Loading...
1996-09-05 Town of Truckee TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 5, 1996, 6:00 P.M. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 4. 5. 5.1 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor McCormack called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL. PRESENT: Councilmembers Carpenter, Cross, Drake, Eagan, and Mayor McCormack. ALSO PRESENT: Stephen L Wright, Town Manager; Dennis Crabb, Town Attorney; and Vicki Soderquist, Deputy Town Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Peter Soderquist. PUBLIC COMMENT - None PRESENTATIONS Progress report on Used Oil Oppommity Grant. Jon Lander, Town Engineer, informed Council that the Town administered the grant on behalf of Truckee and areas of Placer County and that local tax dollars were not utilized. He explained several of the positive results of the program that had been achieved to date. Councilmember Eagan questioned what would happen when the grant ended. Mr. Lander responded that the program would be in place at that time and would continue by the private sector. He also felt there would be other grant funds available. The program was very successful and he informed the public that containers were available at no cost for recycling oil. CONSENT CALENDAR (One simple motion approves all of the following actions.) Mayor McCormack pulled Item 6.3 from the Consent Calendar. Motion by Councilmember Drake, Seconded by Councilmember Cross, passed unanimously to approve Item 6.3, Proclamation for Truckee Wheel Chair Tennis Week. The proclamation was read and presented to Molly Harrison by Mayor McCormack. Motion by Councilmember Cross, Seconded by Councilmember Drake, passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar with Item 6.3 pulled. 6.1 Minutes of August 15, 1996 Regular Council Meeting. Recommendation: approve. 6.2 Proclamation for USS Archer-Fish (SS 311). Recommendation: approve. Mayor McCormack noted that Truckee resident, Judd Dygert, had been a crew member on the USS Archer-Fish. He would be presenting the proclamation at their reunion dinner on 9/18/96. 6.3 Proclamation for Truckee Wheel Chair Tennis Week. Recommendation: approve. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. 6.4 Ordinance establishing parking regulations for Truckee Intermodal Transportation Terminal by adding Chapter 10.13.160 to the Municipal Code. Recommendation: Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance. Mr. Wright requested that the ordinance be amended to include "and an infraction" in the last paragraph after "It is unlawful". Motion by Councilmember Cross, Seconded by Counciimember Drake, and passed unanimously to amend Ordinance 95-05 to include "and an infraction" in the last paragraph after "It is unlawful" and introduce the ordinance. COUNCIL IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES 7.1 Sphere of Influence Report Update (continued from July 18, 1996). Recommendation: Direction to staff. Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development reviewed the key points of the report, i.e. the primary objectives and future land use. Council had directed staff to meet with the affected parties and remm with alternatives. Outstanding issues were: 1) clarification of LAFCo process for adopting the sphere of influence; 2) CEQA compliance; 3) concerns of special districts relating to policies which may affect special district spheres and reorganizations; 4) Airport District's objection to being placed within sphere of influence; 5) major landholders concerns regarding the sphere of influence; and 6) LAFCo preliminary comments. He then reviewed the purpose of LAFCo, definition of sphere of influence, and the definition of sprawl. The Airport District opposed inclusion in the sphere and the 1-5 year annexation horizon. He then reviewed the three alternatives as outlined in the report. Staff recommended Option 2 - Exclude Airport District property from the sphere boundary based on a finding that a decision to include or exclude the property was premature at the present time because the Airport District was committed to updating the Airport Master Plan in the near future which could provide a vehicle for the Town to address land use and general plan consistency which was the primary reason the Airport was included. The Airport District Board of Directors unanimously supported the concept of entering into a memorandum of understanding with the Town. Councilmember Cross questioned if Option 2 would require a General Plan amendment. Mr. Lashbrook responded that an immediate General Plan amendment would not be required. It could be left open until the Master Plan was completed. Town CouncilMinutes SeptemberS, 1996Regular Page 2 Mr. Lashbrook stated three major development areas in the sphere had not been resolved: 1) Negro Canyon; Waddle Ranch; and Raley's property. He then reviewed the three alternatives for Waddle Ranch and their pros/cons and options. Mayor McCormack questioned if the properties would be included in an interim development reserve (IDR). Mr. Lashbrook