Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2000-04-06 TOWN OF TRUCKEE REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING April 6, 2000, 6:00 P.M. TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BOARD ROOM 11570 DONNER PASS ROAD, TRUCKEE, CA MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 afternoon. 2. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Councilmember Drake, Councilmember Florian, Couneilmember McCormack, Councilmember Susman, and Mayor Schneider 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Steve Randall. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT - None. 5. PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Kids Zone Project. Presentation will be given by Phoebe Bell, Jackie Ginley, and Kathy Lucas. Phoebe Bell explained that the Kids Zone project would include an indoor play area, interaction exhibits, Family Resource Center, and a multipurpose space for classes. Goals would include increased motor skills concerning infants and children; improved access to support services for young children and families; and encouragement of healthy development of infants and young children. Proposed space would be on the School District property near the recreation facility between the high school and the soccer fields. Jackie Ginley, President of Family Connection, spoke about pro bono work pledged by different agencies and non-profit groups working for the youth of the community. Funding programs included a $282,000 budget with a $150,000 fundraising goal. Funding to date included pledges of $83,500 from the Children and Families First Commission; $25,000 from the Park & Rec; and $25,000 from the Children's Museum, in addition to utilizing Prop 10 funds. Contact people would be Phoebe Bell, Public Relations; Jackie Ginley, Fundraising; Kathy Lucas, Structure; Jeff Sparksworthy, Interior Design. Kathy Lucas, of Family Connection, said the structure was contemplated to be a tension structure with a slab foundation, steel trusses, and a PVC membrane. She felt it would be a good blend of economics and durability; and a custom design for Truckee. The wish list included a request for permit fee reduction and expedited processing since they hoped to have the building completed by the Fall. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 1 Mayor Schneider commended the group for their efforts to date. Councilmember Susman stated he had attended a presentation approximately two months ago that showed the importance for an activity center for young children 0-5 years of age. 5.2 Caltrans District 3 Update. Presentation was given by Karl Dreher, Project Manager, Caltrans District 3. Mr. Dreher, Senior Transportation Engineer and Project Manager for 1-80 rehabilitation work, reviewed the plans for 1-80 from Placer County to the State line, stating the work would include new pavement, infrastructure work, lighting at on/off ramps, curbing, safety improvements, and installation of fiber optic lines. 1-80 was over 40 years old and they needed to bring the roadway up to current standards. Due to heavy winter wear and increased transportation volumes, the interstate was being improved to handle regional traffic demands, as well as overall increased use. The 1-80 corridor was broken into 13 segments based on geography and roadway conditions consisting of 45 different projects over 90 miles of centerline roadway. The total estimated cost was $950,000,000. Mr. Dreher focused on the Truckee projects that included the following: Donner Summit Rehabilitation - Construction period for this phase would be 2001-2003. Donner Park Overcrossing - Construction period for this phase would be 2001-2002. Truckee Median Barrier - Construction would start in 2001 for bridge and roadway work, and would keep two lanes open at all times except during median paving. They have coordinated with the bypass project since there was an overlap in project boundaries. West BocafFloriston Project - Construction period would be 2001-2003. Councilmember Susman said he had received positive feedback from residents on the Summit indicating the parties had reached a satisfactory closure to some of the detour concerns. He asked about the eastbound downgrade on Donner Summit and the feasibility of asphalt versus concrete for noise concerns at the residential area and the longevity factor. Mr. Dreyer stated that due to the harshness of the extended winter season and chain wear, concrete was much better. Asphalt was considered but the State would need to return sooner for replacement whereas concrete was expected to last approximately 40 years. Councilmember Drake sought clarification about the proposed detour down Old Highway 40. Mr. Dreyer explained that was the original proposal, but that was not the case now. Westbound traffic would be diverted only during the paving operation which was projected to last for 30-35 days. Councilmember Florian wanted to know if any plans were in place for removing the Donner Park sand collection area. Mr. Dreyer said there was $60,000 set aside for landscaping that area, and that an alternate site needed to be obtained before any possible relocation. Councilmember McCormack requested a further explanation of the Floriston detour. Mr. Dreyer reconfirmed the 18-month construction season in that area and that a detour would be a necessity. The geometrics of the area did not allow the ramp to remain open during construction since Caltrans would be lengthening the acceleration lanes. Emergency service access would always be permitted. Anyone exiting at Floriston would need to go to Farad and then return. News articles were being arranged, and notices would be mailed to all area residents in that area. