HomeMy Public PortalAbout2000-08-17 TOWN OF TRUCKEE
REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 17, 2000, 6:00 P.M.
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BOARD ROOM
11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE, CA
o
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Drake, Florian, McCormack, Susman, and Mayor Schneider
None
ALSO PRESENT:
Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; J. Dennis Crabb, Town Attorney; Gary
Jacobson, Nevada County/Town of Truckee Captain; and Jim Smith,
Administrative Staff Assistant
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mark Ochoa.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom Covey, Public Works Director, reported on an incident during the right-of-way tree and brush
cutting project in the Prosser Lakeview area. He said that the contract between the Town and residents
in that area had been broken by not meeting with concerned citizens about what trees would be
removed. He issued a public apology to the citizens affected in the removal of trees in front of their
homes.
Kathy Polucha, Donner Lake, environmental health specialist, reported on efforts to date to resolve
the water crises and spoke about the PUC placing Del Oro into receivership and the PUD as the
receiver. She stated that residents drafted a request and hoped to obtain 300 petition signatures that
would be presented to the PUC at their September 7th meeting. She requested the Mayor represent the
community at that meeting. She said that the PUD General Manager also requested the Donner Lake
citizens to proceed with the request for receivership.
Terry Thomas, attorney, drafted a complaint for the PUC since they have absolute authority over Del
Oro Water Co. as the PUC had very specific forms and requirements for submitting receivership
documents. Should the Town decide to support the residents, he would require the Town to hire him
for a $1 fee and he would represent the Town, or he would submit whatever documents the Town
Attorney would need to prepare the PUC application documents and represent the Town.
Marty Woods, Donner Lake, spoke for the West Reed Avenue property owners. She addressed
stormwater runoff from the freeway creating new culverts and requested Town assistance in contacting
the responsible agencies to correct the problem. She also requested the Town's assistance in
developing a road maintenance agreement or a road maintenance district for the West Reed Avenue
property owners. Mayor Schneider referred her to Dan Wilkins, Town Engineer. Mr. Wilkins reported
the Town was already engaged with Caltrans on the State's drainage problems and the West Reed area
was one of the concerned areas.
Paul Klein, Tahoe Donner, reported on conversations with the Sheriff's Office about a neighbor
installing a dog run on his property. The deputy informed Mr. Klein that his complaint was a civil
trespass matter and they would not assist him. He presented x-rays of injuries that he sustained when
he was hit in a crosswalk. The driver was cited for failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. He
was concerned that pedestrians were treated as second rate citizens in Truckee. Mayor Schneider urged
all residents to obey the speed laws.
Emily Kashtan, Donner Lake, expressed her gratitude to the Council and staff regarding their
assistance on the Donner Lake water issue. She urged the Town to attend an upcoming closed meeting
with Public Utility District (PUD), Del Oro, the State Department of Health Services (DHS), and the
Public Utility Commission (PUC) on August 22nd. She reported there had been no citizen input to
Del Oro at any of the meetings. She requested the Town apply pressure to the DHS and the PUC. She
said she submitted a 12-page document to the Attorney General, but no response to date. Because no
action had been taken by the PUC or the DHS, she copied Governor Davis, and started a petition
supporting the PUD take over of Del Oro through a receivership. She also requested that all funds paid
by Del Oro customers be deposited to the PUC and held in trust and that the PUC withhold any rate
increases until the matter was resolved. She requested permission to circulate a petition for signatures
at the Council meeting. She stated she had no faith in the Stale representatives and that was the reason
she requested a Town representative attend. There was an $8 million loan pending to Del Oro by the
PUC and she requested the Town to intervene.
Julie Cooley-Rieders, Prosser Lakeview, accepted Mr. Covey's apology regarding the tree cutting
and she stated that the Sierra Sun news article was accurately reported. She addressed the Council's
role in this issue in that they allowed it to be handled by the process developed by the Council. She
felt comfortable with that policy in the beginning, but expressed her discomfort that staff would not
carry out future Council policies. She addressed the public's concern that the Council was not
monitoring staff's action to assure that staff was carrying out Town policies. Her daughter said how
said she was that the Town cut down the trees, and her son reported he woke up and found the trees
already cut down and he felt very sad.
Scott Kessler, Donner Lake requested the Council's support for the receivership to the PUC on behalf
of the Reed Avenue homeowners. Catastrophic conditions exist and justify the receivership request.
Barbara Lewis, Donner Lake, said she had spoken at various local meetings about this issue. She said
the Donner Lake Property Owners Association was convinced that the PUD should be their water
provider. They did not trust Mr. Fortino and his company, along with the lack of timely assistance
from the PUC and DHS. She requested the Town block any attempt to approve the new water
treatment facility under consideration by the PUC.
Kenn Rieders presented the top five feet of one of the 30' lodgepole trees that was removed at 7:30
a.m. by the Public Works staff. He stated a Fish & Game Warden examined the trees for nesting and
found no evidence. The Warden told Mr. Rieders the fine would have been $10,000 and one-year
imprisonment for violating the Migratory Bird Act of 1918. He reported the solution was
communication and he placed the burden on the Council to emphasize to staff that they were doing
the wrong thing. He felt the pain that other neighbors had experienced and he felt there was a need
for counseling due to this issue. He reported bird-nesting possibilities were gone. He felt the current
Members did not show any environmental sensitivity and he asked those Members to step down if they
did not support environmental issues. He requested a response from the Council and asked for an
ordinance prohibiting tree removal.
PRESENTATIONS - None
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR (One motion approves all of the following actions.)
Motion by Councilmember Drake to approve the Consent Calendar, Seconded
Councilmember Susman, passed unanimously.
by
6.1 Minutes of August 3, 2000 Regular Meeting. Recommendation: Council approve.
6.2 Resolution Adopting Salary Schedule for Town Job Classifications. Recommendation:
Council adopt Resolution No. 2000-44.
6.3 Recycled Content Products Procurement Policy. Recommendation: Council adopt Policy
and Resolution No. 200046.
6.4 Truckee Ramp Project Agreement Modification Request. Recommendation: Rescind
Resolution 200043 and adopt Resolution 200047 authorizing the Mayor to enter into a
modified cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the implementation of the Truckee Ramps
Project and authorizing the Town Engineer to request an additional $400,000 of RTIP
funding from NCTC for implementation of the Truckee Ramps Project.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Peoria Sunnyside. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 200045 Approving a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Implementing an Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan Land
Use Text; Approve Findings in Support; Introduce and Waive First Reading of Ordinance
2000-03 Approving the Downtown Planned Development Plan; Implement an Amendment
to Volume 3 of the Downtown Specific Plan; Modify Zoning Map; and Modify Zoning Text.
Councilmember Susman reported he did not have time to review the July and August Planning
Commission draft minutes, and he was concerned about making a decision without prior review. He
also said traffic and circulation reports dated August 15 was placed on the dais prior to the meeting.
Mr. Crabb stated the Planning Commission minutes would be reiterated at this meeting during the
presentations from both sides and the Council would have the same information as the Commission
received.