responded that all three were recommended to be in the County's IDR which would not give them a development entitlement, but would allow development upon approval. Staff recommended a timing mechanism, but the County Planning Commission felt it was inferred and was not interested in adding timing criteria to the zoning code. Councilmember Eagan questioned if Tahoe Donner was in the proposed sphere. Mr. Lashbrook responded they were and staff had informal discussions with them and their issues were minor. They wanted indication in the sphere report or General Plan that would recognize their development capabilities which were established and were long standing in County zoning as the 160 acres adjacent to the Town boundary. Staff felt if they expanded their recreation area it should be annexed. Councilmember Carpenter referred to the Waddle property and the references to a Master Services Element and stated if it was to be specifically discussed he would excuse himself from the dais due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Lashbrook responded that it was a LAFCo request but could not be completed until staff received direction from Council. Staff had not responded to SR Jones' comments. Councilmember Carpenter questioned if the sphere of influence gave the property owners the opportunity to choose annexation. Mr. Lashbrook replied that was correct. Councilmember Eagan stated that Nevada County LAFCo would not consider annexation unless the property was included within the sphere of influence. She did not believe LAFCo would consider a concurrent application for a sphere of influence change and annexation. Mr. Lashbrook noted that the Town would pay the cost for a sphere of influence change. Councilmember Cross questioned if property could be developed if not annexed but included in the sphere. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was not clear in the County General Plan what would happen if the property owner did not want to annex but wanted to develop. Mayor McCormack questioned if the property would be treated the same if it was not in the sphere. Mr. Lashbrook stated he did not know how the County would react once the sphere of influence was adopted. There was policy direction in their General Plan that the land use would be the same or less intensive than those in the Truckee sphere of influence. Mayor McCormack referred to Alternative 2 and questioned whether the densities would remain the same. Mr. Lashbrook responded that they would be the same as the County General Plan designation. Councilmember Drake questioned if there was a delay if it would result in a "taking". Mr. Crabb responded that if it was properly Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 3 structured it would not be a "taking". All economic use of land could not be prohibited in the interim while phasing was taking place. Councilmember Carpenter questioned if the County 267 phasing plan mirrored the Town's. Mr. Lashbrook stated the County's plan was similar but had a sunset clause in 1998 or 1999. Mayor McCormack questioned the size of the proposed sphere. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was clear the Town could not justify the size on projected growth needs over 20 years. Staff followed LAFCo's policy regarding urban development which was the basis for the sphere boundary. Louis M. Reinkens, President, Truckee Tahoe Airport District, informed Council that their Board had unanimously voted to support Alternative 2. They appreciated the time and effort put into the process. It was an important issue and they felt it was the first step toward a long term precedent setting agreement. James Mitchell, Truckee, CA, stated he was a property owner on the west end beyond Tahoe Donner and he was not interested in being included in the sphere of influence. He noted there was a significant difference in the text of the Nevada County General Plan and the Truckee General Plan. The Truckee General Plan designated their property as urban and he wanted it to stay rural as designated by the County. He guaranteed unanimous opposition at the LAFCo meeting as he would join with Negro Canyon. Mr. Lashbrook stated staff would look at the County designation and felt the property could potentially be removed from the sphere. Jim Porter, Porter Simon, Attorney representing the Waddle Ranch property requested that Council exclude them from the sphere. He also represented the Acevedo property and stated the Timber Trails RV Park was included in the sphere of influence as open space. The County had down zoned them from commercial to recreational and he requested that they be excluded from the sphere of influence. If they remained in the sphere he requested that they be designated as recreation and not open space. Mr. Lashbrook felt the difference in land use designation was an oversight on staff's part and they would review it if it was designated for recreational uses.. Gary Elster, Truckee, CA, stated he supported Alternative 1 - Sphere of Influence as proposed and maintain land use designation as shown