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 2 Councilmember Susman wanted to know about the relocation of the Ag Station. Mr. Dreyer stated he was only involved in traffic coordination of the two projects and was not involved in the planning but stated that both construction schedules meshed together. Councilmember Susman was concerned about road repairs at the current Ag Station. Mr. Dreyer said that portion of work would be done last. Mayor Schneider explained the function of the Town's Utility Coordinating Committee and requested that Caltrans send a representative to attend those meetings for coordination of state and local construction project work. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR (One motion approves all of the following actions.) Motion by Councilmember Drake to approve the Consent Calendar, Seconded by Councilmember Susman, Motion passed unanimously. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Minutes of March 23, 2000 Special Meeting. Recommendation: Council approve. Authorizing Examination of Sales and Use Tax Records. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-18 authorizing examination of sales and use tax records by the Town's sales tax consulting firm. Opposition to SB 402 - Binding Arbitration. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-19 opposing the passage of SB 402 (Burton). Award Bid, Depot Restroom Remodel (continued from the 3/23/00 Council meeting). Recommendation: Council award the Depot remodel contract to Restroom Facilities Corporation in the amount of $53,103. Accepting an Additional $80,000 to Fund Collection of Additional Data for the Truckee River Watershed Management Study - 205(j) Grant. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-20 accepting an additional $80,000 for the 205(j) Grant. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Appeal of Application No. 99-118/CUP (Sierra Village Apartment Homes); Atlantic Development & Investments, as represented by Mark Walther, applicant; Tahoe Sierra Meadows Community Association, as represented by Richard Gardner, appellant. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-16: 1) denying the appeal; 2) affirming the Planning Commission's actions on the project; and 3) approving minor revisions to Condition No. 17 and to Section 13 (Transportation/Traffic) of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Duane Hall, Town Planner, reviewed the project and identified the parties. The project was a 72-unit apartment development on 7.16 acres with an affordable housing component of 55 units for very low income, 2 low income units and 15 units at market rate. There would be six 2-story buildings and an office/community building. The project was located on 267 with all access from Martis Valley Road. Drainage problems near the 267 corridor were slated for improvement during construction. Mr. Hall reviewed the Planning Commission actions in determining a mitigated negative declaration; approved use permit with conditions; reduction of on-site parking from 177 to 150; and reduction of sideyard setback from 30 to 15 feet for three structures. The appeal issues concerned traffic; setback reduction; parking reduction, and disproportionate concentration of low income households. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 3 Gordon Shaw, Leigh, Scott & Cleary (LSC), said he was hired by Town staffto revie~v traffic impacts on the projects. He reviewed his firm's traffic studies to date, as well as thc updated studies on the project which indicated higher traffic volumes than the previous counts. He used weekday counts versus summer weekday counts. Building a right tum lane would not provide a significant improvement. The LSC staff observed delays for left tums from Martis Valley onto 267 on winter weekdays. Morning and evening peak hours were reviewed, as were the numbers for left tums eastbound onto 267. Their revised report indicated that the project would produce 33 more vehicles in the moming (18% increase) and 21 more in the afternoon (18% increase) peak hour. Prior to the bypass opening, the project would increase average afternoon peak hour traffic by 14 seconds, or a Level of Service (LOS) F situation. By 2003 when the bypass opened, traffic levels were expected to reduce by 57%. He felt that future project conditions with the bypass and without a signal would be better than today since the LOS goes from F to C as the bypass continued operation and thru traffic volume was reduced. He said the General Plan indicated the LOS needed to be D or better. When looking at the intersection as a whole it was not that bad. Caltrans' signal warrant analysis required 11 conditions that must be met to justify a signal. Existing conditions met two warrants (4 hour and peak hour warrant); 2003 conditions with the proposed project would meet three warrants. As a comparison, the Palisades signal met seven warrants including the accident rate warrant. Mr. Shaw said that police records indicated less than two accidents over four years at that intersection. He also stated that Caltrans would make the decision for a signal, not the Town, since it was a state highway. He would not recommend a signal because it would not solve a traffic safety problem; it would double the total traffic delay; it would increase traffic noise; and it would increase the Town's long term maintenance budget. Mr. Hall then addressed the setback reduction. State mandatory incentive provisions (density bonus) had not been requested as an incentive for