Mayor Schneider reviewed the procedures for the public hearing, and requested the Councilmembers
present a list of discussion points at the conclusion of the presentations and public comment for
deliberation purposes.
Mr. Lashbrook, Community Development Director, stated he would not be reviewing the design issues
in depth because the proponent's presentation would go into detail on design. The application is a two
part request: modify the DSP (Downtown Specific Plan) and rezoning 2.39 acres from VL (Visitor
Lodging) to MDR (Medium Density Residential) and to allow residential lofts above commercial uses
in the VL. The Planned Development would approve a specific development scheme and flexibility
in applying zoning standards for the upper 11 acres. He said this was the only property in Town that
carried the Visitor Lodging use and zoning designation. He further reported that on the eve of the trial
date, the Town and litigants met to work out a settlement agreement based on a mixed use
development resulting in the subject project that included a 120-room hotel, two restaurants, 26,200
sql2 of retail space in five buildings, 16,000 sqft of office space in two building with 25 residential
lofts and a 1,250-sqft visitor info center. The expanded visitor center was added after the Planning
Commission hearings, but at the Commission's direction.
To~vn Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 3
Mr. Lashbrook summarized a request for rezoning 2.39 acres in the southwest portion from VL to
medium density. Three important issues for the Council to consider on the application were General
Plan consistency; Specific Plan consistency, and would the exceptions proposed by the development
result in a better project. A large portion of the project sat in the freeway right of way. The cemetery
setback was 100' and Mr. Lashbrook reported that a very small portion of the hotel building
encroached into that setback by 30'.
Mr. Lashbrook reviewed relevant General Plan policies which included those to encourage residential
uses mixed with office and commercial; reduce auto dependency by permitting mixed uses; preserve
views from 1-80, regulate the appearance of projects within the viewshed and aggressively facilitate
pedestrian oriented development downtown. Mr. Lashbrook reported there had been a large effort to
combine the office/residential/loft scenario and then there was the "anti-Roseville" philosophy of no
fast food operations at this key entry into downtown. He reported that the Planning Commission
recommended inclusion of this area into the DSA during the General Plan process and it had been
incorporated into the DSP since then.
Key Specific Plan policies included the following considerations: accommodate additional residential
development, and affordable housing in the Downtown Study Area; encourage the establishment of
additional office space to balance the seasonal fluctuations created by retail uses; encourage a mix of
residential, office, and commercial uses to enhance the pedestrian orientation to downtown; and to
encourage additional lodging in the Downtown Study Area. The Town should work with lodging
developers to evaluate incentives for lodging construction downtown. He reported on opposition
letters from local hoteliers objecting to the Town extending incentives, although no financial
incentives have been requested as part of this application. The Planning Commission focused on three
key issues: mass and appearance of the hotel from the freeway; project relationship to the ramp
retention project; and the project entry appearance and architecture. He said the original proposal was
for a 200-room hotel but the developer scaled that back to 120 rooms to accommodate citizen
concems. The hotel building was relocated to accommodate the taking by the State of extra property
needed for the ramp retention project. He said the hotel would return to the Planning Commission for
a public hearing to review architecture and design issues.
Mr. Lashbrook said public agency issues included concerns of the Cemetery District about property
acquisition, buffers, and setbacks. He said that based upon decisions which the Cemetery District
made for additional property, they had no money available. He said the District requested that the
Town require some property be given to the District. He also stated that the northwest comer of the
Barsell site had been utilized for summer storage of the Cemetery District's outdoor equipment and
the same property would be utilized by the Peoria Sunnyside development as a winter snow storage
area. He said both parties had good suggestions for landscaping the bufferyard either with earthberms,
fences, and/or heavy landscaping.
The Airport District dropped their objection to the project, but they were now interested in seeking
an avigation easement over the property due to over-flight noise concerns
The mitigated negative declaration was circulated to local and state agencies with conunents received
from Caltrans, Cal TransAeronautics, Lahontan Region-Water Quality Control Board, Cemetery
District, Northern Sierra Air Quality District and Mane Moore. There were minor modifications made
to the initial study to address some of the concerns. Specific reference was made to the traffic study
update provided by LSC.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 4
Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the recommendations from the Planning Commission to adopt the negative
declaration; approve an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan; approve the Downtown Planned
Development Overlay and require the adoption of a resolution and introduction of an ordinance.
Councilmember McCormack requested clarification that the land use changes did not require a
revision to the DSP because the planned development process was already adopted. Mr. Lashhrook
said the addition of housing required an amendment to the Specific Plan, Volume 2. He said the DSP,
Volume 3, Zoning, included language permitting deviations from zoning standards through the
Downtown Planned Development process. Mr. McCormack noted achieving a hotel on the site due
to litigation discussions was good especially since the developer was not previously interested in
building a hotel. He also noted the Planning Commission's discussions of the need for emphasis on
native landscaping. Mr. Lashbrook said a good portion of the proposed street landscaping was
deciduous trees rather than native trees and pines. The Commission recommended a change in the
proportions of pines versus deciduous trees. Mr. Lashbrook stated that landscaping on the downhill
slope was needed to help hide the buildings along the edge of the hillside. Another unknown at this
time were design changes required by Caltrans for the ramp project, but those could be handled with
the hearing site plan processing for the hotel. Councilmember McCormack requested clarification
about the Cemetery District's parking/snow storage joint use with the applicant, and hotel
encroachment of 10% into the easement area.
Councilmember Florian requested the Town Attorney address the memo received from Attomey Shute
on behalf of MAPF. Mr. Crabb commented that those arguments were not that strong should the case
go to trial. Mr. Crabb said there were no guarantees in any litigation and cited reasons leading to the
settlement proposal. All the arguments were made before Judge Butz that Mr. Shute brought forward,
and his objections were the same that the Judge had already made indicating those areas that should
proceed to trial.
Councilmember Susman inquired about a phasing element and how that came about, as it was his
understanding it was not approved at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Lashbrook explained that
there was never any phasing proposed, but the project was approved as one phase and if the Council
wanted to propose phasing, it would have to return to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lashbrook stated
that the settlement agreement required that the hotel be built as part of any and all other development
on the site. Councilmember Susman requested Mr. Lashbrook address the viewscape objections that
Truckee would become another Roseville. Mr. Lashbrook said the Planning Commission reviewed
all aspects of the site, including viewscapes, signage, building height, and was the appearance from
the freeway appropriate to our locale. That question remained uncertain at this time due to preliminary
renderings. He stated that putting the hotel on the freeway side acted as a barrier, blocking views of
the interior of the project, diminished restaurant visibility unless you exit the freeway to enter this
development, or proceed to downtown. There would be no pole-type freeway signage. Having the
hotel along the freeway would block a great deal of freeway noise for those enjoying the balance of
the project. Councilmember Susman questioned the amendment to the phasing in that there was
nothing discussed at the Planning Commission and it now appeared that it would need to return to the
Commission for further discussions. Mr. Lashbrook said if the project was to be phased, it would need
to return to the Commission. Councilmember Susman said other projects were tied to phasing policies
but there was nothing proposed for this development. Mr. Lashbrook said the settlement agreement
required the hotel be built at one time. Mr. Crabb added that there would be some redundant language
but it would be consistent with the settlement agreement.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 5
Councilmember Susman requested clarification from Mr. Lashbrook about the ministerial review, or
was the site review discretionary before the Commission. Mr. Lashbrook said the Commission was
required to hear the development plan review. Due to the size of the buildings, it would be a staff level
ministerial review on all buildings except the hotel. Councilmember Susman asked if the Council had
the ability to modify that procedure if it was the will of the Council to include that portion in a more
extensive public review. Mr. Lashbrook concurred. Councilmember Susman said the minutes
indicated a lot of public concern about design review of the buildings. He asked if the restaurant pads
could be used as retail and the response was no.
