Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2000-05-16 Town of Truckee TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES May 16, 2000, 5:00 P.M. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Schneider called the special meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers: Florian, McCormack, Susman, and Mayor Schneider Commission Members: Richards, Threshie, and Vice Chair Owens ABSENT: Councilmember Drake (excused) Commission Members Tryggvi and Werchick (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Town Clerk PUBLIC COMMENTS - None WORKSHOP 4.1 Planned Community 2 (PC-2) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The workshop is to provide the consultant's overview of the EIR and their suggestions for review and comment for the public process. No recommended action to be taken. Mr. Lashbrook stated the goal of the workshop was to provide an overview of the report and establish ground rules for the public process. The meeting was a workshop and not a formal public hearing, therefore, the Council/Commission would not be taking public comment but would be taking questions. He then reviewed the EIR process timelines. The EIR was available for checkout at Town Hall or the Library, was on the web, or could be purchased on a CD-ROM. Chris Stabenfeldt, Pacific Municipal Consultants, gave a summary of the E1R process. The Program EIR addressed the Specific Plan with subsequent actions. Because there was not an existing site plan or building specifications, the EIR was building a framework. He then reviewed the standards of significance for impact analysis, the table with proposed uses, conceptual plan, and overview of environmental issues addressed in the EIR. Gordon Shaw, LSC Transportation, stated they used the Town's traffic model for the EIR. He then reviewed the "no build" conditions (base case even if nothing happened on the site), PC-2 traffic generation, land use alternatives analyzed, roadway alternatives analyzed (the school was part of the proposed project for the purpose of the EIR), traffic impacts of the proposed project, traffic impact mitigation measures, and results of land use and roadway alternative analysis. Mr. Lashbrook noted that the transportation issues were the most complicated part of the EIR as there was not a clear difference between alternatives. Mr. Shaw stated that with the construction of the by-pass there would be more highway capacity and, in general, that was not the impact he was afraid of. Mayor Schneider questioned the percentages of local versus out of Town traffic. Mr. Shaw replied that they were mostly local short trips. Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D., performed the Cultural Resource Analysis and reviewed survey sites, summarized the various heritage resource types, survey results, and recommendations. Brian Mayerle, Foothill Associates, performed the Biological Resource Analysis and reviewed the set~ing which included vegetation, wildlife, special-status species, sensitive habitats; impacts on vegetation, wildlife, special-status species, sensitive habitats; and mitigation for Plumas Ivesia, raptors, and wetlands Paul Bollard, Bollard & Brennan Inc., performed the Noise Analysis and reviewed the measured hourly noise levels (Interstate 80 site), future noise contours for the preferred alternative and conclusions of the PC-2 noise analysis. He stated that the noise contours were left intentionally conservative, as those areas impacted would require additional study. Councilmember Susman referred to the overlay map, Section 4, and questioned if it was a proposed or current impact. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was current and included in the Comprehensive Land Use Map adopted in 1988. He noted that there was a process underway to update it. Mr. Stabenfeldt then focused on the view corridors, as well as light and glare. Two photo simulations were prepared. The areas that would be seen would be the church and school but it was difficult to simulate, as there was no site plans. Mr. Lashbrook stated that from Hwy 89 it was likely to see the church and the school would be prominent. Mr. Stabenfeldt stated that the commercial xvas fairly well screened. Mr. Stabenfeldt then reviewed the mitigation for visual resource impacts. Councilmember McCormack questioned if the impacts from Hwy 89 were less than significant. Mr. Stabenfeldt replied that they met the General Plan guidelines regarding setbacks. Visually they would not really be seen much, and there was not a massive/giant build out area. He had doubled the standard for setbacks from the highway for the school site. Mr. Lashbrook stated the General Plan defined an important view comdor in the meadow area, and in his analysis, significant development there would be a significant impact. The other two policies were fidgeline and hillside protection (mass grading, wholesale removal of vegetation violations) and in their analysis seeing an occasional building was not a violation of General Plan principles. Councilmember Susman questioned how a buffer would work with actual fight-of-way for Caltrans and the 100ft vegetative buffer. Mr. Stabenfeldt believed that there was enough room to accomplish that, and noted there was a significant amount of mature vegetation that already existed. Councilmember Susman expressed his concern with the number of 40ft trees that would be left in the triangle. Mr. Stabenfeldt agreed that there might be some site constraints but felt it was doable. Mr. Stabenfeldt then reviewed the alternatives analysis which included the alternatives evaluated in the EIR and comparison of project alternatives to the proposed project. The project was consistent with the General Plan but there were some exceptions and they had been documented. There was also mitigation on a handful of inconsistencies. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the policy decisions would affect the future of the community. He was hoping for some clear alternatives from the traffic study but they did not necessarily get those. There were a lot of tough decisions, staff work still to be done, review and input from the community, and a lot of input from the Planning Commission and Council. The EIR provided a lot of information and a baseline to begin review but did not do the Town's policy work. Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the timelines and stated that all comments received in writing would be incorporated into the Final EIR. Mr. Stabenfeldt reviewed the significant impacts that could not be avoided and noted that there were only three. Town of Truckee May 16, 2000, Special Page 2 Councilmember Susman questioned the significance of the criteria in the Habitat Conservation Plan. Mr. Lashbrook replied that it was a General Plan work program and that there had been some background work performed, but it had not been adopted by the Town Council. It had been identified as a "C" priority at the last Council team building. Councilmember Susman questioned how it would affect the Program EIR. Mr. Stabenfeldt replied that unless it had been adopted it could not be utilized. Commissioner Richards questioned if there had been an analysis of pedestrian circulation impacting traffic. Mr. Shaw replied that had not been done. Dave Cavanaugh, Truckee, referred to the sound portion and questioned what month the study had been performed. Mr. Bollard replied that the ambience noise study had been conducted in November 1999 which coincided with the time the document was being put together. Jana Caughron, Truckee, questioned how it could be determined that there was a less than significant impact when there was a 54% tree removal and no mitigation required. She felt that would impact view corridors and result in higher noise impacts. Mr. Stabenfeldt replied that they had used an accepted practice which focused on unique or sensitive habitat. The trees were a common habitat in the region. Mr. Mayerle stated that there was no formal regulation protecting the trees as a regional habitat. Philosophically it seemed significant but under CEQA it had to result in a significant decline in species. If there was a rare plant on the site it would have to be specifically identified and mitigation measures included. Common vegetation was determined as less than significant. Ms. Caughron stated that she understood that they were "stuck" with 600 homes but questioned why there was no alternative for clustered homes and reduction in commercial. Mr. Stabenfeldt replied that the plan was consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Schneider stated that issue had been addressed in prior workshops and the consultants had done what they were directed to do. Councilmember McCormack stated the alternative included less commercial. Ms. Caughron replied that it did not cluster residential. Mr. Stabenfeldt stated that under CEQA it substantially met the objectives and the project was consistent with the General Plan. They had not identified many significant impacts. Mr. Lashbrook then reviewed the proposed changes in the project proposal. Councilmember McCormack referred to the noise impacts and stated that when there was specific project review the impact of tree removal on specific properties would be analyzed. Mr. Stabenfeldt stated that the contours would most likely to be closer to the roadways, the current contours were worse case scenarios. He did not see a lot of issues on the boundaries of the property. Allison Sehelling, Truckee, questioned if the EIR took into consideration impacts in future years. Mr. Bollard replied that the noise contours addressed 2015 traffic impacts. Ms. Schelling requested that the word "maintain" be utilized in the document instead of"create" as create was a one-time word. Mayor Schneider requested that Ms. Schelling submit written comments. George Moore, Truckee, questioned who would pick the best alternative. Mr. Lashbrook replied that it would be a staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and then to the Town Council. Mr. Moore questioned the number of public hearings to be held. Mr. Lashbrook replied that there would be a series of public hearings at the Planning Commission and Town Council levels. Traditionally the hearings would filter the public issues and focus on a lesser number of issues for the To~vn Council to consider. Mr. Moore questioned what recourse was Town of Truckee May 16, 2000, Special Page 3 available when the Town Council picked a final plan. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it would be a legislative decision due to the General Plan and subject to referendum or challenge on an administrative level (court). They would rely on the General Plan and documented information, as well as, public input. Mayor Schneider noted that it did not happen in a vacuum. Ms. Caughron referred to the relocation of Rainbow Drive and the connector to Tahoe Donner. Mr. Lashbrook stated that there had been a series (4) of community workshops on the PC-2 original design and the access road intersecting Rainbow within the subdivision. Due to concerns expressed it was proposed to relocate Rainbow and move the entrance to the south. Prosser Lakeview residents would go into PC-2 property and exit onto Hwy 89 with an intersection. It was reflected in the current project proposal and evaluated in the EIR. Mr. Shaw stated that the new alignment gave adequate site distance. Mr. Lashbrook stated the Tahoe Donner connector would be built with Town-wide traffic mitigation fees and some of the fees would come out of the project. Mr. Shaw stated that when they looked at the Tahoe Donner access they also looked at potential for development in Tahoe Donner and identified that there was a need, but the Tahoe Donner access was not needed to adequately mitigate the PC-2 project. Mr. Cavanaugh referred to the golf course and questioned what affect it would have downstream on the fisheries. Mr. Mayerle replied that there had been no study of that impact at the current level. The project would have to enter into a standard Streambed Agreement only and there really were no endangered species regarding fish. Mr. Stabenfeldt replied that there had been significant discussion of water issues and there would be a comprehensive analysis of water quality and protecting downstream water quality. Councilmember Susman questioned if the proposed dates on the timeline were set. Mr. Stabenfeldt replied that he could not respond until he saw the volume and intensity of comments received on the EIR. Mr. Lashbrook stated that they had used the word "potential" in setting the dates. Mr. Stabenfeldt stated they would make every effort to turn the document around as soon as possible. Commissioner Richards questioned how traffic impacts for the school were developed. Mr. Shaw replied that they had performed counts at the middle school and the District gave them the maximum number of students allowed, as well as bus route information. There was a lot of information available. There was also a special use in the traffic model that was used. Commissioner Richards questioned whether it was anticipated that in 20 years Tahoe Donner would have the same ratio of primary homes as the other areas of Town. Mr. Shaw replied that they felt there would still be some secondary homes. Councilmember McCormack informed the public that the best opportunity for public input was at the Planning Commission level. ADJOIJRNMENT, Mayor Schneider adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. by: Respectfully submitted, ~~0~~. Town Clerk · q Town of Truckee May 16, 2000, Special Page 4