HomeMy Public PortalAbout2013-06-06 TOWN OF TRUCKEE
�,� � TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANMING COMMISSION
' MEETING MINUTES
�� �o, June 6, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
'•`r'���tl�a� F��ae�0���"6, Town Hall — Council Chambers
10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Wallace Dee called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 6 01:47 PM
2. ROLL CALL: Councilmember Barr, Commissioner Buchheister, Vice Mayor Flora, Chair
Ramos, Mayor Wallace Dee, Commissioner Murphy, Councilmember Brown, Commissioner
Cornell, Councilmember Jones and Vice Chair Beckman.
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director McLaughlin, Senior Planner LaChance,
Town Attorney Morris, Senior Engineer Vaughn and Administrative Secretary Dabe.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Chair Ramos.
Mayor Dee Wallace stated that Town Council met in closed session prior to the workshop; there
was no reportable action.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mayor Wallace Dee opened public comment at 6:03 p.m. Seeing none,
Mayor Wallace Dee closed public comment.
' Councilmember Jones recused herself from the proceedings as she lives on South River Street.
5. WORKSHOP ITEM 6 05 06 PM
5.1 TRUCKEE SPRINGS COMMUNITY WORKSHOP. Application No. 12-005a/SP (Truckee
Springs Summary Plan); Owner: Lyn Bright; Agent: SCO Planning & Engineering; 10155
South River Street (APNs 79-300-12 and 19-130-26, -27, -28, -29�. Jaime LaChance, Senior
Planner.
Through the Truckee Springs Summary Plan, the applicant and community are in the first stage
of establishing the vision for development on the 26.2-acre, privately owned land at the western
end of South River Street. The applicant is proposing dedication of open space along the
Truckee River, restoration of the historic ice pond, five single-family lots adjacent to the current
homes on the river, and a potential for either 80 multi-family residential units or 120
hotel/lodging units at the western end.
Staff Recommendation: That the Town Council and Planning Commission jointly conduct a
community workshop for the following purposes: 1) receive an over of the project proposal, 2)
accept verbal public comment, 3) consider written comments from the Historic Preservation
Advisory Commission, special districts and agencies, and the Neighborhood Workshop, 4)
address the identified policy questions outlined in this staff report, and 5) provide formal
direction to the applicant team regarding the Truckee Springs Summary Plan.
, Staff noted the following modification to the workshop format: rather than staff going through
each individual issue identified in the staff report after the applicant presentation, the Planning
Commission and Town Councfl will address each issue at the will of the Mayor.
Senior Planner LaChance presented information from the staff report (on file with the Town
Duai Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2013—Page 1
Clerk). Additional informat+on included a description of the Town documents that should be
referenced to guide development within the Truckee Springs area. including the General Plan,
the Downtown Specific Plan. Development Code. Development Code Zoning Maps, Downtown
River Revitalizations Strategy and the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. LaChance also '
summarized the written public comments received on the project 6 21 ?9 PM
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Dale Creighton, SCO Planning and Engineering – 6 22 00 PM
• Significance to Hilltop Master Plan – integral part of Legacy Trail component. Plan is to
continue Legacy Trail north of Cottonwood and connect into the Bright property.
• Rich history – dating from 1800s railroad. winter tourism site, ice palace, bobsled, etc.
• Direction taken from General Plan. Downtown Specific Plan. River Revitalization Plan
and Development Code.
• Property was previously approved for mobile home development prior to Town
incorporation.
• Site constraints: wetland de6neations. cultural resources (working with Washoe Tribe,
good understanding of resources they would like to protect); avalanche study;
geotechnical investigation; high voltage lines (unable to underground, per utility
companies—lines can be relocated, but requirement is a 75-foot buffer on each side with
no vegetation); ice pond: etc.
• Downtown Specific Plan guideline allows up to 40 single-family residences, 80 multi-
family residential units or 120 lodging units. Design concepts are not a development
proposal; applicant is requesting establishment of zoning (currently zoned Master Plan).
• Sfight property factored into the 2012 Hotel Avery traffic study, allowing up to 80 multi-
� family units on the site.