Councilmember Susman sought clarification of conditions 2.B and Jibboom Street improvements. Mr.
Lashbrook said the Planning comrmssion required the owners to improve Jibboom Street from Keiser
through the project site to a minimum 20' width with drainage and pedestrian facilities. He said the
section of Jibboom between Keiser and Bridge was highly constrained, so he reviewed the DSP
specific plate showing proposed sidewalks and that plate indicated there was no sidewalk on that
section of Jibboom. It does, however, loop to Keiser and down to Bridge. Mr. Lashbrook suggested
that the language could be more general to say that the proponents are required by the development
agreement to pay their fair share of the pedestrian connection from the end of their sidewalk into the
downtown core. Mr. Lashbrook noted potential projects that were in the discussion phases at this time
that could assist in the sidewalk development. Councilmember Susman said there was no modification
in the language for improvements from the project site to Keiser, but there were options from Keiser
and Jibboom to Bridge Street. Mr. Lashbrook said this developer and future developers would be
required to contribute to the proposed sidewalk/pedestrian issues and that would be covered in the
development agreement.
Councilmember Susman asked about impacts to the Cemetery District and site buffer reductions.
Could this project fit within the normal setbacks with a modified design and could it include the same
intensity of design? Mr. Lashbrook said it was possible to redesign the project but it might result in
larger parking areas adjacent to the streets and in the setback, and three story versus two story
buildings. Councilmember Susman requested maintenance of a hundred-foot setback for the TCD
benefit rather than the hotel encroaching into the TCD 100' setback.
Councilmember McCormack asked for clarification about two restaurants at the entry and some
language indicating a restaurant could move adjacent to the hotel with retail replacing one of the
restaurants. Mr. Lashbrook said the use could not be changed, but the building pad location could
move adjacent to the hotel. Parking would more than likely replace the building pad rather than
additional retail space.
Dale Creighton Project Representative, introduced Steve Noll, Design Workshop, Don Clark,
Cathexis and Larry Hoffman, Legal Counsel. He reviewed the owner's perspective from the
historical aspects: the land was designated as public after a commercial zoning, then proposed
reduction in land uses of small commercial with the majority in open space, and a large hotel
requirement with a visitor center. He reviewed the owner's search for hotel operators and enlisted the
aid of an "expert" in hotel development. That individual said the items that made a hotel successful
were exposure, food, people, surrounding activity, and utilities. Recurring comments from the Town
were that the site needed a hotel and it was the developer's job to find one. He recited the facts leading
up to the litigation, discovery proceedings, and, a settlement negotiation on the eve of the trial. To
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 6
accommodate a hotel on the site required some zoning changes on behalf of the Town with a defined
site plan that was revised from the original concept in the DSP. He also cited discussions with MAPF
and the TCD, as well as current discussions about the right of way taking required for the ramp
retention. Mr. Creighton said the proposed project met current needs and design concepts, as well as
being fiscally possible. He said the developer cooperated with staff for many years in meeting goals
of the GP and the DSP, and that the developer paid for the environmental analysis at the request of
the Town, which was highly unusual.
Steve Noll, Design Workshop Landscape Architect, reviewed the three-month process leading up
to the current design. He presented numerous site photos, and elements ofa streetscape, and paving
variations. Mr. Noll felt comfortable that their landscape themes would be acceptable next to the
cemetery. Circulation proposals were displayed with connections to Jibboom Street, and the
relationship to 267 for the office buildings.
Don Clark, Cathenexus, spoke to how the architectural treatments were obtained. He said many
historical photos were reviewed and new buildings were designed with those in mind and that covered
walkways would exist throughout the entire site. Different buildings would include different
architecture, rooflines, and landscaping. Outside dining was proposed and geared to the pedestrian
within the project and not freeway oriented.
Councilmember Susman asked for clarification of the visuals presented as being part of the planned
development and if the visual aspects could be redesigned to protect the cemetery. Mr. Noll said the
hotel location being moved forward compressed available space, thereby reducing available retail
space and that three-story buildings would result to make up for the reduced building space resulting
from the Caltrans land taking for the ramp retention related to the new interchange. Mr. Clark said it
could be done, but they chose the lesser of two evils.
Councilmember McCormack said it was unclear from the Planning Commission minutes what the
discussion was concerning electrical wires. Mr. Lashbrook explained that the Public Utility District
lines could be put underground, but the Sierra Pacific line was a high voltage transmission line and
that could not be relocated.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Don Colclough, Truckee Cemetery District (TCD), stated the District's objections to the high rise
nature of the hotel so close to the cemetery, setback reduction from 100' to 50', loss of parking, and
loss of land along the freeway. He requested cooperation with the TCD for an appropriately sized
expansion area. He felt the Planning Commission and staff totally disregarded the District's request
that the triangular piece of land be deeded to the TCD. The Directors preferred a landscaped
earthberm. He requested the Council vote no on this project.
Natalie Korp, resident, spoke to the fact that the cemetery was running out of land and extra land
needed to be designated for future needs. She thought the photos were nice, but felt the needs of the
cemetery outweighed the need for additional restaurants. She requested the developer deed some of
their land to the cemetery. With a proposed project to the west of the cemetery landlocking the
cemetery, and their needs should be considered. She felt the Town was promoting growth, but no
attention was given to the needs of the cemetery.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 7
Sharon Pace Arnold, Truckee resident, stated her wish would have been to leave the land vacant.
The proposed concept does not conform to the vision of the DSP, there has been no cooperation with
the Cemetery District, and an outside swimming pool adjacent to the cemetery would detract from the
peaceful serenity of the site. With a proposed housing development on the west side of the cemetery,
there would be no room for expansion. Her biggest concern was loss of peace, serenity, and potential
vandalism.
Stefanie Olivieri, MAFP, presented the organization's proposal for a redesign of the site. She stated
the MAPF organization sued for the K-Mart stoppage, factory stores, and the current proposal was
equally distasteful. She contradicted the developer's attorney's statement that MAPF did not
participate in negotiation sessions and she produced evidence of memos to the contrary. She said the
FAR (floor area ratio)of2.5 was 123,000 sqft. This project on 11 acres was 165,000 versus 125,000
in the DSP. She contended that Policy 1 (mixed use) did not refer to the subject site, but only
downtown. The intensity and density on this site impacted the cemetery. She alleged that the
proponent had not cooperated with the TCD regarding their expansion needs. The project did not do
anything to accommodate objections to freeway orientation. She feared the two restaurant sites would
be chain/franchise facilities with a hotel backing the freeway and she felt this was completely
inconsistent with the community's desires. She also felt there had been no consideration of protecting
the viewshed from the ridgeline on the southern portion of the site. She enumerated allowable uses
in Town ordinances that could be put on this site, which were totally unacceptable.