equivalent financial value. A variance was not required, and there would be no adverse impacts on adjacent existing or future uses. A 6' fence/decorative masonry wall along the church property was required by the Planning Commission to satisfy concems of the Sierra Bible Church. Mr. Hall said that the project focused on families, not multiple lessees; that there would be no assigned parking spaces, and no overflow parking would be permitted on public streets or adjacent lots. Due to the distance from public streets, he said the Planning Commission felt there would be no overflow parking problems. Affordable housing concentration concerns were addressed. The General Plan policy stated that affordable housing should be scattered throughout the Town. He then reviewed the locations of existing units (Riverview Homes, Truckee Pines and the Senior Center all on Estates Drive over 2,000 feet from the Sierra Meadows Subdivision and noted they did not share common infrastructure or streets. Those developments were physically separated by 267 and Estates Drive, and the Planning Commission concluded there was no overcrowding. State findings for denial included items: the project was not needed to meet Town needs; the project would have specific adverse impact on public health and safety that could not be mitigated; the project Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 4 must comply with specific state or federal law; the project would increase lower income units in the neighborhood by having a disproportionate number of lower income units; the project was on land zoned as resource conservation or open space; or that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning regulations. The property was properly zoned for high density residential and was also consistent with the Town's zoning requirements. Councilmember McCormack requested clarification of whether Caltrans would participate in a signal project. Mr. Wilkins said they would not due to several reasons, but primarily that traffic levels remained above warrant conditions. Councilmember McCormack also questioned computations for size of parking spaces and if there would be covered parking or garages. Mr. Hall stated there were State findings that needed to be met to require covered parking. The layout was such that covered parking could be added but only carports, not garages. Councilmember McCormack also questioned the neighbors' concerns about screening along the entrance drive. Mr. Lashbrook said Item 35f addressed that concern by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Florian questioned the traffic studies on 267 and Martis Valley Road. Mr. Shaw reviewed the lenient standards versus state warrant standards for a signal. The condition could change once the roadway was relinquished to the Town. State law also applied to reducing speed limits. Mr. Wilkins noted that staff was working with the Sheriff's Office in drafting a letter to Caltrans asking for a speed study to update the information from the last five years. He also said the speed limit signs supported the issuance of citations, but did not necessarily slow down traffic. Councilmember Florian asked about a guideline that one affordable project needed to be "x" number of feet from another affordable project, and what other areas in Town had affordable housing. Mr. Hall said there was no concentration in the immediate area. The Town had no specific criteria, so it was reviewed on a case by case basis. Mr. Hall said affordable housing existed on Estates Drives (three developments), three mobile home parks, Donner Lake, and multi-family projects throughout Town including Tahoe Donner, Gateway, and the Sierra Tavern. Councilmember Susman questioned whether the earthen berm on the northeast comer of the project would remain. Mr. Hall said it would be lowered to the 267 elevation. He felt that no consultant study would satisfy a resident's concern when they're sitting in traffic. Councilmember Susman thought that a right turn pocket was scheduled with AB 1600 funds and furore traffic mitigation funds that would be forthcoming and asked for a timeline when the residents could anticipate seeing traffic improvements. Mr. Wilkins reviewed the Town's AB 1600. Geometric improvements were scheduled for the intersection and would be paid by the developer. Councilmember Susman questioned the addition of turning lanes and felt that was an added benefit to the community that was not anticipated without the project. Rick Gardner, representing the appellant, stated he was the Manager of the Sierra Meadows Community Association. Main concerns from the Board of Directors were reviewed, and he noted that they did not file the appeal because of affordable housing. The Board was not taking a NIMBY approach. The impacts generated must be adequately mitigated. Their foremost concern was safety Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 5 He claimed the intersection was already at failure mode; and that the traffic study documented the failure mode at the 267 intersection. He felt a 309 second wait to make a turn onto 267 equated to over five minutes and that was intolerable. They also felt the speed limit should be reduced and that signal was the only way to adequately mitigate the problem. Their analysis of the study indicated a fourth warrant for a signal was only one hour away from being satisfied, and traffic was increasing every hour, every week. On weekends traffic concerns were far worse than the report indicated. He stated that although some traffic would be redirected to the Palisades signal, the speed limit was no longer obeyed on