in the Town General Plan. The issue was not how much opposition there was but what was the right thing to do for the citizens of Truckee. He felt land use decisions should be made by the people in the area and Council should do the right thing. Kevin McCall, Truckee, CA, stated he represented Waddle Ranch and was also a resident concerned with the quality of life and financial health of the Town. He felt Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 4 LAFCo would require more information on the master service element and that the position in the report was not financially responsible. He further felt that the County areas in their General Plan were areas of concern and that there should be intensive interagency review. The response in the staff report was negative, i.e. that it was hard to work with the County. The Town should get its own house in order regarding road conditions, plowing, library services, social services, etc. before doubling the boundaries. Dale Creighton stated he represented Raley's properties and noted that the property was within the Sewer Assessment District and that the assessments had been paid. His concerns were with procedure as he did not feel it addressed the criteria and specifics i.e. the need for infxastmcture or impacts on existing facilities. The County recognized that they were in the District and he hoped that it would come out in the review process. He objected to page 3 of the report and felt the Town Council decision would carry a lot of weight with LAFCo. There should be a better coordinated effort among jurisdictions and where the sphere of influence included a special district it should be considered. They would support the IDR as long as it showed the same land use as the County. They did not support the timing issues because they felt they were arbitrary while the IDR allowed them to be specific. * * * Council recessed at 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. * * * ~ ~ Mayor McCormack stated that he, Councilmember Carpenter, and the Town Manager met with the Airport representatives and in the course of discussion it was noted that it might be desirable to include the Airport in the sphere, with or without annexation, if the land use development agreement did not produce the land use protections the Town wanted. The property could be included in the sphere without annexation but he did not want to suggest an element of mistrust and noted there was a common interest in land use control. Councilmember Cross questioned if the airport master plan was developed and identified commercial/industrial development within the property and, it was mutually agreed to include the area in the sphere and to annex, if it would be in any tax sharing agreement with the County. Mr. Lashbrook responded that the Town was obligated by LAFCo to adopt a tax sharing agreement separate to any particular development or annexation. Councilmember Cross questioned if a tax sharing agreement would include all furore revenue. Mr. Lashbrook responded that it would be subject to negotiation. Councilmember Eagan questioned the process and time frame for the agreement with the Airport District. Mr. Lashbrook stated that staff recommended that it be pursued as rapidly as possible. Mr. Reinkens concurred with Mr. Lashbrook's comment. Mayor McCormack stated it was obvious the Airport Board was opposed to inclusion Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 5 in the sphere and he felt staff had good answers to the Board's issues. Sovereignty and land use were a big issues, but he felt an MOU could be developed. Councilmember Cross stated that any future development at the Airport would have an impact on capacity and infxastmcture. Highway 267 would become a Town road and would have to bear the cost of maintenance. Councilmember Carpenter stated he was at the meeting with the Airport representatives and felt it was hard to follow their logic but it was clear that they were against inclusion in the sphere. He felt it was a political advantage to have the Airport Board on the Town's side when going before LAFCo. Ultimately, the decision was LAFCo's and if there was a joint recommendation he felt it would be better accepted. He supported the MOU. Councilmember Eagan was encouraged by the strong suggestion for good dialogue regarding common interests and solutions and felt that should be encouraged. She felt positive about the agreement with the Airport Board. Mayor McCormack noted that there was an additional benefit because the Airport was a Placer County District. Mr. Lashbrook noted that the Airport District was controlled by Placer County and the majority of the assessed valuation and voters were in Placer County. The Town presently had concerns regarding development in the Martis Valley area of Placer County and he felt the Airport District's views were more consistent with Truckee. They had a natural relationship with Placer County. Motion by Councilmember Drake, Seconded by Councilmember Eagan, passed unanimously to approve Alternative 2 - Exclude Airport District