She said the project did not incorporate the 100' setback from the cemetery and she requested a
landscaped berm with no parking and 125' setback from the freeway. One restaurant was allowed in
the DSP, this proposal allowed two. She felt the site required a higher level of scrutiny for the site
coverage, parking, and FAR. Clustering was required to ensure the protection of historic sites and
there was no clustering proposed. She presented plans of MAPF's redesign of the site with the hotel
to the south, freeway side heavily treed, a pathway overlooking the viewshed of downtown and
surrounding mountains. Their plan showed the visitor center at the entry point, not two restaurants.
The triangular piece adjacent to the cemetery was dedicated to open space and was compliant with the
DSP. She said the developer's project used 66% of the site, their proposed site used less than 50%.
She asked that the Town consider their attorney's letter concluding paragraph - don't be guided by
litigation settlement. She requested denial of the project.
John Eaton, expressed his empathy of sitting between two sides suing and urged the Council to do
what was right. His main concem was the location of the hotel and intrusion into the setbacks. He felt
the Town would either be trashing their setbacks or doing away with established guidelines. He urged
the Council not to violate the setbacks and move the hotel to the south side of the property. He hoped
the Council would improve the project as they approved it.
Charlie McDermitt, co-owner of the Holiday Inn Express, addressed the possibility of tax rebates,
or financial incentives to the hotel operator at the expense of existing hoteliers. He objected to any
rebate of the transient occupancy tax for five years to assist this hotel unless the Town provided the
same rebate to existing hoteliers. He said the Holiday Inn opened about a year ago with absolutely no
financial assistance from the Town and on a level playing field. He wanted their competitor to be
required to do the same. He cited the following example: Raley and Safeway and a developer wanted
to bring in Albertson's. Would it be fair to eliminate the sales tax to the newcomer? The same scenario
applied in this case. If you cut the taxes for the proposed hotel, do it for all existing properties.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 8
John Howard Creveling, 22-year residem, spoke to a map of Truckee 22 years ago wherein the roads
were the same as they were today. Be concemed with thc roads and freeway traffic to the site, and the
cumulative effect. He felt there were no road improvements to accommodate building congestion, and
no discussion of highway signage, or impacts at Glenshire Drive. The Mayor indicated that a complete
traffic study had been done. Mr. Wilkins said 77 cars per peak hour were projected fi.om the freeway.
Mr. Creveling's concem was that the cumulative effects were not being considered. Mayor Schneider
said that a great deal of attention had been paid to those issues although not verbally mentioned during
staff's presentation.
Kenn Rieders, Truckee, asked about the historic dump/landfill site. He was concerned that historic
artifacts would be discovered through excavation and could be of potential concern to the Town, and
he requested prior examination.
Chavonne Smart, local business owner, said this plan was what you drove to Reno for. Her tax
dollars were at stake and she urged the Council to take the case to court.
Peggy O'Neil, Donner Lake, asked if the Town needed a project like this versus low-income housing.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Larry Hoffman, project attorney, said the developer had been working on this project for five years;
conducted studies, attended community group meetings, negotiations, and special interest concerns,
as well as litigation. The owner was not conducive to bringing a hotel to the site originally, but
through the litigation process, the developer came around to work with the Town and saw potentials.
Settlement was by far better than litigation and he addressed Mr. Shute's letter in that compromises
always exist in any litigation. Untold hours of thought, talent and skill had been given to this site to
provide as much consideration to the varied interests of the community. The hotel developer was in
last minute planning discussions with a top quality hotelier; not the typical freeway oriented lodging
facility. He refuted concerns about their lack of sensitivity to the cemetery stating they worked as
closely as possible on previous project proposals. He wanted their property to be an asset to the
cemetery. He said the proponent had reached out in every way to MAPF but was not able to satisfy
their concerns. Lodging room numbers, restaurants, and a pedestrian friendly development was
addressing concerns of the community. He said phasing was not really possible, because the entire
project would be built together, as an integrated package. He addressed Councilmember Susman's
suggestion that more Council involvement was needed on various planning components. He refuted
that proposal because it would only delay the existing planning review process. He said the developer
would return the development agreement in the very near future and that would be the place to tie
down lasting concerns. He said the development agreement would be as complete as possible, with
site plans, exhibits, maps and renderings.
Dale Creighton responded to the housing issue concerns in that staff brought the housing element
forward. The Jibboom Street connection was a new road adding another access road from 267 into
downtown. Road improvements on Jibboom Street were estimated at $360,000 in development fees
alone. He said the subsidy for the hotel arose due to the infrastructure needed to accommodate the
hotel as well as future development. One specific use did not have the strength to pay all the
infrastructure costs. The incentives would be used to provide infrastructure to the whole project, not
any financial breaks to the hotel.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 9
He said that ridgeline development was a no-no in the GP and three-story buildings as proposed by
the opponents would result. The viewshed of the downtown included the railroad, a lumberyard and
a power plant. The real view was of the mountains and that was protected by the current design. Solar
design was also considered especially for winter sun exposure. The cemetery concerns were not the
responsibility of an adjacent landowner. Existing trees would remain as part of the landscape buffer
and the TCD cold storage vault was on the developer's property, but the developer redesigned their
project to leave that building in place. A better technique existed with a landscape berm versus a wall.
The request for deeding land to the cemetery could be accommodated by both parties. Mr. Creighton
proposed that the TCD could utilize the triangular piece of land during the summer for outdoor
storage, and the hotel for winter snow storage, but ownership would remain with the developer.
Councilmember McCormack asked Mr. Hoffman to reconsider the Planning Commission's review due
to the complexity and sensitivity. Mr. Lashbrook said it would be possible, but unusual, because the
Planned Development Overlay was to ensure zoning compatibility to allow the proposed uses.
Councilmember Florian asked about discussions with the TCD, when the meeting was held and what
the outcome had been. Mr. Creighton said there was no vote, and he thought they parted on good
terms and their issues for a wall he thought had been worked out. He said they removed some of the
parking and increased the planting strip along the cemetery boundary; they relocated and redesigned
the hotel building, and there were design concessions made for the TCD and the Planning
Commission. Councilmember McCormack asked if the west wing was less than three stories, and Mr.
Creighton said they had done a step-up-type design for the Commission's review.
Mr. Hoffman said September 1 was the deadline to receive approval of the project, and a 30-day time
frame after that to dismiss the lawsuit. If anything exceeded the 30 days, the developer would not be
amenable, and he suggested resolving any differences in the development agreement.
Councilmember Susman addressed the proposed commercial uses for the two restaurant pads and
asked if there were no changes to the size of the pad, could a restaurant use be designated as retail. Mr.
Lashbrook said the Planning Commission was thinking about changing a restaurant use to a retail use,
swapping uses but keeping the same number of buildings and not exceeding the floor area ratio.
Councilmember Susman said he was concerned that he received two answers to the same question.