Martis Valley Road. He felt that two warrants were present now and there would be three met by 2003. Their accident statistics came from the CHP since 267 was a state highway and staff's report was from the Sheriff. Using the state's information, it might result in a fourth warrant being met. He felt the more complete traffic study would not have been done if the appeal had not been filed, meaning the Planning Commission based their approval on incomplete information. Another alternative that could be considered was to require a third entry: 1) driveway onto 267; 2) access onto 267 and none on Martis Valley Road; and 3 all access onto 267. They requested that a signal be installed if Council did not honor the appeal. Further, they requested two entrances and a lower speed limit on 267. Although that would not totally alleviate concerns, it would be tolerable. He had evidence of 10 accidents in 1999, 8 in 1998, while staff stated 4 in 10 years. He suggested the reports be compared from both agencies with a further study of that intersection. The intersection was used heavily in the morning and the afternoon by school buses with no report on timing access for a bus to safely access 267. He urged the Council to adopt a better mitigation plan. Mr. Gardner addressed parking reductions and felt the current allocation was inadequate for the size of the project. Perhaps the project was too large for the site. It was the developer's choice not to request the density bonus. He felt the Town was giving financial incentives for the project. The residents would feel better having more spaces rather than cars parked on the right of way. Their last concern was the clustering of affordable housing in Sierra Meadows and that the property should carry a deed restriction. The 267 corridor was considered a planning area according to Volume 2 of the General Plan and the Town imposed a moratorium on the corridor. Also, the land use map indicated high density zoning along the 267 corridor. He felt the project would be clustering all affordable housing in the Sierra Meadows neighborhood. He indicated that the RH zoning on the current land use map was along the 267 corridor in all but one spot. He distributed a copy of the agreement between the Town and Intrawest concerning the issue of affordable housing units. That agreement indicated that 160 units must be built before Phase IV of Intrawest was built, 80 units would go in Martis Valley, twice as many in the Martis Valley Road area as they would have to build in Placer County. They felt it was the Town's intention to cluster housing in the Martis Valley Road area. Tom Archer, attorney for the Association, addressed the Council about traffic impacts at the 267 intersection, the traffic speed on 267, and that the "hurry-up study" emphasized the cursory nature in determining whether there were sufficient warrants met for a signal into and out of Sierra Meadows. He urged the Council to request an additional traffic study as the Board was concerned for the safety of its residents. The issue of clustering had been adequately addressed, and there was no answer due to the statutory definition. The Town's infrastructure utilized 267 to and from all parts of Town, which therefore made Sierra Meadows a neighborhood. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 6 Ruth Frishman, project proponent, reviewed her experience in the affordable housing area. She informed the Council that there was only a 1% vacancy in the Town's available affordable housing, attesting to higher rents and noted that everyone was affected by the lack of affordable housing. She felt the Town was definitely on its way to becoming another Aspen and it was a serious housing problem. She stated that the Nevada County Sheriff's staff was commuting from as far away as Chico and Marysville because of a lack of affordable housing in Truckee. She reviewed the unit mix and rental rates of the project and compared them to the existing market rental rate. The County's annual area median income was $48,000 and she reviewed entry level wage scales from various employers along with the proposed rental rates which indicated that most of the local population could qualify as a resident in the development. No shared rentals, transients or short-term rentals would be permitted. She recanted various community sentiments against affordable housing that were raised against the Truckee Pines project which, for the most part, were the same objections raised against the subject project. Ms. Frishman stated that setback reductions were only along the edge of the commercial properties and that the developer would be using 80' buffers along residential homes on the south side. If they were required to redesign the project, more trees would be removed and more of a jungle-looking project would result. The developer scaled down the size of the project and dropped one building in an attempt to satisfy concerns of the neighbors. Parking concems were addressed and Ms. Frishman indicated that people who typically resided in multi-family developments had fewer cars than the typical homeowner. She reiterated the fact that it was a multi-family development, and tenants would not have three cars as a single family home with roormnates had, and, therefore, they required less parking area. Eviction action would be enforced and citations by the management would be given to the tenants if it became a problem. She addressed the over concentration issue by saying that she disagreed with residents who considered Sierra Meadows part of the Ponderosa Fairway Estates neighborhood. The developer was