property from the sphere boundary based on a finding that a decision to include or exclude the property is premature at the present time. The basis of the finding is that the Airport District is committed to updating the Airport Master Plan in the near future. The Airport District Board will enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Town in place of inclusion in the sphere. Tahoe Donner - Mr. Lashbrook stated Tahoe Donner may have a short term development interest on the 160 acres for cross country and equestrian center expansion and long term recognition of residential development potential on the property. It was staff's intent to include those issues in the final report. Staff felt any improvement on any unincorporated property should be part of the Town. Mayor McCormack questioned if there was any change from the earlier drat~ sphere or if additional action was requested. Mr. Lashbrook responded that if Council concurred staff would proceed with the final draft. Councilmember Drake questioned the problem with the Acevedo property. Mr. Lashbrook stated that staff would have to look at it and respond. Mayor McCormack questioned if it was the same problem with the Mitchell property. Mr. Lashbrook replied that it was a rural designation in the County and not in the sphere. Staff concluded that it should be excluded if there was such a discrepancy. Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 6 Councilmember Cross stated the sphere should not be looked at as to annexation, but providing consistency with land uses on the borders of Town. He was straggling with the fiscal side, i.e. he did not want to annex land with lack of density because it was not fiscally sound. Mr. Lashbrook stated that if development occurred in the County it would result in a lot of roads and not a lot of houses, i.e. it would not be fiscally feasible for either the Town or County to maintain. He felt if developments were rural they should be outside of the Town. Councilmember Cross felt there was a demand for rural development within the Town, but Council had decided not to approve estate parcels within the Town boundaries. He questioned what would happen if the demand was satisfied outside of the sphere, i.e. how far should the sphere go in order to keep that type of development on the perimeters of Town. Mr. Lashbrook responded that it was a philosophical discussion. Councilmember Eagan referred to the letter regarding Negro Canyon and stated there was no right answer. Council had attempted to create an environment to encourage in-fill development because a development would have to be cost effective before annexation so it would not be subsidized by the entire community. Council needed to clearly communicate what was best for the community. Councilmember Carpenter stated he was having no problem separating the discussion of annexation from the sphere. He questioned if the property in the sphere had a similar land use designation as the County, why not include it in the sphere. Mayor McCormack noted that if the development was rural it would be too expensive to annex and, therefore, should not be included in the sphere. Councilmember Cross questioned if the County zoning would still be in effect if property was included in the sphere. Mr. Lashbrook replied that if a development project was in the sphere it would be referred to the Town. If the Town wanted to annex the property the County would be ont. If the Town did not want to annex the property it would be a County issue. Councilmember Cross noted that when the Town was incorporated the boundaries were established due to fire suppression and costs. That information was not included in the sphere regarding potential annexation and the Town would have to absorb those costs. Councilmember Eagan stated there was a difference between a discussion on annexation and the sphere. Council should not make decisions based on annexation at the present time because things could change in the future. Urban development should be served by unurbanized area. Councilmember Carpenter agreed that Council should only be talking about land use. Councilmember Eagan did not feel that Council could make any decision on a specific property as they would have to get into the merits of a particular property. Mayor McCormack stated that to stick with the original land use in the General Plan was ignoring reality. Councilmember Cross questioned if the Town asked the County to overlay the land Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 7 use designations in the sphere if the Town was in essence annexing. Mr. Lashbrook replied that the Town would ask the County to recognize the appropriate land uses within the sphere, but not commit to annexation. Councilmember Cross questioned if the land use was overlayed if it would preclude annexation because a development was not fiscally responsible. Mr. Lashbrook responded that was correct. Councilmember Eagan stated the question of annexation was only a function when something happened on a property. The issue was in-filling which