Mr. Lashbrook said the developer could not change them to increase the retail above the 26,200 square
footage cap. Councilmember McCormack asked if a restaurant could be within the 26,200 cap. Mr.
Lashbrook confirmed that and said it would count against the retail cap.
Public comment for new information only.
Steve Frisch, private citizen, felt Mr. Hoffman's concern about the length of time was due to the fact
that the applicant withdrew one application because he knew it wouldn't go anywhere. The ramp
retention raised the issue of right of way vegetation clearing and it was his opinion that it would
clearly devastate the existing treescape that the proponent said would remain. He empathized with the
Council in having to deal with the time frames imposed by the litigation, but the requirement was not
about people being unhappy with the project, but having the developer comply with the guidelines of
the DSP. Nobody said they were against growth, but rather inconsistencies between the DSP and the
proposed project. He felt there was no requirement in the DSP requiring negotiation with TCD, but
it said that the Town should negotiate with the Cemetery District. The question of the development
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 10
agreement addressing the uses, site design and extending the review time more than 30 days, he felt
the public should recognize those were "hammers" to get increased land use designated beyond the
original concept of 120,000 sqfi. That hammer now existed and other developers would use this
strategy in future development proposals. He felt that amending the DSP to accommodate this
expanded development would certainly send a message to developers with enough money to wait.
Chavonne Smart asked what the allowable square footage would be for a restaurant in the DSP. Mr.
Lashbrook said downtown zoning permitted one 10,000-sqft site. The proposal was for two sites of
5,000 sqft each.
Public comment closed.
List of Council discussion items included: cemetery taking/compensation; traffic; pedestrian access
to downtown; vision/DSP consistency; hotel subsidy; legal implications/precedent; phasing;
design/intensity; approval options; next level of process; acreage vs FAR; gateway factor; hotel
orientation (north vs south) restaurant location & numbers.
TCD: traffic~ land, access, taking/compensation.
Councilmember Florian asked about the workshop meeting with the TCD and what was agreed to and
what was not, and the view of the project from the cemetery. Mr. Lashbrook said there was a meeting
with the Chairman and a quorum of the Board was present, but no decision was made. They were
greatly concerned about this development and the TCD raised significant environmental issues but
their concerns could be mitigated by a deed of land. He said the DSP policy applied to the Town
working with the cemetery to create extra land. No direction as to what an adjacent landowner would
have to do. He said that the cemetery had no funds for acquisition in the immediate future. Mr.
Lashbrook said the Planning Commission required movement of the hotel to help protect the buffer,
and they wanted to see a viewshed of what would be seen from the cemetery looking into the project
site. He said the Commission spent a lot of time as to what activities could occur in the setback. He
said the developer could have lined up the back of all the buildings to the cemetery, but the developer
considered those concerns and felt the roadway and landscaping created a better neighboring use.
Councilmember McCormack said it was unfortunate that the District did not have a plan addressing
their long-term needs. He felt the impacts were mitigated by a combination of the setbacks, uses
nearest the cemetery were not objectionable coupled with a redesign of the buildings. The hotel
encroached 4% into the 100' setback area, and he felt it was mitigated as much as possible. Freeway
noise was a major factor but the proposed project was not responsible for that.
Councilmember Susman said it was a public responsibility, not the private owners, to deal with the
cemetery. He said the cemetery was a County function, not the Town. The issue of noise with the
cemetery being adjacent to the freeway was not uncommon. He said the Planning Commission gave
a tremendous amount of time and thought on this issue and they came to the conclusion that they did
not know what to do regarding the 100' setback as required by the DSP. This led him to conclude this
project was too dense. Every time this project came back for heating, it had been redesigned. It must
be dealt with now and he felt the Council had a responsibility to maintain the 100' buffer and allow
the cemetery to encroach into the setback area rather than the hotel do the encroaching.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 11
Mayor Schneider asked for clarification as to whether it was the building, or parking that was
encroaching into the subject setback. Mr. Lashbrook said it was a small piece of the southwest comer
of the hotel building. Mr. Lashbrook said that staff had been working to reduce the parking for this
site and proposed shared parking opportunities. Under that scenario reduced parking spaces could be
accommodated. The State taking more land for the ramp created an additional stumbling block. Mr.
Lashbrook said that the current L-shaped hotel design added more protection to the cemetery from the
outdoor public areas, i.e. the swimming pool, than previous designs.
Concurrence was reached that the cemetery was landlocked. Councilmember Susman preferred
to see a design that did not encroach on the cemetery.
Traffic
Councilmember Florian asked about traffic counts, impacts of the project in general and at Glenshire
Drive, and was there any chance for signals. Mr. Wilkins said no signal was appropriate due to the
hillside at the Glenshire Drive intersection, but long-term reconfiguration included a new connection
to Church Street if the balloon track was developed. He proposed to see how the traffic flowed once
the bypass was opened and projected Iraffic flow into 2015 with and without this project and the study
indicated there was no significant impact. Councilmember Susman said there were no traffic
discussions at the PC meetings in either the July or August meeting. He asked about the LSC traffic
study for LOS F that indicated the downtown intersection did not improve, but deterioration would
occur at all other intersections. Mr. Wilkins indicated LOS B to C would apply to some intersections.
Mr. Susman asked if the current proposal addressed the cumulative impacts and the ramp retention.
Mr. Wilkins said it did.
Councilmember McCormack felt there had been good analysis conducted by the Planning
Commission and staff. Councilmember Susman asked if the amendment report to this agenda item
would prohibit him from driving from the post office to the site. Mr. Wilkins displayed an aerial photo
and pointed out that the developer would be required to improve Jibboom from Keiser to the site, but
no improvements between Keiser to Bridge.
Pedestrian access
Councilmember McCormack had no concerns and understood the connections but he wanted
confirmation that it would be covered in the development agreement. Councilmember Florian asked
what portion would not be improved and whether the site would have trolley access. Mr. Lashbrook
said the area between Bridge to Keiser would not be improved with a sidewalk. He said the developer
would be required to participate in future improvements on the lower street segment and a trolley stop
was included.
Councilmember Susman reiterated his concern of not being able to walk in traffic from the post office
to this site. His understanding of the Planning Commission's conditions of approval indicated there
had to be pedestrian connections to downtown but that was modified to suggest that the developer
would have to pay a share of development costs but not be required construct the improvements. Mr.
Lashbrook said the Commission did not require the developer to be responsible for those
improvements but the subject would be dealt with in the development agreement. Councilmember
Susman referred to the minutes that indicated a sidewalk between Bridge and the project site. He felt
the Commission hung their hat on the fact that there had to be pedestrian connectivity to downtown
and there were dozens of references in the staff reports, findings, and the Planning Commission work
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 12
was modified to suggest that the developer would be responsible for a share of pedestrian
improvements between the post office to the site. Mr. Lashbrook said the Planning Commission
conditions did not have the developer on the hook for the total construction. He said it was generalized
because it must be dealt with in the development agreement. Councilmember Susman recited various
Commission exhibit findings regarding this issue, and he felt the Commission relied heavily on the
fact that there would be a pedestrian connection as a result of this project and he needed that level of
comfort. Mr. Lashbrook concurred with the statement that a pedestrian connection to downtown would
be fundamental to consistency with the Specific Plan. He also said it would be inappropriate to require
these improvements on a street half a mile away from the site on this one developer.