looking at an open parcel in the Estates Drive area but was told by the Planning staff that it would result in overcrowding in that area. She also reviewed each of the low income housing areas throughout Town. It was an $11.6 rmllion development and would not devalue the community. She was more concerned about second homeowners in the area not being able to afford renovations and track their tenants for possible problems as being more of a devalue factor. It was the private sector owning affordable housing that made professional management units look bad. Ms. Frishman said the developer agreed to install the right turn lane and the deceleration lane with construction starting Spring 2001. With the bypass opening in 2003, there could be a window of possibly 12-18 months that the area might be affected by traffic impacts. She felt the average would be a 12-second delay getting onto 267 and she compared that to the Glenshire Drive/267 intersection which was a lot longer. She also cited exiting the Safeway Center as an example of an area that often took more than 12 seconds to get onto Donner Pass Road. Tenants had fewer cars due to less income, therefore less trips, and she was certain impacts would be minimal. The developer had $800,000 into the project with no guarantee of approval. She urged the Council to consider the benefits to the community The Town could control growth but we could not have no growth. It was a quality development and was desperately needed by the community. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 7 There were other sites examined but the sites in Truckee were far and few between. She asked the Council to deny the appeal and allow the applicant to move forward. She thanked the Council for their support of the $1 million block grant loan process and also thanked staff for their review of the project. Mayor Schneider reviewed the material that had been provided to Council prior to the hearing. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Public comments received were: Mike Delfino, tree removal, traffic and time for snow removal would add to the delays. Larry Burden, Jeffrey Pine access problems, children safety, traffic due to future growth, bus access delays, parking spaces, and overflow. Lou Raso, Board Member, traffic impacts, Jeffrey Pine Road, impacts to quality of life, future growth beyond the Best Western, need for two extra school buses resulting in more traffic delays. Mike Lynch, safety conditions of the 267 intersection. Paul Tomasello, government's comprehensive planning, public health, safety and organization of growth, moral life of the people, essential to plan adequately, drainage not being addressed. Dave White, traffic flow. Ken Idecker, bypass construction traffic delays utilizing 267 and adding more traffic delays. The Council should delay approval until after the bypass was finished. Glenda Burton, children's safety walking to area parks and swimming pools, agreed with the need but was concerned about putting it along a major state highway. Children would cross the 267 to access their friends and skateboard parks, and fearful of gangs. Ken Daly, children's safety, local streets not adequate to handle the extra traffic, a delay in approval was in order until the bypass was completed, wanted a signal and more traffic studies. Ms. Shanner, housing shortages, review solutions to benefit the entire community. Alicia Brown, school bus access to 267/safety problem, and dropping children at the intersection to cross the Martis Valley Road, safety, and disagreed with the traffic studies. Robin Wood, traffic not mentioned for additional 10,000 housing units approved by Placer County, delay approval until bypass open and do another traffic study, need left turn lane on 267 and a signal, concerned over future growth impacts. Deny on state guidelines due to impacts on public health and safety and delay until the bypass was completed. Lyn Larson, future growth over the next 20 years, traffic and delays, reports not accurate, felt there was no small town flavor left, add a signal, and do the project right and not wait until later. Mary Lou Carson, felt privileged to be in an area where residents expressed concerns, and supported affordable housing. Charles Whitaker, frustrated by traffic bottleneck, school bus issue, traffic flow in and out of the project, needed a signal and the second entrance from 267. Christie Morgan, safety issue, requested a lower speed limit. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 8 Ms. Frishman rebuffed the majority of times there were cars backed up for access onto 267 and only once did she see even five cars backed up. Regarding Jeffrey Pine becoming a thoroughfare, she felt there was no way the traffic would increase on that street due to construction of the entry drive to the apartments. She said it would be unsafe to place a driveway on a state highway. The project would have a 2,800 sqfi. recreation center including a computer center to keep children on site. The vandalism concerns and access to Best Western were not an issue. She corrected the Planning Commission minutes regarding a phone conversation with Captain Jacobsen. Her records indicated 10 accidents occurring on that stretch of roadway with only two at the 267/Martis Valley Road intersection during 1999; and during 1998, eight accidents occurred along that section of the roadway and no accidents at the intersection. She felt the decision on safety and whether or not there should be a signal light should be left to the experts. The developer reviewed the Town's General Plan and only found four sites that