was a function of timing and she noted there was some timing/phasing in the IDR. She preferred Alternative 2 because it recognized the concern of the property owners, RC/OS designation, and the Town's issue of timing. Mayor McCormack agreed. It was difficult to pursue RC/OS because there were no specifics. The County land use density did not have timing aspects for in-fill or how to provide services. Councilmember Cross felt the RC/OS was an unfair land use designation and would create a frame around the Town with no development and no intention to annex. Councilmember Carpenter agreed to eliminate Alternative 1 but he was uncomfortable with Alternative 2 regarding timing. He was concerned the Town would be sending a signal in the sphere that property would be annexed when it may not happen. Mayor McCormack stated it would depend on what the project was. It was not a promise but a future consideration if both parties were willing. He felt the Town should adopt the County land use density with a time limit and develop phasing policies to guide urban development in those areas. Mr. Lashbrook stated until a property was in the Town the County had land use control. Councilmember Carpenter stated he was comfortable with Alternative 2 except for the timing. He was not sure Council could talk about timing without talking about specifics. Councilmember Cross concurred with Councilmember Carpenter's comment. Mr. Lashbrook stated it seemed to be the consensus of the Council to go forward with Alternative 2 and develop broader timing and phasing policies to guide urban development in those areas; modify the General Plan use within the sphere to mesh with the County General Plan and remove the specifics of 5 and 10 years. Councilmember Drake requested that staff consult with the owners of the properties with urban development designations regarding potential timing/phasing mechanisms. Mayor McCormack stated he was concerned regarding Negro Canyon because it was closer to development than the other parcels and felt staff should keep that in mind. Tahoe Donner Public Utility District - Mr. Lashbrook referred to a letter received from the Public Utility District expressing their concerns regarding the definition of urban development. They were concerned that developers would avoid annexing to the Tahoe Donner Public Utility District because it would trigger annexation into the Town. He felt that staff could address that issue in the context of the report. Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 8 7.2 * * * Council recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. * * * Road Committee Update. Recommendation: Direction to staff. Mr. Wright gave a brief review of the Road Committee Update. He noted that Recommendation B should be corrected to read: "Direct that road related election measure should not be put before the voters this fiscal year .... ". Mayor McCormack questioned if the consultant was referring to both the ½¢ sales tax for road maintenance and funding mechanisms for road maintenance. Mr. Wright responded that the consultant advised against putting both issues before the voters during the present fiscal year. Councilmember Carpenter questioned if the consultant addressed the issue of an advisory vote regarding road maintenance issues. Mr. Wright replied that the Committee had not discussed that issue. Mayor McCormack referred to the recommendation that a ballot issue be kept simple and questioned if that meant not putting both issues, i.e. the ½¢ sales tax for road maintenance and the funding mechanism on the same ballot. Mr. Wright responded that the consultant expressed caution about keeping the ballot question simple. Councilmember Eagan noted that revenues were not adequate to maintain and reconstruct the roads. The problem arose because the County had even less money than the Town and had not maintained the roms prior to the annexation. She felt the Town was doing much more regarding road maintenance and that the levels of service were also much higher. Councilmember Carpemer noted that a significant amount of asphalt would not be put down until another three years if the Town waited for a 1998 ballot measure. He felt the TSSA issues would not go away. Councilmember Cross stated there was no guarantee that TSSA issues would ever go away. Mr. Wright noted that if Proposition 218 was passed in November that it could affect the Town's TSSA income in the future and the Town's ability to increase TSSA fees. Mayor McCormack stated that Council may want to revisit the sales tax measure as it may be more acceptable to the voters than an assessment.. Councilmember Cross cautioned that the consultant was adamant about having as many voters as possible because the issue would require a super majority. Councilmember Eagan stated that Jim Porter had recommended that the Town conduct surveys and that had been reinforced by the recommendation of the consultant. Motion by Councilmember Carpenter, Seconded by Councilmember Drake, passed unanimously to approve the amended staff recommendation: a) Continue to pursue completion of a five year capital improvement plan by the end of this fiscal year. b) Direct that road related election measure should not Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 9 be put before the voters this fiscal year and that the newly seated Town Council should decide on future road related election strategy, c) The new Town Council should re-form some type of ad-hoc road committee in the Spring to continue to analyze and develop recommendations related to road financing issues. 