He said no nexus was required under California law for a development agreement, and he said it was
ultimately up to the Council to approve the development agreement. Councilmember Susman said it
was a very important issue but he was hesitant to ask what the motivation was for the revised language
in 7.1 amendment after the Commission voted 4-1 to approve. He felt the Planning Commission
approved this project under the assumption that this project would provide pedestrian access to
downtown. Mayor Schneider felt if that was the Commission's dialogue then one of the areas the
Council should address was how to encourage participation to complete the balance of the pedestrian
link. She was not comfortable that the section from Keiser to Bridge should be the responsibility of
this developer. Councilmember Susman recapped staff's recommendation in the August 8th Planning
Commission meeting was that if the development of pedestrian orientation to downtown could not be
done, this project would not be approved. Mr. Lashbrook concurred with that position.
Councilmember McCormack said part of the improvement from the site to Keiser was certain and the
balance was subject to a development agreement. Councilmember Susman disagreed.
Mr. Lashbrook said the Council was working through details that should have been done by the
Planning Department staff, primarily due to the timeline for approval of this project. Councilmember
Susman asked to remove the modified language in the 7.1 amendment to 2B. Mr. Lashbrook said he
had no problem but it had to maintain Specific Plan consistency. The words "along Jibboom Street"
could be replaced with "a connection to downtown" but the alignment could be somewhere else.
Councilmember Susman disagreed saying it was a key point for a decision. Councilmember
McCormack asked if the Council was going to change the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mr. Lashbrook said staff's recommendation was to eliminate the specificity of Jibboom from Keiser
to downtown. Councilmember Susman pointed out that this was different than what was included in
the 7.1 update. Mr. Crabb said this language could be worked out in the development agreement from
point A to point B, and B to point C would be resolved in the development agreement and that the
Council needed to approve that document. Councilmember Susman asked if the developer would fund
their fair share or the whole improvement? He felt strongly that this issue needed to be addressed
tonight so that the connectivity would exist and determine if the developer was paying his share or the
full amount. Mr. Crabb said the outcome was to obtain language for the development agreement and
this would become a negotiable issue if the developer would pay for all of the improvements or not.
Include it in the development agreement and return for Council approval.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 13
Vision/DSP consistency:
Mayor Schneider said a lot of people put a lot of time into the DSP document, and although it was not
a perfect document, there needed to be flexibility. Every letter and every piece of that document could
not be adhered to due to many factors, change of property ownership, use potential, etc., etc. This
property followed the main theme of the DSP and she did not see much change in the two proposals
of MAPF and the developer. Councilmcmber McCormack concurred and added that the overlay
needed to be applied. He felt this project was not consistent with the vision, and the DSP was written
based on the vision and it didn't coincide with every aspect of the vision. Councilmember Drake
concurred, saying it was a snapshot of the Town in five years or so, but conditions change and this was
one perfect example. Mayor Schneider commented that consensus would not be reached on every
item. Councilmember McCormack agreed saying that the DSP was imperfect, and the Town filled
every slot they could. Councilmember Drake also concurred and stated it was a snapshot from five
years ago. Parts of the DSP have gone by the wayside due to outside powers that may be bigger than
the Town, and you can't hang on what was said seven years ago. Councilmember Susman said the
vision and the DSP was an extensive public process and he felt an extensive public process was
needed to change the vision and DSP goals today.
Mayor Schneider commented that although no consensus was achieved, a majority of opinion
of the Council was achieved.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)/Subsidies
Mr. Lashbrook commented that the Planning Commission granted a subsidy to the Holiday Inn
regarding the FAR (5% increase for the hotel). Councilmember McCormack asked about the potential
for a TOT subsidy due to the high cost of providing infrastructure. Mr. Crabb said this would be
pursued through the development agreement, and the Council would decide when incentives might
be appropriate. He said the settlement agreement talked about the Town considering granting
assistance. The project could not be built without some incentives. Some items considered for granting
assistance would be: 1) that it was necessary for public improvements; 2) an independent financial
analysis indicating incentives would be necessary to complete a project; 3) the assistance could only
be generated by the project itself and not subsidized through the General Fund; and 4) that the
incentive was limited in time and scope. Councilmember McCormack asked about the economic
impacts and the need for another hotel. Mr. Crabb said this site was zoned for a hotel; and the
statement for a proposed subsidy was based on the PKF study. That study was done for another project
and another location, not the subject site. Mr. Crabb stated that the project site was within the
redevelopment area and presumed to be a redevelopment project.
Legal implications/precedent
Councilmember Susman reiterated his concern that the Town was pushing the limits on this site, too
intense and too much development for the size of the land. The obligation to the developer under the
settlement agreement came down to providing an increased intensity of the site, perhaps a TOT
subsidy to make this project viable with no guarantee of approving the design. Mayor Schneider
addressed setting precedent by threat of lawsuits. She did not share that belief and was comfortable
with this project. Councilmembers Florian and McCormack concurred. The Council was part of a long
process in reviewing a project that had been through staffs scrutiny, revisions, Planning comrmssion,
and to the Council for final approval. Having said that, Councilmember McCormack said that the
Council did not have the flexibility that might otherwise exist, due to litigation settlement agreements.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 14
Phasing
Councilmember Susman said the hotel would drive this project but there was revised language that
if there were phasing, it would happen by returning to the Planning Commission. He did not recall any
phasing discussions in the minutes, but the Planning Commission said it would not be phased. What
was the situation? He requested phasing language have a timeline. Mr. Crabb said the developer did
not want phasing since it would be built in one piece, and the language should be removed.
Councilmember McCormack said the phasing was an "if", based on the developer's request. If the
developer requested phasing, then it would need to return to the Planning Commission.
Design/Intensity
Councilmember Susman reiterated his concern that the project was too big for the size of the property
and it could not be redesigned to accommodate the cemetery setbacks. Mayor Schneider appreciated
the revised plan that MAPF brought in, but she felt it was not the Council's responsibility to redesign
the project.
Options
Councilmember Susman recapped the three options available: approve, approve with modifications,
or deny. Mr. Lashbrook said one additional option was that the Council could find that there were
significant impacts with no mitigation available, thereby leading to an EIR. He felt if that happened,
it would likely have the same impact as denying the project in terms of the settlement agreement.
Next level of process
Councilmember Susman requested clarification of what would be brought back to the public due to
the sensitivity of this site and project - public versus the Zoning Administrator meetings. The
development agreement came with two public hearings and they could compare the language.
Councilmember McCormack said how the language was turned into a real project and the developer
needed a cert~Jm degree of specificity to move forward. He did not see any benefit to the developer for
more hearings and more review of various options. Mr. Lashbrook said this was the final design for
the project. Councilmember Susman asked if the full project would go before the Planning
Commission for final review. Mr. Lashbrook said Condition lA was very specific as to who approved
what. Councilmember McCormack said he was satisfied.
