tahoe regional planning agency (trpa)

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY (TRPA) TAHOE METROPOLITAN PLANNING AGENCY (TMPO)

AND TRPA COMMITTEE MEETINGS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Chateau, Incline Village, NV the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will conduct its regular meeting. The agenda is attached hereto and made a part of this notice.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 26, 2011,

Commencing at 8:30 a.m., at The Chateau, the TRPA Legal Committee will meet. The agenda will be as follows: 1) Public Interest Comments; 2) Resolution of Enforcement Action, John Stannard, Unauthorized Grading in the Shorezone, 3795 Belleview, Placer County, CA, Assessor’s Parcel Number 085-202-011; Page 73 3) Resolution of Enforcement Litigation TRPA v. Edgar (Red) Roberts, (Case No. 3:09-cv-00379-LRH-RAM, D.NV); Page 81 4) Closed Session with Counsel to Discuss Existing and Potential Litigation; 5) Potential Direction Regarding Agenda Item No. 3; 6) Member Comments; (Committee: Chair – Aldean, Vice Chair – Bresnick, Open, Santiago, Miller, Sher)

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, Commencing at 8:30 a.m., at the Chateau, the TRPA Operations Committee will meet. The agenda will be as follows: 1) Public Interest Comments; 2) Acceptance of November 2010 Monthly Financials; Page 1 3) Acceptance of December 2010 Monthly Financials; Page 37 4) Audit Recommendation Action & Discussion; 5) Adoption and Approval of the Supporting Resolution For the Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Transit Administration 5311 Program of Projects for California; Page 77 6) Cash Security Deposit Process Discussion; 7) Filing Fee Report; 8) Member Comments; (Committee: Chair – Breternitz, Vice Chair – Cashman, Beyer, Open, McDermid) January 19, 2011

Joanne S. Marchetta, Executive Director

This agenda has been posted at the TRPA office and at the following post offices: Stateline, Nevada and Tahoe Valley, California. The agenda has also been posted at the North Tahoe Conference Center in Kings Beach, the Incline Village IVGID office and the North Tahoe Chamber of Commerce.

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY

GOVERNING BOARD Chateau Jan. 26, 2011Incline Village, NV 9:30 a.m.

All items on this agenda are action items unless otherwise noted. Items on the agenda, unless designated for a specific time, may not necessarily be considered in the order in which they appear and may, for good cause, be continued until a later date.

All public comments should be as brief and concise as possible so that all who wish to speak may do so; testimony should not be repeated. The Chair of the Board shall have the discretion to set appropriate time allotments (3 minutes for individuals and 5 minutes for group representatives). No extra time for speakers will be permitted by the ceding of time to others. Written comments of any length are always welcome. So that names may be accurately recorded in the minutes, persons who wish to comment are requested to sign in by Agenda Item on the sheets available at each meeting. “Teleconference locations are open to the public ONLY IF SPECIFICALLY MADE OPERATIONAL BEFORE THE MEETING by agenda notice and/or phone message referenced below.” In the event of hardship, TRPA Board members may participate in any meeting by teleconference. Teleconference means connected from a remote location by electronic means (audio or video). The public will be notified by telephone message at (775) 588-4547 no later than 6:30 a.m. PST on the day of the meeting if any member will be participating by teleconference and the location(s) of the member(s) participation. Unless otherwise noted, in California, the location is 175 Fulweiler Avenue, Conference Room A, Auburn, CA; and in Nevada the location is 901 South Stewart Street, Second Floor, Tahoe Hearing Room, Carson City, NV. If a location is made operational for a meeting, members of the public may attend and provide public comment at the remote location. TRPA will make reasonable efforts to assist and accommodate physically handicapped persons that wish to attend the meeting. Please contact Judy Nikkel at (775) 589-5243 if you would like to attend the meeting and are in need of assistance.

AGENDA

I. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. PUBLIC INTEREST COMMENTS – All comments may be limited by the Chair.

Any member of the public wishing to address the Governing Board on any item not

listed on the agenda or on items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. However, public comment on Project Review, Public Hearing, and Appeal items will be taken at the time those agenda items are heard. The Governing Board is prohibited by law from taking immediate action on or discussing issues raised by the public that are not listed on this agenda.

IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (see Consent Calendar agenda below, for specific items)

VII. PLANNING MATTERS

A. Placer County Redevelopment Plan Presentation (Information Only) Page 89

B. Discussion and Direction to Staff on Additional Input to the Regional Page 93 Plan Update EIS Alternatives

C. Discussion and Direction to Staff on Regional Plan Update Schedule, Page 207 Scope and Process

VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

A. Resolution Recognizing Governing Board Member Steven Merrill

IX. CLOSED SESSION

A. Closed Session to Discuss Pending or Potential Litigation

B. Direction to Staff Regarding Pending or Potential Litigation

X. REPORTS

A. Executive Director Status Report Page 211

1. Agency Work Program Priorities for January

a. Regional Plan Update b. Forest Fuels Management Update c. Aquatic Invasive Species d. EIP Implementation e. Shorezone Implementation f. CEP Update