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 Martis Valley Business Center Project in Placer County. Recommendation: Direction to staff. Mr. Lashbrook stated the project had been before the zoning administrator last month with a recommendation to approve the project and Negative Declaration. The proposed project was on the Town boundary and staff was concerned with the traffic impacts. A letter had been sent to Placer County stating that a Negative Declaration was not sufficient and that an Environmental Impact Report should be required and the County agreed. A letter was also sent requesting that Placer County adopt the 267 Phasing Policy and no response had been received. Staff felt Placer County could deal with the traffic impact issues by going through the steps of the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations, but the actual impacts of the traffic in Truckee would not be addressed. It was now a question as to whether the Town was in a position to support the project or be neutral. The Town did not have a great deal of leverage legally. He then outlined the three alternatives: 1) Attempt to enforce the SR 267 Phasing Policy; 2) Negotiate for appropriate traffic impact fees and an improved design; and 3) Do nothing. Staff recommended Alternative 2 and, if the County did not agree, the Town could challenge the project. Mayor McCormack questioned the projected traffic from the project. Mr. Lashbrook replied that it was a 42,000 sq. ft. development with 60 trips/peak hour and 54 trips/peak hour to Truckee. Councilmember Carpenter questioned if the Town would actually oppose the project. Mr. Lashbrook stated that if the County would not negotiate an impact fee and improved design the Town could oppose the project, appeal, and/or file litigation. Mayor McCormack stated the Town would not be agreeing to the project ahead of time and the option to oppose it would not be foreclosed. Councilmember Cross stated that the County would want to know that the Town was negotiating in good faith. Councilmember Eagan felt the bottom line was that it was conceivable that the Council would not accept the project. Mayor McCormack stated that if the Council accepted the project in general terms it would be an exception to the Town policy. Motion by Councilmember Drake, Seconded by Councilmember Carpenter, passed unanimously to adopt Alternative 2: Negotiate for appropriate traffic impact fees and an improved design. Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 10 8.2 Bid Award for Street Repair and Overlay Project 96-II. Recommendation: Award contract for Street Repair and Overlay Project 96-II to Baldwin Contracting Company and authorize extra work at Donner Pass Road and Northwoods Boulevard in the amount of $436,101.70. Jon Lander, Town Engineer, informed Council that the bid was for the second phase of the overlay for the current calendar year. Three responses had been received an there was only 6/10ths of 1% between the high and Iow bid. An addendum had been added to include a portion of Sierra Drive that was not ready for the Phase I project due to the gas pipeline work and staffrecommended the inclusion o£that segment. There was an operating problem at Northwoods and Donner Pass Road which Caltrans stated was because the signal loop needed to be covered with asphalt. It was estimated that project would require 450 tons of asphalt at an estimated cost of $28,000. The Finance Department had informed him that there were carryover funds that had not been budgeted. Therefore, staff recommended inclusion of the extra work and the awarding of the bid to Baldwin Contracting. Motion by Councilmember Cross, Seconded by Councilmember Drake, passed unanimously to award the bid for Street Repair & Overlay Project 96-II and additional work at Northwoods and Donner Pass Road to Baldwin Contracting. Mayor McCormack questioned if the surplus funds did not show anywhere in the budget. Mr. Wright responded that was correct and that previous Council action on the Road Committee recommendations would also free up funds set aside for a special election. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS - None. CLOSED SESSION regarding litigation against Nevada County pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. Closed Session was not held. 11. ADJOURNMENT - Mayor McCormack adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. by: Respectfully submitted, STEPHEN L. WRIGHT Town Manager Vicki C. Soderqulst, CM~eputy Town Clerk Town Council Minutes September 5, 1996 Regular Page 11