Acreage vs FAR
Mayor Schneider asked how the FAR was measured. Mr. Lashbrook said the 2.5 FAR applied to both
parcels, which was the only one like it in the DSP. He said if you removed the housing element, there
was less FAR than current zoning allowed. Housing was needed, so that drove the FAR up to 3.5, but
that was not counted in the FAR because it was unknown how dense the housing would be on the 2.9
acre parcel. Councilmember Susman reiterated his concern that the project was too big for the site.
Gateway issue
Councilmember McCormack said this had always been a driving force and this site was not the only
gateway into Town, and in his view this was not the main gateway. It was an important gateway and
the Town wanted to present something that spoke to Tmckee's history.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 15
Hotel orientation
Councilmember McCormack said the MAPF proposal had some merit by putting the hotel on the
south with more views, but the higher the building, the more obvious there was development on that
site. The project could be screened from the freeway, but he felt the north side was the proper site.
Councilmember Susman was concerned about the massing seen from downtown, but he conceded
there was some solar consideration and the building heights were considered.
Restaurants
Mayor Schneider commented that a far greater threat for the downtown was the high rent issue rather
than additional businesses in a neighboring part of the community. She did not see it as competition.
Councilmember McCormack concurred, but also expressed concern about moving one of the
restaurant pad locations closer to the hotel and putting in a retail use at the front entrance, or perhaps
nothing. This would be covered in the ministerial site plan said Mr. Lashbrook, and that restaurants
could better afford architectural enhancements than small retailers. Councilmember Florian asked
what would happen if one of the restaurants went out of business. Mr. Lashbrook said it was an
interesting question. The square footage could go to either restaurant or retail so long as they were not
at the cap of 26,200 sqft of retail or 16,000 sqft of office. If the caps were met and a restaurant closed,
that use would have to remain as a restaurant. He also said that downtown zoning prohibited any type
of fast food, and it required a sit-down restaurant.
Councilmember Susman commented that anybody owning rental property should be concemed and
this was only one element to satisfy a demand that was not really here. If this enhanced the downtown,
it should not be a concern, but with all the development in the Placer/Squaw Valley areas, local
merchants should be concerned. He felt agreements made with the developer during the negotiation
phase of the litigation were for restaurants to be at the entrance and there was no flexibility. The
developer needed to have a viable hotel and it must be with freeway access, and those were non-
negotiable items. Councilmember McCormack spoke to comments regarding uses on commercial
properties. Mr. Lashbrook said some of those permitted uses raised by the public were not compatible
and would not be incorporated into this project. He said, however, the Council could narrow those
permitted uses through the development agreement process.
Mr. Lashbrook further clarified his previous statement that the two 5,000 sqft restaurant pads could
not be converted to retail or office. He commented that the Planning Commission contemplated
requiring that one of the pads be converted to commercial or office. Recognizing that, he suggested
that it would be acceptable to replace a restaurant pad with office or retail so long as the overall caps
were not exceeded.
Mayor Schneider rerrfinded the Council there were decisions that needed to be made. Councilmember
Susman commented that a wise man told him that the 20~ century was about developing property and
the 21st century was about fixing the development of the 20th century. This project has a lot of merit
to it and he felt the Council was close to achieving the vision of the downtown plan.
Councilmember Drake commented that this was a controversial and complex issue and not all the
interested parties would be satisfied. This project had been a long and arduous process, as well as the
expenditure of significant public funds during the litigation process. He could not ignore that Mr.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 16
Barsell owned this property and he was subjected to a process beyond anything Councilmember Drake
could have imagined and the steps he was required to undertake and fund were beyond his
comprehension. He was confident that between the Town's very competent staff, the Planning
Commission, and the lawyers the recommended solution was the best for all concerned and for the
Town generally.
Councilmember Susman asked if there was any consensus about the cemetery setback issue.
Councilmember McCormack said there was a consensus to the opposite of 4-1.
Motion by Councilmember Drake to adopt Resolution 2000-45 approving staff's recom-
mendations, including the approval of a mitigated negative declaration; processing an
amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Map on 2.39 acres (APN 19-420-18) from
Visitor Lodging to Medium Density Residential; processing an amendment to the Downtown
Specific Plan Land Use text allowing residential units on top of commercial structures in the
Visitor Lodging land use and zone; and adopts the findings in support of the actions. Further,
the Visitors' Center be increased from 625 sqft. to 1,250 sqft.; the Jibboom Street road
improvement mitigation measure and condition be modified to specify a 20' roadway width;
and, incorporation of a pedestrian connection along Jibboom Street from the project site to
Keiser Avenue. Further, the developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town,
its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding, and all costs reasonably
incurred by the Town, which seeks to set aside, attach, void or annul the Town's approval of
Applicant's project. Seconded by Couucilmember McCormack, passed 4-1, Councilmember
Susman opposing.
Councilmember McCormack commended staff and the Planning Commission for very serious and
heavy deliberation. This was one project that would not please everyone, but while he was part of the
litigation negotiations he was not wed to the outcome one way or the other, despite what some might
have thought. Much work was done and comments reviewed since the initial proposal and everyone
had done a lot of work reviewing those and reaching decisions. He supported the project, although it
was not a perfect project and would not please everyone. He felt the proposal and subsequent changes
had addressed the majority of the community's concerns. He also felt the project was consistent with
the Town's General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan, not every item to every degree.
Councilmember Flor/an felt the project was consistent with the General Plan in such a way that it
encouraged residential uses combined with office and commercial, it reduced automobile dependency
and the project would facilitate pedestrian oriented development downtown. He voted to approve.
Motion by Councilmember McCormack to introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance
2000-03 to amend the Downtown Zoning Map (Figure 11.1) to designate the Zoning District on
APN 19-420-18 Medium Density Residential; to modify the text of the Downtown Zoning
Ordinance to allow for residential units located adjacent to or directly above commercial
occupancies within the Visitor Lodging Zoning District; approve a Downtown Planned
Development Plan for APN 19-420-13; incorporate a pedestrian connection along Jibboom
Street from the project site to Keiser Avenue; and, the developer shall be permitted to relocate
a building usage to another building pad; with such actions to become effective upon the
execution of a development agreement between the property owner and the Town of Truckee.
Seconded by Councilmember Drake, motion passed 4-1, with Councilmember Susman
opposing.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 17
Mayor Schneider announced that the Donner Lake Water report would be taken out of order.
9.2 Donner Lake Water Update~Oral Report.
Mr. Wright said the MTBE testing of the intake water was underway and data had been received up
to July 4th and all reports indicated very low levels, all below State thresholds. Mr. Wright said the
PUC's recent action included a water connection moratorium and the Town had ceased issuing
building permits unless the owner had a will-serve letter that was issued prior to the PUC order. He
had conversations with the PUD Manager who advised that their Board met with their staff who was
working aggressively to present an action plan with a "decision path" for their Board's consideration
to take over Del Oro. The PUD would hear this on September 6, 2000. They also had a meeting on
August 22nd with the PUC to discuss how the take-over process might be implemented. The Town
could request permission to attend. The Council had a land use appeal hearing scheduled on August
31st regarding the Del Oro issue. Mayor Schneider commented that she planned to attend the PUC's
regular September 7th meeting, but her goal was to encourage the PUC to look at other options for
immediate water delivery to the Donner Lake residents. Mr. Crabb recommended that the request for
the petition should be agendized after the public hearing on the water treatment plant. Councilmember
Drake asked if the appeal hearing could be delayed due to the emotional nature and upcoming PUC
meetings and decisions. Mr. Crabb said that would be unlikely as you would need the applicant's
approval for any continuance, and there were some permit streamlining issues to investigate.
