to the scope of work. Mr. Lashbmok stated that
the Town could ask Mr. Wahlstrom what the cost of such an addition to the scope of work would be.
Councilmember McCormack stated there were two competing factors regarding the bypass, i.e. it
would take traffic out of Downtown, and how many would go Downtown because it was not as
congested. Mr. Wahlstrom stated that they had conducted a survey in Weaverville regarding the
impacts of a bypass. They would have to survey businesses Downtown to understand what percentage
of their spending came fi.om visitors, survey households to see if they were spending more Downtown
because it was safer and more was parking available, and go to reststops to get input from those that
did not stop Downtown.
Ms. Olivieri felt there had to be statistics available of other cities/towns with similar experiences. The
National Highway Commission was very concerned regarding the affects on downtown areas due to
bypasses especially their cumulative affects on a community. Mr. Wahlstrom stated it was his belief
that the impacts were mixed, it seemed to be half-and-half. Councilmember McCormack stated that
the Downtown area was tourist oriented and people would still would come, whereas some towns
depended on traffic going through. Therefore, he felt a lot of the information available would not
translate to Truckee. Ms. Olivieri stated that if the information would only be a guesstimate it sounded
like it was not worth doing but it was her experience that when 1-80 came in, Donner Lake died and
never recovered. The Downtown only recovered because Hwy 267 was built; her concerns were based
on life experiences. She felt there had to be data that could be quantified. Mr. Wahlstrom stated they
could collect data but there was no national data available, only war stories.
George Robertson did not feel there should be any concern that the consultant would be presenting
a rosy picture because the developer was paying.
Bob Tamietti referred to the economic modeling to asses impacts of introduction of
commercial/office space and expressed his concern that if they were talking about gross dollar
comparisons they needed to take into account that Safeway's margins were more aggressive than other
stores where there was more competition. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that the model did not take that into
account, only gross dollars and not margins. It was very important to note that when there were only
two markets the consumer did not have much of a choice, if there were three markets there was better
price competition. The shopper survey could be extended to try to quantify consumer satisfaction or
dissatisfaction.
Councilmember Schneider questioned if they would be looking at dollars spent and/or income levels
to see what people could afford to spend. Mr. Wahlstrom stated they would compile low income/high
income to get the net which would indicate whether there was enough spending to support a new store.
Incomes were inherent in the whole process.
Natalie Korp, Boardmember, MAPF, stated the concerns raised by Mr. Kowta were the same as
theirs and she would like to see them looked into. She noted that many people in Truckee did specific
kinds of shopping in Reno (Costco and Home Depot). Mr. Wahlstrom stated that was currently not
factored in the analysis. The shopper's survey would ask where they shopped, how often, and where
they went. If they found people spending 50% in retail sales in Reno they would factor that in, but it
was unlikely that would turn around the outcome as the model had a certain percentage for
supermarkets, Costco, Kmart/Walmart and other specialty stores for food.
Ms. Korp stated the bypass would terminate at PC-2 and when completed those people leaving Town
would be on a different route with no reason to go Downtown which she felt had to be factored in.
Town of Truckee
May 13, 1999 Special
Page 5
o
Meg Copeland questioned why a survey would be taken outside of Truckee. Mr. Lashbrook replied
that the focus of the survey of second homeowners was in the Town of Truckee, but there was also
a minor segment of Northstar that shopped in Truckee. Mayor Susman agreed that there were people
from Northstar, Squaw Valley and other immediate areas that came into Truckee to shop. They were
not trying to create a regional shopping center but trying to find who was shopping here.
Ms. Korp questioned if the report would break down shopping into local versus second homeowners
and shopping patterns out of the area. Mr. Wahlstrom replied that it would. Ms. Korp stated that the
information could show out of the area impacts creating demand which was not local. Mr. Wahlstrom
stated the report was to assist the Council in making those policy decisions. Ms. Korp stated that
hypothetically the Council could be looking at whether to develop Truckee for Truckee or visitors
and/or second homeowners.
Commissioner Richards requested clarification regarding the marketability analysis. Mr. Lashbrook
stated that the report would analyze two issues, i.e. the success without freeway visibility and success
if moved to the other site. There was no freeway visibility and no alternative for freeway visibility.
Comrmssioner Richards referred to the issue of competitive impacts on Downtown and questioned if
it was in the scope of the study. Mr. Lashbrook replied that it was not on a business by business
analysis. There would be an analysis on the kinds of business in PC-2 and those existing Downtown
by categories. Comrmssioner Richards questioned when it would be appropriate for them to see the
market data from the developer. Mr. Lashbrook replied that he did not know if the developer had
performed a feasibility analysis, he had not seen any information.
comrmssioner Threshie questioned what was missing in the scope of work. Mr. Wahlstrom replied
that what was missing were the policy choices, i.e. what the choices were and what the tradeoffs were.
Mr. Lashbrook stated that there appeared to be a consensus on the local survey but not on the
addition of the bypass.
Comtmssioner Richards stated that Mr. Kowta's letter requested that they address the cumulative
impacts of the bypass. Mr. Lashbmok replied that the analysis could add the professional opinion as
to whether the bypass would make it worse or better. Mr. Wahlstrom stated that would not cost
anything.
Mr. Wahlstrom stated that once the survey was out and returns received they would notify staffif they
felt the returns were not sufficient and estimate costs for a follow up (not an additional survey but a
follow up).
ADJOURNMENT. Mayor Susman adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
by:
Respectfully submitted,
Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC, T~kClerk
Town of Truckee
May 13, 1999 Special
Page 6