Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998-01-22 Town of Truckee TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES January 22, 1998, 4:30 P.M. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor/Chair Florian called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council/Agency Members Drake, McCormack, Schneider, and Chair Florian ABSENT: Council/Agency Member Susman ALSO PRESENT: Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager/Executive Director and Vicki Soderquist, Deputy Town Clerk/RDA Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was not held. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT - None 5. PRESENTATIONS - None 6. STAFF REPORTS 6.1 Approval of the Truckee Redevelopment Project Area Boundaries and Preliminary Plan. Recommendation: Agency adopt Agency Resolution 98-02 approving the preliminary plan and project area boundary, and authorizing base year and directing notice to all taxing agencies that Truckee has initiated the Redevelopment Planning Process. (AGENCY ITEM) Elizabeth Eddins, Senior Planner, gave an update regarding the formation of the RDA and the selection of the survey area. Once the project area was approved, the staff would begin the preparation of the draft EIR and development plan. The Planning Commission had reviewed the proposed project area and recommended the inclusion of two parcels, the parcels containing the Shell station and the factory outlets located along Donner Pass Road because they were surrounded by blighted areas and were gateway parcels. Member McCormack questioned ifRDA funds could be utilized outside of the project area. Jim Williams, Consultant, stated it was possible with a finding that there was a benefit to the project area. He noted that one of the Town's policies was to encourage industrial development. Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development, noted that 3 of the 4 designated industrial areas were in the project area, PC-3 (Joerger Road) was not included. Mr. Wright stated the purpose of redevelopment areas was to create a tax increment that would help fund programs. By taking areas out of the project area and stating that RDA funds would be spent outside of the project area could be defeating that purpose. Member McCormack stated that the ShaNeva site was blighted but the surrounding area was not, therefore, he felt it was too weak to include. He was more comfortable including Hippy Hill. Mr. Wright stated the blighting influences on Hippy Hill were access, i.e. surrounded by a freeway, state highway, railroad, and single access over the creek which were all impacts to developing the property. He also felt there were arguments for including the ShaNeva property. Member Drake questioned the inclusion of the two parcels by the Planning Commission. Ms. Eddins replied that the recommendation was to keep the project area contiguous on Donner Pass Road as it was surrounded by blighted areas. Mr. Williams noted that if there were objections regarding those parcels they could be removed in the future. Member Drake questioned when property owners would be given the opportunity to protest inclusion of their property. Mr. Williams replied that a public hearing would be held before the development plan became official. Taxing agencies would be notified immediately and property owners would be noticed in the near future. Ms. Eddins stated that the Gateway Shopping Center was also recommended for exclusion. Mr. Williams stated that it was a new project and did not seem to be as impacted by surrounding parcels. Ms. Eddins stated that some park and public areas were included which would make it easier to spend RDA funds in those areas. Mr. Williams stated if the Town had a public policy to improve park areas it was more useful to include those in the project area. There was no downside to inclusion as it was implementing the existing policy. Mr. Wright referred to the parcels that had been removed north of 1-80 on the West End. Ms. Eddins replied that they were excluded because they were residential and did not meet the criteria of blight. Member Schneider questioned if Hippy Hill should be included if it was being considered for a future park or public land. Mr. Williams replied that they had to look at what the current use was. Where land was presently undeveloped it was very hard to include in the project area, if it was public property it could be included. Mr. Wright stated that lots could be reconfigured to the property owner's benefit. Opportunities would be available to help make businesses more successful. Mr. Williams stated redevelopment did not change a property owners taxes, or affect ownership, it was a positive. If the RDA used eminent domain it could be spotted down to specific parcels and would not have to be all or nothing. Ms. Eddins stated they had tried to include all the parcels on Donner Pass Road so there would be continuity to the development area, there was also a need for streetscape in that area. Mr. Lashbrook stated their other directive was that they could not split parcels with the project area boundary. Mr. Wright noted that projects frequently focused on streetscapes or trails, but the purpose ofa RDA was to help private property owners within the project area become more productive. Member Schneider felt them should be strict parameters for the use of eminent domain. Mr. Williams stated that staff would return with policy guidelines for review. Member McCormack stated he had reservations regarding the inclusion of Hippy Hill. Mr. Williams replied that he would not include it in the project area as it was a totally undeveloped piece of property that had never been developed. He felt it could be challenged under the RDA law. Member McCormack stated that it could be left in and removed if there was a protest. Town of Truckee Town Council/Redevelopment Agency January 22, 1998 Special Page 2 Mr. Lashbrook stated that a discussion point with the Special Districts was focused on fixing problems and he felt if undeveloped property was included it would make that argument difficult