HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #25 (CATT)A
�1
ti ti ;
i
October 29, 2013
Denyelle Nishimori
Senior Planner
Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
RE: PC3 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Nishimori:
The Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe (GATT) is composed of 329 members companies
representing the broad cross section of the building industry and related trades. It is usual practice of
this Association to not comment on draft plans or environmental analysis for specific projects. however,
in this case, CATT is submitting comment to set the stage for a future specific project in the PC3
subdivision. That future project will involve CATT and several non - profit partners and is called the
"Truckee Community Building" project on Parcel 6.
The Truckee Community Building (TCB) is the name given to a conceptual proposal to house
multiple non - profit organizations under one roof, sharing costs and better serving the community. The
TCB could be the site where various organizations share office equipment, front counter receptionist,
storage space, commercial kitchen facilities, and more. Employees working at the TCB will likely hold
jobs with higher paying wages (not minimum wage). The TCB will provide a direct benefit to the
community. This model has been successfully executed in Incline Village under the umbrella of the
Parasol Foundation. There are a dozen or more groups in that one building. On a smaller scale, Tahoe
Truckee Community Foundation has created the Community House in Kings Beach, where three non-
profits work together to deliver health and social services to their constituents.
Local groups showing interest in this concept consist of social services, the arts, faith - based,
environmental, and recreation organizations. The Joerger family has offered to grant a "gift deed" for
Parcel 6 of the PC3 subdivision for the Truckee Community Building once the PC3 Plan approval has
occurred. For purposes of land ownership, CATf's charitable 501c(3) sister organization, C.A.T.T.
Community Project, is the designated recipient of Parcel 6. Please see the signed MOU between C.A.T.T.
Community Project Board member Paul Griggs and Joerger Associates representative Milton C. David.
The signed MOU was delivered to CATT on May 21, 2013, well after the Specific Plan publication date in
2012. The MOU describes the conditions for granting the gift deed. C.A.T.T. Community Project has
received federal and state income tax exemption as a charitable organization. The exemption letters
can be provided upon request.
12313 Soaring Way, Suite 1G . Truckee, CA 96161 • 530- 550 -9999 , F: 530 -550 -9998 • info @ca -tt.com
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE
Comments on PC3 DEIR
October 29, 2013
Page 2 of 4
GATT questions /comments in this letter are described by DEIR page number and may have some
bearing on the PC3 Specific Plan:
1) CL Zoning District— DEIR page 2.0 -4 (Specific Plan Land Use Chart pages 3.9 -3.11)
Please amend the uses listed for the CL zoning district to allow the use of Parcel 6 for a TCB. Most TCB
activity would be considered Office /Professional but could also fall under Membership Organization
Facilities or Food Production and Distribution. This anticipates the need for partner groups like the Sierra
Senior Services with its "Meals on Wheels" program. The Meals on Wheels program is already occurring
on a parcel closer to the downtown core and would move to Parcel 6 as part of the TCB. The Specific
Plan notes that Food & Beverage Production is Permitted in the CL district but Food & Beverage
Distribution is Not Permitted. Food & Beverage Production and Food & Beverage Distribution are both
allowed in the CR and CRS zoning districts. This is puzzling in itself to allow production but not
distribution in the same zoning district. In any event, environmental impacts related to Food
Distribution in the CL zoning district would be analyzed in the project- specific documents to be prepared
for the TCB on parcel 6, so needed mitigations could become part of the approval process. We do not
see how adding Food Distribution to the CL zoning district generates significant new, unavoidable
impacts for purposes of this DEIR.
The potential to create a TCB on parcel 6 is a new concept not envisioned when the Specific Plan
and subsequent DEIR were written. Had the TCB been a viable option in 2012, comment to change the
zoning district description would have been submitted then. This is not a request to exempt the TCB
from necessary permit or approval procedures. Please modify the CL zoning district description on page
2.0 -4 to include Office /Professional, Membership Organization Facilities, Food Production, and Food
Distribution.
2) Roadway Improvements:
Cost Share Analysis — DEIR page 2.0 -9 (Specific Plan Chapter 6)
Please amend the procedure describing the Cost Analysis Assessment to allow the public an opportunity
to evaluate the land use intensity chart, anticipated traffic use, 30% design, and estimate of probable
costs and responsible share matrix. Since TCB will be a "Payer" of some portion of the improvements,
this is critical to understand needed improvements and help control costs.
Intersection /Roadway Frontage /Class 1 Bike Trail Improvements Chart — DEIR page 2.0 -11
(Specific Plan page 6.7)
The first entry of the chart ties Brockway Road /Hope Court intersection improvements to parcel 9. This
appears to be a typo. Whatever improvements are deemed necessary should be tied to parcel 6 and not
9. Please correct the error. if this is not an error, the EIR should provide complete explanation why
parcel 9 has any bearing on Parcel 6. This would be considered new information not disclosed to the
public and decision makers and may warrant additional public review.
Please clarify the "Timing" of the improvement by adding text specifying where the Certificate of
Occupancy for the "first building" is located in reference to multiple parcels. For instance, does "first
building" for the Class 1 bike path along Brockway Road and Hope Court mean the first building or
2
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE
Comments on PC3 DEIR
October 29, 2013
Page 3 of 4
addition anywhere in the PC3 subdivision or on any of the six parcels (Parcels 1 -6) shown as the
responsible party? Please clarify /confirm.