COUNCIL AND COMMISSION CLARIFYING QUESTIONS '
The applicant provided the following information in response to CounciUCommission questions:
• Traffic improvements: coming down Brockway. a left turn pocket into South River Street
and a through lane across to the bridge: a center lane on the bridge to allow for a left
turn to South River Street and a right deceleration into West Rfver Street; left turn pocket
coming out of East River Street and right turn coming out of South River Street.
Staff noted the following correction traffic discussion is in relation to South River
Street and South East River Street. not East River Street and West River Street.
• Asking for powntown Mixed Use zoning to allow for single-family residential, multi-family
residential and lodging options, or a combination thereof.
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions.
• Property was designated with Master Plan zoning when Town incorporated: most of
zoning in Truckee was pulled over directly from Nevada County. For properties deemed
to have significant development potential, the Specific Plan and Master Plan processes
were created to provide additional review of potential development.
• Master Plan process would involve adoption of the Master Plan with specific zoning –
primarily Downtown Mixed Use, some Open Space along the river, Recreation zoning
around the pond (actual use of pond to be determined through Master Plan process).
and Downtown Residential for five properties closest to the current end of South River
Street.
• This is the community's Master Plan: how it looks, feels. etc.. is determined by the
Planning Commission and Town Council on behalf of the community. This is very '
different from reviewing a project for consistency with the adopted regulations: this sets
the regulations and provides broader discretionary power to the Town.
• Any development or Master Plan proposal shouid look at all General Plan elements.
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6. 2013— Page 2
including the economic development section. Three components of Downtown River
Revitalization Strategy were social, environmental and economic. The Truckee Springs
staff report recommends that if a significant lodging component is to remain on the table,
, an economic study should be done.
• Potential public benefit of the ice pond will be reviewed in the Master Plan. The update
of the cultural resource assessment and wetland delineation may preclude use of that
portion of the property.
• At Council's request, staff showed a slide comparing the proposed Truckee Springs
Summary Plan to the vision in the Downtown River Revitalization Strategy: large,
westerly portion of the site ("D-1") primarily in its natural state transitioning to the
Department of Fish and Wildlife property; the small, easterly portion ("D-2") was
recommended for a small, boutique hotel.
COUNCIL/COMMISSION RESPONSE
Commissioner Murphy suggested that an economic development analysis should be included
as one of the technical studies.
Councilmember Brown stated that the use of the property depicted in the Downtown River
Revitalization Strategy seems reversed from the Summary Plans in terms of openness.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Wallace Dee opened public comment at 6:46 p.m. 6:46:05 PM
Russ Jones, South River Street resident—
' • Concerned with traffic on South River Street. Does not think there is a direct relation
between density and the traffic studies.
• Keeps hearing that the intersection and streets are adequate for the development; would
like to see more data.
• Would like to see a right turn lane.
• Does not support an ice rink on the street.
Ruth Cross, South River Street resident—
• General Plan should be revisited periodically when a major development is being
introduced to see if it is still viable for the community.
• South River Street has been a dead-end street and an integral part of the community.
• Currently 14 homes and minimal traffic on South River Street. Requires entering the
street with no turn lane going downhill. There is no room for a light or traffic circle.
• Restrictions created by railroad. Compared dead-end road to Deerfield.
• South River Street not wide enough to handle traffic, especially at the entrance. Looking
at two hotels with commercial aspects and valet. Increase of traffic on street could be
1,000 percent.
• Lived on the street in flood of 1997-98; road into proposed site disappeared. Third flood
in the 40 years she has lived there. West side of pond would be landlocked. Need
secondary access. South River Street should be emergency access only with main
access via a bridge to the west.
' David Sick, South River Street resident—
' • Tried to find examples of one- or two-block street in Tahoe with two hotels on the street;
could not find any. Sandwiching a street of single-family residences between two large
hotels is not safe or consistent with how the street has evolved. Has been primarily open
space, so open space design is more appropriate.
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2013—Page 3
• Very concerned with safety. Hotel Avery will be a 24/7 valet service with only 28 parking
spaces onsite. No way the intersection is going to support that. Does not believe any of
the traffic studies. Today waited five minutes to turn left going home. Infrastructure
cannot support another 250 people/residences. '
• Thinks something more consistent with how street has evolved should be done (i.e..
single-family homes). Should preserve integrity of space and views to public.