complied with the concepts of the General Plan. The project site was the fourth site that the developer looked at due to over-concentration issues, sales prices and availability of housing sites. She strongly disagreed with the comments of gangs getting started because there was affordable housing in the area. Christopher Parker, President of the Tahoe Sierra Meadows Community Association, said thc Board of Directors supported affordable housing and thanked Town staff for their support. He focused his discussion on opportunities that the Council could consider, i.e.: create a project with a better fit to the site; project safety should fit the site; add a second driveway identified by the traffic survey that would alleviate the existing problems and extra traffic from new development. If the Council was not able to recognize the community's safety and traffic warrants in deciding signalization issues, the second driveway would make it safer. He also requested a reduced speed limit, and that the Council impose smart and appropriate mitigation. Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development, spoke to the traffic issues and altematives. The Council could require a signal at the present time or commit to revisit it again once the bypass was opened. The second driveway option was reviewed during the development review process and was deemed unsafe to exit onto the state highway. The Town could add traffic slowing devices rather than installing a signal once the Town received ownership of the roadway. He felt once the bypass was completed, the Town could review the CIP for that intersection. No one knew how traffic would function once the bypass was completed. Although one alternative was a signal, it might not be the best solution to satisfy an 18-month problem at a rough cost of $300,000. The second driveway would result in a significant redesign of the project. The third option would be to revisit the intersection when the project was completed. Mayor Schneider addressed one concern that the Council heard frequently which was that a decision had already been made. That was absolutely not the case, and all reports, studies, information and public comment would be considered. Councilmember Susman thanked both sides for bringing information forward and he had no predetermined decision. He discounted comments of gangs being created, the Town being held hostage, kids not being supervised properly, a predetermined outcome of the hearing, the quality of cars getting onto the highway, and the parking reduction argument and cars parking on Martis Valley Road. He heard nothing persuasive to change the setback reductions. The argument concerning a Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 9 disproportionate amount of affordable housing in Sierra Meadows was comparable to the lack of industrial land uses. He felt there was a larger deficit of industrial lands and that issue still needed to be resolved by the Council. Traffic was twofold: volume and safety. He supported the Palisades signal due to safety issues of citizens crossing the highway to and from the park, but he did not see the same issues at the Martis Valley Road intersection. It was his feeling that was a traffic safety issue, not an affordable housing issue. He considered the development an opportunity to provide housing options for the community. It was his understanding that the traffic study did not review project residents using public transportation and noted the Town had dramatic and consistent improvements in ridership of public transportation. He wanted to revisit the signal issue and additional driveways before completion of the bypass. Mayor Schneider requested summation of traffic, setbacks, clustering, and safety concerns. Councilmember Drake had two concems: on-site parking adequacy and the signal. He preferred to revisit the intersection issues after the bypass, and requested a condition be placed on the approvals about the parking issue. Should that become an issue, he would ask for more spaces. Mr. Lashbrook said that an area could be set aside to accommodate 27 extra spaces, then revisit after two years of occupancy to see if there was a problem, but he could not provide a definite answer at the present. Councilmember Florian requested trigger points that would call for a signal as more growth was completed, both in Town and in Placer County. Clustering was not an issue in his opinion. Regarding the traffic issues, two items could be somewhat easy to complete, ask the State to lower the speed limit and install turn lanes. Councilmember McCormack felt all points were well addressed. He saw no need to change the setback; however he was concerned about parking and voiced his support of staff's suggestion to submit a letter to Caltrans asking for an updated traffic study. He supported affordable housing, and agreed it was desirable to spread it throughout Town. Traffic remained a concern, but he listened to the Town's experts as it could potentially make things worse in the short term. He supported a rcvisitation of the issue after the bypass. Mayor Schneider said that future projects along the 267 corridor would be under closer scrutiny. Parking was an issue and she supported review at a later date. Traffic was a real issue and she shared concern for residents' safety. Although she felt it would be a quality project, the timeline for construction and the bypass could create problems. She requested some input from Mr. Lashbrook about revisiting the parking. Mr. Lashbrook felt there could be an additional 27 spaces set aside and review the issue after two years of