Hope Court Roundabout— DEIR pages 3.11- 46 -48, 3.11 -67
The mitigation measure calling for Parcel 6 to be responsible for a signalized intersection or roundabout
at the intersection of Brockway Road and Hope Court prompts several comments:
A. It is questionable whether a mitigation measure is actually needed at this intersection
given the fact that land use activity on parcels 1 -5 in total are deemed below a desired
threshold for Martis Drive or Brockway Road but use on parcel 6 is over the acceptable
threshold for Brockway road. Perhaps the traffic calculations deserve review ?? Parcel 3
is the site for Multi - Family Residential (RM) with 41 workforce housing units. If
occupancy is assumed at just two people per unit, there will be 82 new fulltime
residents using Martis Drive and Brockway Road in addition to the other uses associated
with parcels 1, 2, 4, and 5. Parcel 6 will likely not see that collective volume every day - it
will be less given the office /professional nature of the anticipated uses and reliance on
public transit, so why impose a mitigation measure on Parcel 6? Please address the
questions of accurate traffic modeling and consistent /fair application of mitigation
measures on Parcel 6.
B. Leave all options open for needed mitigation and do not describe the roundabout as the
"recommended LOS mitigation measure" (DEIR page 3.11 -67) A roundabout is one of
several options that could be evaluated once traffic use for Parcel 6 is known. Town
preference for a roundabout must be weighed against Town preference for appropriate
economic development. Roundabouts are usually more expensive than signalized
intersections. If the cost differential is the breaking point for an economically desired
project that pays higher wages and provides direct benefit to the community, then the
roundabout may not be the preferred or desired mitigation measure. Higher costs
could hinder desired economic activity as an unintended but very real consequence.
Decision makers and the public should be able to assess a parcel- specific project and
compare costs vs benefits of different mitigation measures at the appropriate time. It is
premature to identify one type of mitigation as "recommended." This text change does
not generate significant new, unavoidable impacts for purposes of the DEIR because
parcel- specific project review must still quantify impacts and identify mitigation in the
context of desired policy and community goals.
C. If the roundabout is determined to be actually needed, then a cost share that includes
other contributors beyond the PC3 subdivision should be considered. These other
contributors could be: Clear Capital Campus proposal (TTAD /Nevada County), Placer
County for Martis Valley /Northstar /North Shore traffic, Pinyon Creek town homes,
CalTrans for Hope Court /Parcel 7 "park n ride" lot, or trails funding for trailhead parking.
Any other adjacent development with a nexus to the Brockway Road /Hope Court
roundabout should be added to the list of contributors.
3
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE
Comments on PC3 DEIR
October 29, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC -3). Please add the Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe to the
Town contact list for any and all items related to the PC3 subdivision (Plan and EIR). This includes
meeting notices, staff reports, or new information available for public distribution. Feel free to contact
me (530 -550 -9999 or pat @ca- tt.com) if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CONT TORS ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKEE TAHOE
Pat Davison
Executive Director
Attachment: MOU between C.A.T.T. Community Project and Joerger Associates
W
Page 1 of 2
i
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
1. The representatives of Joerger Associates LLC, hereafter "Joerger ", and CATT
Community Projects , a 501 (3) (c) nonprofit entity, hereafter collectively referred to as "CATT
" have met and discussed the granting of a gift deed by Joerger to CATT that parcel of
property described as "CL" depicted on the attached exhibit consisting of approximately 4.3 +/-
acres upon the following conditions: (1) Joerger has accepted all of the requirements and
provisions of the development described as the Joerger Ranch Specific Plan, hereafter "Plan ";
(2), the formal approval by appropriate resolutions of the Town of Truckee's Town Council of
the Plan have been adopted; (3), the map describing the Plan has been recorded in the official
records of Nevada County, State of California; and (4), no appeal or complaint challenging the
approval has been filed in any court exercising jurisdiction to review the approval.
It is acknowledged and understood by CATT the Town of Truckee and its Planning Commission
may impose such onerous conditions for the approval of the Plan that further pursuit of such
development is not feasible or acceptable to Joerger; and that as a result thereof, it may in its sole
discretion decide to abandon such application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and based upon
informal positive discussions with the representative of the Town of Truckee, the parties believe
it is in the interests of the parties to move forward with the approval process. Therefore the
purpose of this memorandum of understanding (MOU) is to state and set forth in general terms
the intention of the parties to seek the approval of the Plan.
3. Joeger intends to move forward with its application for the Plan approval and to continue
to expend the costs required for that approval. CATT understands that it is not the intent of
Joerger to incur any costs other than those necessarily required for the general approval process.
4. CATT acknowledge that Joerger is the applicant for the Plan and all decisions made by
Joerger in connection therewith shall be in its sole discretion without the requirement of
approval of CATT, except that Joerger shall consult with CATT as to those decisions which
affect the uses of the subject of the gift deed. However CATT understands that Joerger as the
owner of the property retains as its sole right and discretion its decisional rights in this regard.
5 The parties understand that when the approval process is completed and the Plan has been
adopted by the Town of Truckee and the conditions stated in paragraphl have been met , the
parties will, to the extent a formal agreement is required or necessary, adopt an agreement
setting forth the further rights and duties of the parties.
6. CATT acknowledges that its support and advocacy for the approval of Plan is in the
mutual best interest of the parties to this MOU. Notwithstanding the foregoing it is not the intent
of the parties to restrict, bind, or obligate in any way a member of CATT or the Contractor
Association Truckee Tahoe (GATT) from expressing their opinion at any public or private
meeting. CATT's intentions in accepting the gift deed to the described property is for a shared
building site use and the subsequent development for the nonprofit entities, within the Truckee
North Lake area.
Page 2 of 2
Joerger Associates LLC
By , , _ '%- 4�V�
CATT Community Projects