• Applicant stated they are struggling with how to fit 40 single-family residential homes on
the property. Due to site constraints. would suggest reducing the number of homes to
20; would be more consistent with existing homes.
• Environment should be thoroughly reviewed ice pond should remain open. A lot of
Native American remnants exist on the site: should be thoroughly reviewed. There is a
lot of history on street.
• Would like to see a study that proves the need for another hotel. Economic aspect
should be considered.
Cliff Hartwell, 34-year Truckee resident—
• Was on Downtown Specific Plan committee for two years and chairman of Phase 4 of
the Legacy Trail.
• Concerned with public access with Department of Fish and Wildlife property; one of
things wanted to do with Legacy Trail was to include a handicapped fishing area. Is
concerned with that going away.
• Concerned with what will happen to the Legacy Trail. Project was to have bridge
crossing over and eventually going to Donner Lake
Joan Jones, South River Street resident—
• Speaking as a resident and not as a public official.
• Moved to South River Street to find a home on a street with less traffic to raise daughter ,
A commercial project was proposed in 2004: residents united to keep street residential,
• If a hotel were constructed, would bring commercial development in addition to noise.
traffic, activity of guests, deliveries, etc Forty residences would be least intrusive option.
• Does not support redevelopment of ice pond to functioning ice rink. Best to leave site as
it is due to biological resources.
• Least intrusive development should be chosen. hotel would devastate.
Yahn Holan, Truckee resident for 13 years —
• Does not live adjacent to the property. but understands the issues the residents have
and the desire to see the property developed in the least impactful way.
• Would like to see the General Plan goals followed to make Truckee a more livable,
walkable community Would like to see this property developed to be affordable for
locals so people could live there and walk to downtown.
• Thinks multifamily development would be appropriate. although the number may need to
be reduced from 80 units to address traffic issues. Most comments are pushing for
single-family units. Truckee has many singie-family units out of reach of locais: would
like to see more affordable property near downtown.
• Encouraging to see public access to river corridor being preserved and conversation
about the Legacy Trail; ice pond should be preserved in natural habitat.
• Should not shy away from higher density Nine developable acres should be developed
with the highest density the lot will allow based on constraints due to traffic. etc.
Lisa Holan, Truckee resident for 15 years — '
• Does not support development of ice pond. Pond has been reclaimed by nature and
would not support an ice rink. Would like to see pond remain as natural as possible.
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6. 2013— Page 4
Alexis 011ar, Mountain Area Preservation Director—
• Submitted formal comments to Town. Site is an abundant resource and needs to involve
robust planning.
' . Traffic, second ingress/egress point should be analyzed.
• Not supportive of 120 lodging units; need to look at connection with existing homes.
Nine-acre site could support smaller single-family homes to create opportunity for locals
to live and access downtown. Great opportunity for smart growth development that
aligns with existing density.
• Site has amazing solar access; building design should support solar.
• Site has flooded in the past; development needs to be able to withstand floods.
• Recommend conservation easement over ice pond. Should be preserved as ecological
resource with interpretive signage regarding pond's history.
• Cultural assessment needs to be updated; would like to see resources preserved.
• Site possesses potential connectivity to downtown core, smart growth, trails — not just a
tourist economy, but creating development for locals. Great opportunity for the
community to participate in the master plan process.
Val Kelly, Downtown Truckee resident for 30 years —
• Has walked the Bright property many times; finds amazing things every time. Would like
to see the Bright property as something everyone can enjoy, developed with interpretive,
historical information, places to picnic, walk, ride bikes, etc. Safe zone right now; would
hate to see it developed at all.
• Lived through flood; was a lot of water there. Can't imagine having a project there.
• Hopes property owners, staff and Council can come to a decision that will not damage
the property and will make it accessible to the public.
' APPLICANT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron West, representing property owner—
• Thanked people who have talked about the pond; agrees it is unique and special.
Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown River Revitalization Strategy direction is to
preserve the pond, applicant is willing to work with the Town and historical groups on
what is the best use. Supports the public input for pond preservation in its natural state.