to defend. Mr. Wright noted than an option would be to remove the parcel to the east as it would probably not be developed if the roundabout proceeded. Even with the split there could still be a challenge issue. Mr. Williams stated there was a risk that the process could be completed without a protest, the RDA adopt the plan and ordinance, and during the 30 days prior to the ordinance taking effect a lawsuit could be filed because the area was not blighted. If the court agreed they would have to go back and rehear the development plan and preliminary report which could take an additional 3-4 months. If that occurred it could result in a loss of one year's increment. He was not comfortable including the property. He also noted that only 20% of the property included in the project are could be undeveloped which could also be a potential problem. Chair Florian noted that the map showed Deerfield Drive going all the way through. Mr. Lashbrook replied that there was an existing easement, but recommended that the base map be modified. Chair Florian questioned if the Town had received input from the Special Districts. Member Drake referred to an article in the Sierra Sun where the Fire District had stated they would have to raise their fees to cover their losses due to the RDA. Mr. Wright stated that staff had met with most of the taxing agencies on more than one occasion. Most of the preliminary comments were supportive of the RDA and its concepts, but the Fire Department had been more resistant. Staff would be meeting with the Special Districts as the plan developed. Mr. Lashbrook noted that RDA monies could be used to help reduce demands on Special District services. Mr. Wright stated that by law, the RDA had to prepare a report which would list the financial impacts for each District over the life of the project. They would not lose anything they were presently getting, but would be receiving a lesser share of the future growth. It was important to note that an RDA resulted in more development and the scenarios showed that at buildout the Districts would be in a better position than they would otherwise be. Tom Covey, Director of Public Works, stated that RDA funds could be utilized for infrastructure, i.e. sewer, water, etc. Mr. Wright stated that was correct, but developments of that type should be negotiated early. It was usually done incrementally as development occurred. Margaret Urke, CABPRO, questioned the criteria for including the school property in the project area. Mr. Williams replied that if the Agency wanted to make improvements around the school property, i.e. signals, streetscape, landscape, etc. the property had to be included in the project area. He also noted there was no tax increment on school properties. Motion by Member McCormack to approve Resolution 98-02, Seconded by Member Schneider, passed 4-O-1 with Member Susman absent. Resolution 98-02 to become effective on 1/29/98. Mr. Williams stated that staff would prepare a detailed plan regarding tax impacts and what the plan would do. It was to the Town's advantage to state what would be done in general terms so the plan could be modified without being rewritten. 6.2 Establishing the Project Area Committee (PAC) Formation Procedures and Election Procedures. Recommendation: Council adopt Council Resolution 98-01 establishing the project area committee formation procedures and Council Resolution 98-02 establishing the project area committee election procedures. (COUNCIL ITEM) Town of Truckee Town Council/Redevelopment Agency January 22, 1998 Special Page 3 Councilmember Drake questioned if the Town was required to have a PAC. Mr. Williams replied that because they would be dealing with housing issues he felt it was required. The PAC was advisory only to the Agency and would submit a written report when their review was completed. Mayor Florian questioned if representatives from the Special Districts would be included on the PAC. Mr. Williams replied that they would not be included, they were given an opportunity to respond through a separate process. Councilmember McCormack questioned if the PAC's main function was to review housing. Mr. Williams replied that it was not their main function. They would be making comments on the elements of the plan and what the Agency intended to do. Mr. Williams and Mr. Wright emphasized that they would be advisory only. Mayor Florian stated that the PAC needed to be informed early what their function was. Councilmember Drake questioned the process if the PAC objected to the plan. Mr. Williams replied that it could still be passed by the Agency and Council but would require a 4/5ths vote. Ms. Eddins stated that staff would return on 2/19/98 with the proposed make-up of the PAC and election procedures. Councilmember McCormack questioned if the PAC would become involved in actual projects. Mr. Williams replied that they would not, their function was to review the plan only. Ms. Eddins noted that members would have to comply with the Public Official's Disclosure Rules and the Brown Act. Councilmember McCormack noted that the resolution stated the "Planning Commission selected the project area". He felt it should be changed to the "Planning Commission recommended the project area". Ms. Eddins requested that Council adopt Resolution 98-01 and set a public hearing on 2/19/98 for review of the PAC election procedures. Motion by Coun¢ilmember Schneider to approve Resolution 98-01, Seconded by Councilmember McCormack, passed 4-0-1 with Councilmember Susman absent. "Selected" to be changed in the Resolution to "recommended". Mayor FIorian stated that it was the consensus of the Council to set a public hearing for 2/19/98 to hear the proposed PAC election procedures. 7. COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None 8. ADJOURNMENT - Mayor/Chair Florian adjourned the meeting at 5:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, STEPHEN L. WRIGHT, Executive Director Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC,'I~A Secretary Town of Truckee Town Council/Redevelopment Agency January 22, 1998 Special Page 4