full occupancy before the Zoning Administrator and the homeowners. Overflow parking problems could be a trigger for that review. Mr. Hall commented on some sites that were not conducive for more parking due to wetlands, a cut bank slope, trees, and building location. Parking could be added along the driveway, or to the interior open space. Mr. Hall thought it would be questionable to redesign the entire project for 27 spaces. Councilmember Drake supported Mr. Lashbrook's proposal of a review afler a two-year period to review the intersection and parking issues. Councilmember Susman felt consensus was reached on traffic and safety but he did not feel comfortable that a resolution had been achieved. He thought possible solutions would be to extend the parking near the church, but wondered if it would be possible to add a flashing light as a stop-gap measure until the time arrived to revisit the signal issue. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 10 Mr. Wilkins addressed the Caltrans issues saying they did not want to be bothered with the corridor because, in their opinion, the bypass would fix the regional problem. He thought it would be unlikely to expect support from the state. They may permit a signal but would not pay for the improvement. He also felt they would be resistant to a flashing light. A request for warning signs and speed limit reduction would be included in the letter to Caltrans. When the Town gained ownership of 267, lower speed limits would be imposed, so he felt that signage could be supported. Councilmember Susman was concerned about future project planning in the 267 area, as well as signage and access onto 267. Mr. Wilkins said those were tough areas: not owning the road and the need to conduct additional studies. It was his opinion that the time it would take for signal approval alone, the bypass would be place. Motion by Councilmember Drake to deny the appeal, and add the following conditions: 1) set aside 27 parking spaces for a review mechanism for staff to work out later with the developer; and, 2) one year after opening of the 267 bypass, staff review conditions for a possible signalized intersection; and 3) include approval of the minor revisions to Conditions 17 and Section 13 (Transportation/Traffic) of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Seconded by Councilmember McCormack, passed unanimously. Mayor Schneider thanked the public for the civility of their comments and the Planning Commission for due deliberation. 7.2 CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant Application. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-21 approving the submission of a housing rehabilitation grant to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and authorize the Town Manager to execute the necessary forms and assurances. Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development, reviewed the Town's previous involvement with the Block Grant Program and stated that the first application was unsuccessful. A $500,000 grant would be available to provide low interest loans to fund rehabilitation of 16 housing units owned or occupied by families with incomes below the County's 80% median income (less than $39,050 for a family of four). The grant would be administered by the Nevada County Housing Authority. The project would include Gateway, Meadow Park, Downtown and the 267 corridor ending south of the Truckee Pines development. The Town would contribute in-kind services, a cash contribution of $9,000 and wood stove rebates in a maximum amount of $16,000, with a $4,000 building permit fee reduction. The General Plan direction was to seek all available housing rehabilitation funds. There was a successful rehabilitation effort from the 1992 grant and a similar grant approval in 1998 was currently underway. He said that a nine-unit apartment complex rehabilitation had just been approved through the loan committee from the 1998 funding. Councilmember McCormack requested clarification of the grant expenditure. Mr. Lashbrook said the problem was finding contractors willing to bid on the projects since the area was in a heavy construction period. This being the time and place as advertised, the public heating was declared open. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 11 Motion by Councilmember Susman to approve Resolution 2000-21 approving the submission of a housing rehabilitation grant to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizing the Town Manager to execute the necessary forms and assurances, Seconded by Councilmember Florian, passed unanimously. COUNCIL IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES 8.1 Informational Report Regarding the Release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Planned Community-2 Specific Plan. Recommendation: Council accept the report. Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development, stated the PC2 EIR was printed and would be released on April l0th for public review. The EIR would be available in three forms: print, CD- ROM, or on-line. A joint Commission/Council workshop would be held on May 16th at 5:00 pm which would be followed with a 60-day review period with written comments accepted by June 12th; the Final EIR was projected to be completed by mid-August; and a potential first Planning Commission public hearing on the Final EIR could be mid-September, 2000. STAFF REPORTS 9.1 Wolfe Estates Oral Update. Recommendation: Council provide direction as desired. Dan Wilkins, Town Engineer, presented a brief report on recent activities. A request had been made by the owners for the developer (Wolfe Development, Inc.) to implement a process to move the project forward whereby the developer would have entered into an engineering contract with Cranmer Engineering for redesign work with the contract assignable to the Town. No engineering contract had been received. He had met with the owners and Hammonds Construction, but the developer was desirous of locating an Oregon engineering firm. In a meeting with the owners and the Town Attorney, the owners expressed concern about the constantly changing chain of events and that there needed to be positive dialogue in order to move forward. Mr. Wilkins told the Council that there were two options: allow Wolfe Development to pursue a design-build contract with an Oregon firm by May 4th; or direct staff to return at the next meeting with the resolution calling for the bond acceptance. Mayor Schneider expressed her concern with the continuing stall tactics. Mr. Wilkins said that Mr. Crabb prepared an assignable contract that Cranmer executed but it was not signed by the developer. He further stated that the parties had not met the milestone that were discussed previously by the Council. Jean Solberg, consultant for Wolfe Development, stated that Hammonds Construction felt more comfortable using the Oregon firm and they were desirous of being removed from the political drama. She said they were not concerned about being paid because they worked with the developer all the time. Some issues remained confidential and she was not at liberty to discuss them in a public forum. Cranmer would continue to provide some local assistance. She further alleged that King Engineering was holding data hostage because they wanted the contract for the redesign work. She requested Hammonds Construction for the design-build contract and they would have the guarantee from the contracts. Mayor Schneider sought clarification from the Town Manager about taking action at the meeting. Mr. Crabb clarified the issue that pulling the bond needed a resolution and specific action that was not agendized. Town of Truckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 12 10. Councilmember McCormack questioned who was being held hostage. Ms. Solberg attempted to explain the involvement of King Engineering and them not releasing the data, but she was not able to expand further, except to say that King Engineering claimed they owned the data from the additional work performed during the last two months and if they did not get the contract, they would not release it. Councilmember Florian again questioned who was being held hostage. Ms. Solberg attempted to clarify the political issues and stated that they (Wolfe Development) wanted to be left alone and Hammonds was afraid of being pulled into the issue deeper. She said she was not able to expand. Councilmember Susman wanted to know if she did or did not have a signed agreement with Wolfe or a construction company per previous Council direction. Ms. Solberg deferred to Mr. Wilkins. Mr. Wilkins stated that there was no signed contract. The Oregon engineering firm of Spinden Carter notified the Town at 4:45 p.m. prior to the meeting that if they got paid they would do engineering work for Hammonds Construction. Councilmember Susman said the answer to the question was no. Tino Serrano, owner of Lot 36, stated that Mr. King was not releasing the data because he was not paid. He said he was amazed they were still talking about the same issues as four years ago. He felt things would be better with Cranmer involved due to his credibility and had no lack-of-pay issues with Wolfe Development. He regretted asking for the last extension. Since then they had lost Cranmer and currently had an unknown engineering firm not able to meet May 4th deadline. Further, Ms. Solberg placed a $50,000 lien on their property for past services and she advised him that a similar lien would be coming from Hammonds Construction also for past services. He said there was no change from two weeks ago. One choice was facing litigation and increasing costs. Dennis Austin, owner of Lot 35, said he was not happy about the direction the owners had to face. There was no alternative but face the delay and wait for litigation. Councilmember McCormack stated the only reason for not pulling the bond was at the request of the property owners. He directed staff to agendize pulling the bond for the next meeting. He questioned what jeopardy was there to the Town. Mr. Crabb stated that staff would return with an anticipated series of events, assumed to be an agreement between the Town and the property owners as to how to proceed once the bond was received and dealing with the risk of potential litigation. He said the Council had reached a point of moving forward and the Town would have to deal with the litigation when it came. Councilmember Flotian commended the owners for their patience. He, too, was appalled at the current events and concurred with the request to agendize pulling the bond for the next meeting. Councilmember Drake said he hoped the builder rots. He concurred with agendizing pulling the bond. Councilmember Susman requested concurrence of three of the four owners before pulling the bond at the next meeting. He questioned how they could ensure that staff would not receive a call from the developer with a last minute proposal. Mr. Crabb stated the marching orders were clear; agendize the matter and have the developer at the next meeting. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS. 10.1 Mayor Schneider thanked the Sierra Sun staff for an amusing April 1st edition of the newspaper. Town of Tmckee April 6, 2000 Regular Page 13