• Looking for input. No projects proposed at this time; ultimate use of the property will
depend on zoning. Would like to keep the proposed zoning and have a future developer
to bring a proposal in for review.
• Traffic is an existing concern. Pedestrian bridge is shown in the Town plan to relieve
some of that. Putting a vehicle bridge across river is an option.
• Working on cultural assessment with Native American representatives.
Mayor Wallace Dee closed public comment at 7:18 p.m. 7 18 29 PM
COUNCIL AND COMMISSION DELIBERATION
The Council/Commission provided the following feedback and direction to Town staff and the
applicant team as the formal Truckee Springs Master Plan is prepared. Comments in
bold/italics are considered to be formal direction from the Council/Commission majority, as
modifications or additions to the staff recommendations in the staff report.
' Issue #1 - Allowable Land Uses
• Supported the staff recommendation, with a modification to include live-work units in
the allowa6le uses to provide an opportunity for people to live and work at the
site, reducing traffic impacts.
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2013—Page 5
Issue #2 - Densitv & Intensitv
• Suggested a macro view guideline density for three proposed uses and working back
from there '
• Downtown Specific Plan was adopted in 1997, before Hotel Avery was approved:
dynamic is changed with lodging units bookending a quiet residential street. Is lodging
still an appropriate use on this site? Ties back into multi-family/single family and what
that looks like. Question of community continuity.
• Traffic analysis —with secondary access. would no longer have the bookend issue. If the
street is not a throughway. that changes the picture Cannot address that element at this
point.
• Would secondary access be possible where the property abuts the Department of Fish
and Wildlife property?
• Is Hotel Avery project still contingent on obtaining financing?
o Staff responded that, at this time. Hotel Avery is still planning to move forward
with their project within the timeframes specified by their approvals.
• Lodging element wou/d warrant review of size and density and wou/d require
secondary access.
• Downtown River Revitalization Strategy is the /atest/ook by the community at this
area. The DRRS concept deserves deference; conclusions were drawn wiih
knowledge of preceding documents.
• If a /odging element or multi-family component were to remain, a means to
evaluate total size, floor area, square footage, etc, shou/d be incorporated.
• An economic analysis of any lodging option shou/d be done. Could be a viable
economic engine; hard to rule out at this point in the process without sufficient
analysis. Having 120 rooms may de excessive.
• Difficult to apply finite numbers or specific densities Numbers in guiding documents are ,
placeholders until the Master Plan process is completed. Given site constraints, 80 multi-
family units or 40 single-family residential units seem to be pushing the envelope. Would
require more creative design work and more traffic analysis.
• Feels dense compared to the Downtown River Revitalization Strategy. Current layout
absorbs a lot of space the community would like to see remain open. Even though
guidelines are not regulatory, they should be followed. Need to follow the Community
Character element.
• Would like to see continuity with street rather than a huge clustering of homes at far end.
• Need more traffic analysis with any option that would require secondary access.
Secondary access should be the developer's responsibility.
• Too early in process to determine if 40 single-family residences is too many.
• Given smart infill principles. hesitant to reduce density cap at this time with only review
of conceptual plans; seems to have potential for clustering. Would need to see a
proposed project.
• Need to identify support infrastructure rather than density (e.g., what infrastructure would
be needed to support three versus 200 houses?).
• Developer will have to deal with airport compatibility: is in flight scope.
• Number of units presented must include affordable housing based on town percentage:
granting no exceptions. Reluctant to give any bonuses unless traffic issues are
addressed. Needs to be consistent with actual buildout.
• Lot 1 is proposed to be a developable lot: need to protect property rights to the adjacent
Cross property. Would cut off access to the property behind without a dedicated
easement. Supported the staff recommendation on this issue. ,
Applicant response: We are working with the Cross property owner. Cannot
grant an easement or lot line adjustment until a Master Plan is in place.
I Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2013— Page 6
I
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Most logical place for secondary access would be across from old Nevada County
Corporation Yard. Other options have not been studied at this point; could be another
' recommendation.
• Hotel Avery financing is only contingent regarding Town funds. Project will remain
entitled; whether it is built will be a matter of finding financing.