Public comment:
Juanita Schneider, Donner Lake, expressed her thanks to the Mayor for planning to attend the
September 7th meeting. She commented that the PUD tried to acquire Donner Lake Water on previous
occasions as far back as the 1940s. Del Oro was a privately held company and she felt this situation
would not occur if laws were enacted requiring private business owners to set aside funds to maintain
their systems. She was told the PUC had no regulations and the citizens at Donner Lake now had to
suffer due to Mr. Fortino's inability to run his business. She encouraged all Donner Lake residents to
sign the petition. One would be given to Fred Curry at the PUC and one to Peter Holzmeister for the
PUD.
Charlie White, Donner Lake, supported the receivership concept because during the PUC's audit it
would be logical for them to give the system to PUD without any need to reimburse Mr. Fortino for
his system.
Peggy O'Neil, Donner Lake, said the application to process the receivership was needed prior to
August 31St and a decision would be needed by the Town. Mr. Fortino was seeking $8 million from
the PUC at the September 7th meeting and her concern was he would receive funding before the
residents' petition could be presented to the PUC. She also said the 3 1st was a timely date due to the
time needed to prepare the receivership application papers and to allow the PUC time to digest the
application.
Kathy Polucha, environmental health specialist, said they were two separate issues and she asked the
Mayor to sign the application for receivership as it needed to be delivered as soon as possible. She
wanted to include the petitions in their applications. She said Mr. Fortino was moving forward and
DHS was prepared to disburse the grant. The PUC would meet on August 22nd. She felt when the
DHS and PUC decide to rubber stamp Mr. Fortino's request for the grant.
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 18
Councilmember Drake said two issues existed: the declaration of emergency and the citizens' request
for the Council to sign and present the receivership application to the PUC. Mr. Crabb offered to help.
Councilmember Susman this would be agendized at the request of the citizens group and not by the
Council.
COUNCIL IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES
8.1 Chief of Police "Profile" Process. Recommendation: Council establish a community / citizen
involvement process for this effort. Councilmember Drake stepped down as he had a potential
conflict of interest.
Mr. Wright reviewed various scenarios to proceed with this process. Establish a committee and then
hold a public meeting. He said the evening of August 30th was available for a public workshop and
the Council need not be there. He added Judge Holmer and the Hospital District to the interest list.
Other entities added included the School District, Hispanic community outreach, the Sierra Nevada
Children's Services, Nevada County Probation Department and the Tahoe Sierra Board of Realtors.
Mr. Wright said the Town would publish an ad for this committee input. Legal requirements needed
for the position would be provided to the Council and the group. The hired individual would reflect
the entire department and the Town.
General direction received and consensus to proceed ahead. Councilmember McCormack
suggested two Councilmcmbers review thc input received after thc workshop meeting.
STAFF REPORTS
9.1 Conceptual Consideration of Use of a Portion of the High Street Right of Way for
Parking. Recommendation: Council provide direction that use of High Street Right of Way
for on-site parking is appropriate in this and similar cases where applicable conditions are
met.
Mr. Lashbrook stated the Town received a request from the Sierra Business Council (SBC) who
needed additional office/parking space. They were planning to acquire three parcels on High Street
for a 6,000 sqft mixed use office space. No specific project proposal had been received to date. The
site was very steep and parking created a problem. The only available space was in the right of way.
The request was to improve the 30' dirt shoulder with angled parking and sidewalks that would be
counted towards satisfying the parking requirements. Mr. Lashbrook said this was reviewed at the
department head level and staffwas comfortable with the request with conditions of proper drainage,
landscaping, lighting, and additional parking of 30% above the parking demand required for the size
of the project. It would be public parking and a long-term agreement was needed for snow
removal/maintenance, and it would be permitted through an encroachment permit with a life term of
the duration of their financing term. Mr. Lashbrook said there were two issues of concern: no better
solution than providing public parking and High Street was projected to continue with low traffic
volume. He said this had been done before for the bed and breakfast project on Keiser, the Zirbel
office and the Kirby building by a variance process.
Councilmember McCormack asked what the Council would be agreeing to. Mr. Lashbrook said the
Council would provide direction to staff to allow the parking in the right of way with conditions.
Councilmember Florian asked about the easterly property line and Mr. Lashbrook said the adjacent
property owner had no major concern. One of the Town's concerns was that someone else might want
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 19
10.
10.
to do something similar in the future. Design issues would be discussed when the project was
submitted. Councilmembcr Florian asked about the north side of High Street and Mr. Lashbrook said
it consisted of open space, a drainage culvert, and Caltrans right of way. Councilmember Florian was
comfortable as long as it was public parking. Mayor Schneider expressed concern about extending the
parking across the front of the adjacent property. The current owner might concur, but future owners
might not feel the same. Councilmember Drake said this benefits the proponent and he expressed
concern about setting a precedent and treating future requests equally. Mr. Wilkins noted that angle
parking on Donner Pass Road would not be accepted, but since High Street was a low volume street,
it could work. Councilmember Drake asked for equality of future requests for parking in the right of
way. Mr. Lashbrook said this may not return to the Council, but the Zoning Administrator and the
Planning Commission would review it. Councilmember Susman felt comfortable since a similar
parking arrangement had already been done and this was a low volume street.
Motion by Councilmember Susman to authorize parking on the south side of the High Street
right of way for this and similar cases where applicable conditions are met, Seconded by
Councilmember McCormack, passed unanimously.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS -
10.1 Serve our Seniors. Councilmember Drake commented on the first anniversary for the Serve
Our Seniors providing a nutrition program and home delivery to Truckee and Placer County. In that
year 7,239 home delivered meals in Truckee and 2,200 in Placer. He said that grants and donations
provided about 60-70% but public contributions were needed. He asked for public donations and to
contact him or the Senior Center staff. In many cases, this is the only nutritious and balanced meal
many seniors receive each day.
10.2 Apology. Councilmember Drake extended his personal apology regarding comments made
at the August 3rd meeting about the religion of two Councilmembers.
10.3 Community Events. Councilmember Susman said the rodeo was a great success, and this
was their 26th year. Railroad days were coming up September 8, 9, & 10, and the Truckee Town
Portrait 2000 on September 17.
CLOSED SESSION litigation against Nevada County pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9; County of Nevada vs the Town of Truckee and the Truckee Redevelopment Agency
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. No reportable action was taken.
11. ADJOURNMENT. Mayor Schneider adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
STEPHEN L. WRIGHT, Town Clerk
By:
Jim Smith, Administrative Staff Assistant
Town Council Minutes
August 17, 2000, Regular
Page 20