• Applicant requested that affordable housing would be above and beyond the 40-80-120;
staff recommends that it be inclusive.
Issue #3 - DMU Zoninq District
• Regarding maximum lodging size, should define appropriate footprint(maximum
square footage) and traffic should be compatible; we should not necessarily tell
the hotel what size their rooms should be. Would like to see the applicant propose
a maximum overall square footage or floor area.
• Concern is infrastructure and what design the site can support. Uncomfortable with
defining the square footage. Do not know what a developer would bring back and what
the infrastructure could support.
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Staff report discussed that fact that 120 small rooms with a small lobby would be
different than a grand hotel with cottages and a restaurant. Staff was recommending to
set a maximum square footage or overall square footage on a per—room basis as done
in the study.
Issue #4 - Traffic and Vehicle Circulation
• Need a more comprehensive traffic analysis; secondary access should be part of
' the study if the amount of development necessitates a second access.
• Should look af long-term vision for the old corporation yard and fhe river corridor
in general, and how secondary access would fit in with fhai vision.
• In conversations on river revitalization and the old corporation yard, the Town did not
commit to building a bridge. Need to get the wording changed on any plan that comes
forward; does not identify who is funding the bridge.
• Does transit address buses or just accessibility?
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Funding sources and mechanisms for building a pedestrian bridge were not specifically
identified or implemented/secured in the DRRS.
• Staff has not made specific transit recommendations. Transit is an important
consideration that staff would like to see incorporated into the Master Plan.
Issue #5 - Trails and Pedestrian Circulation
• Important to phase circulation (including trails and pedestrian bridge) appropriately with
development. Supported staff's recommendation proposing that some of the trails be
moved into Phase 1.
• Two different trails are proposed into and through the area.
• Phase 4 of Legacy Trail is proposed to go through the site; how will that be affected?
• Trails and a footbridge would alleviate some traffic through South River Street. Should
offer alternatives to using a car or bus.
. If a vehicle bridge is needed, it should also accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
' Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• All trails are currently proposed to be constructed in Phase 2.
• Staff is proposing two Class 1 paved trails through the site: the trail along riverfront
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2013—Page 7
(exact alignment to be considered) and a trail coming down the hillside from Cottonwood
that would follow the railroad grade; dual alignment would allow grade to transition more
slowly than a steep drop by the pond. Recommendation is to consider that additional
alignment in the Master Plan. �
Issue #6 - Historic Preservation (-HP) Overlav District Boundaries
• Supported the staff recommendations. (See dlscussion and responses under Issue #14.)
Issue #7 - Historic Ice Pond
• Public has been clear on what they wou/d like to see regarding the ice pond(i.e.,
' conservation rather[han development), and Council/Commission leans toward
supporting fhis approach.
• The pond is likely a jurisdictional wetland. which would preclude any development.
• The cultural resource assessment could also preclude development.
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Photos from the Truckee Donner Historical Society indicate there was a cemetery at the
pond site. Staff does not know if there are any bodies currently located there.
Issue #8 - Coordination with DFW
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Working with the Department of Fish and Wildlife would require a coordinated effort.
Staff could work with the applicant on setting up those meetings: critical to have
discussions before finalizing a master plan submittal.
Issue #9 - Affordable Housinq Proqram
• Needs to be developed concurrently with the Master Plan. ,
• Supported the staff recommendations.
Issue #10 - Technical Studies
• Cultural resource assessment is being updated
• Are the wetland report from 2007 and geotechnical study (eight years old) adequate?
• Economic analysis needs to be done for whatever option is proposed, including
lodging of any size, and the single-family and multi-family options.
• Dais fs in agreement on the tree survey.
• Scenic analysis needs to be required to eva/uate the visual impacts from and to
downtown and other surrounding residentia/areas.
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Wetland delineations and Jurisdictional Determinations are required to have been
verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers within the past five years of a land use
decision, therefore a new one is required
• Geotechnical study appears adequate.
• Town avalanche maps were recently updated based on those avalanche studies.
• Staff recommendation is to update species study
Issue #11 - Implementation Measures
, • Supported the staff recommendations.
Issue #12 - Miscellaneous Requirements ,
• In accordance with Town plans, all miscellaneous requirements (colors, lighting, etc.)
should be up to code.
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6. 2013— Page 8
• Supported the staff recommendations.
Issue #13 - Compilation of Comments
t • Master Plan needs to address concerns of the Fire District, etc.; non-negotiable.
• Staff recommendation is to include comments from previous workshop; some comments
seem to fit with what is potentially going to happen, while others do not.
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Direction from the dais would be compiled with the staff report recommendations (unless
modified by the dais) and comments from the workshop, Historic Preservation Advisory
Commission (HPAC), and special districts and agencies. That all becomes formal
direction to the applicant unless the Council direction contradicts any of the others, in
which case it would supersede any of those comments.
• All of direction tonight will be considered in the preparation of the Master Plan. If not in
alignment with Town goals for this property, it does not have to be approved. Consistent
with the direction received tonight.
. Goal is developing a Master Plan that defines future development of the property,
recognizing that the property is unique and deserves special attention. Specific things
will define how and where development occurs, which will be more restrictive than other
properties. If something different is proposed, it should be well-justified.
Issue #14 - Other Issues
• One Commissioner stated that the limitation of building height to 35 feet may not realistic
for a lodging component.
o Staff Response: Restriction of building height to 35 feet should be heavily
considered. If pursuing a lodging option, staff recommended allowing up to an
' additional five feet with the approval of a Use Permit to ensure compatibility and
appropriateness on the site.
• Should encourage use of solar when feasible. (Note: This was recommended in the
Development Standards" table for Issue #3.d.)
• Have not specifically discussed a DRS-4 single-family zoning. Those parcels should be
consistent with existing neighborhood (aside from Lot 1 issues under Issue#2.h). Are
there outstanding issues on those parcels, particularly as they back to the river (i.e.,
setback issues)?
• Historic Preservation Overlay makes sense in relation to the pond, but would want to
have a reasonable transition between existing and new development.
• Did not see any provision for public river access. River is fairly inaccessible; public
access would require some manipulation of that area. Include details for the provision
of required public river access throughout the Master Plan Area.
• Loop road would need to be addressed as a CC&R regarding financing, maintenance,
etc. If there is a bridge, provide public road access dedication to the bridge.
Staff provided the following information in response to Council/Commission questions:
• Current Historic Preservation Overlay District boundary encompasses four properties
(two single-family residential and two public facility properties). Regarding proposed
zoning, that would be about 1.5 of the first two single-family lots and a portion of the
pond property. Property lines, zoning and the -HP overlay district should all align after
the property reconfiguration through the Master Plan.
• HPAC recommended that the -HP overlay district and South River Character Area be
' slightly expanded to encompass the five proposed single-family residential lots and the
entire pond property so they can review that area for consistency with the Downtown
Specific Plan design guidelines and ensure compatibility with the South River Character
Area. HPAC is not proposing to expand the district to encompass the large DMU-zoned
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2013—Page 9
property.
• The 100-year floodplain boundary preciudes any trails within the floodplain, so cannot
formalize trails down to the river bank. Trails already exist. but would not want people to
degrade the vegetation. �
• Under the Technical Studies, one of the requirements for the Truckee River Corridor is a
riparian re-vegetation program. which could provide guidance on public river access.
The Subdivision Map Act requires public river access. which is why the applicant is
proposing to dedicate the frontage as open space and is looking for someone to take
over ownership (e.g_ the Town, Recreation and Park District, land trust, etc.).
• Currently South River Street is maintained by the Town: would provide a natural
turnaround. Loop road would be privately maintained but would be required to be
dedicated for public access.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 8:17 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Town Council on Tuesday, June 11, 2013.
I 6:00 p.m. at 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161. and regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 18. 2013, 6:00 p m. at 10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee. CA 96161.
Approved Respectfully submitted by:
T ���_ , � �� l, (,ti (�-� �
arolyn W ce ee, M�yor Laura Dabe, Administrative Secretary
� on behalf of
Judy Price, MMG Town Clerk ,
'
Dual Dais Meeting Minutes
, June 6. 2013—Page 10