B. General Counsel Status Report XI. GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER REPORTS

XII. COMMITTEE REPORTS

A. Legal Committee

B. Operations Committee

C. Public Outreach & Environmental Education Committee

D. Catastrophic Wildfire Committee

E. Local Government Committee

XIII. ADJOURNMENT

TRPA CONSENT CALENDAR

Item Recommendation

1. Acceptance of November 2010 Monthly Financials Acceptance Page 1 2. Acceptance of December 2010 Monthly Financials Acceptance Page 37 3. Resolution of Enforcement Action, John Stannard, Unauthorized Approval Page 73

Grading in the Shorezone, 3795 Belleview, Placer County, CA, Assessor’s Parcel Number 085-202-01

4. Adoption and Approval of the Supporting Resolution for the Approval Page 77 Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Transit Administration 5311 Program of Projects for California

5. Resolution of Enforcement Litigation TRPA v. Edgar (Red) Approval Page 81 Roberts, (Case No. 3:09-cv-00379-LRH-RAM, D.NV)

The consent calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. The special use determinations will be removed from the calendar at the request of any member of the public and taken up separately. If any Board member or noticed affected property owner requests that an item be removed from the calendar, it will be taken up separately in the appropriate agenda category. Four of the members of the governing body from each State constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business of the agency. The voting procedure shall be as follows:

(1) For adopting, amending or repealing environmental threshold carrying capacities, the regional plan, and ordinances, rules and regulations, and for granting variances from the ordinances, rules and regulations, the vote of at least four of the members of each State agreeing with the vote of at least four members of the other State shall be required to take action. If there is no vote of at least four of the members from one State agreeing with the vote of at least four of the members of the other State on the actions specified in this paragraph, an action of rejection shall be deemed to have been taken. (2) For approving a project, the affirmative vote of at least five members from the State in which the project is located and the affirmative vote of at least nine members of the governing body are required. If at least five members of the governing body from the State in which the project is located and at least nine members of the entire governing body do not vote in favor of the project, upon a motion for approval, an action of rejection shall be deemed to have been taken. A decision by the agency to approve a project shall be supported by a statement of findings, adopted by the agency, which indicates that the project complies with the regional plan and with applicable ordinances, rules and regulations of the agency. (3) For routine

business and for directing the agency's staff on litigation and enforcement actions, at least eight members of the governing body must agree to take action. If at least eight votes in favor of such action are not cast, an action of rejection shall be deemed to have been taken. Article III (g) Public Law 96-551 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board Members: Steve Robinson, Nevada Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources Representative; Chair, Norma Santiago, El Dorado County Supervisor; Mara Bresnick, California Assembly Speaker’s Appointee; Vice-Chair, Shelly Aldean, Carson City Supervisor; John Breternitz, Washoe County Commissioner; Larry Sevison, Placer County Supervisor Representative; Nancy McDermid, Douglas County Commissioner; Ron Slaven, California Governor’s Appointee; Casey Beyer, California Governor’s Appointee; Ross Miller, Nevada Secretary of State; Robin Reedy, Nevada Governor’s Appointee; Timothy Cashman, Nevada At-Large Member; Byron Sher, California Senate Rules Committee Appointee; Hal Cole, City of South Lake Tahoe Council; Josh Reid, Presidential Appointee.

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY

GOVERNING BOARD TRPA December 15, 2010 Stateline, NV

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Governing Board Chair Mr. Biaggi called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.

Members Present:

Ms. Aldean, Mr. Biaggi, Ms. Bresnick, Mr. Breternitz, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Cashman, Mr. Cole, Ms. McDermid, Mr. Merrill, Ms. Thomas for Mr. Miller, Ms. Montgomery, Ms. Santiago, Mr. Sher

Members Absent: Ms. Reedy, Mr. Reid II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. PUBLIC INTEREST COMMENTS

Ellie Waller said she wanted to request residents within 300 feet of the Boulder Bay project be re-noticed when the project is finally presented to the Board and that height and code amendments and Regional Plan Update information should also be included in the notice. She also said she was struggling with how some penalties were being assessed.

IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Ms. McDermid moved approval as amended. Motion carried unanimously.

V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Aldean moved approval of the October minutes. Motion carried.

Ms. Bresnick abstained.

VI. TRPA CONSENT CALENDAR (see TRPA Consent Calendar agenda below, for specific items)

TRPA CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Acceptance of October 2010 Monthly Financials 2. Acceptance of the Agency’s Audited Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s

Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2010

TRPA Page 2 Governing Board Minutes

3. Resolution of Enforcement Action, William Parker and Richard Loverde, Sediment Discharge to the Waters of Lake Tahoe, 6915 West Lake Blvd., Placer County, CA, Assessor’s Parcel Number 098-200-038

4. Release of $5,610.50 in Water Quality Mitigation Fund Interest to Washoe County for the Purchase of a Street Sweeper

5. Adoption of the Supporting Resolution Regarding Allocation of the Proposition 1B California Transit Security Grant Program – California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF)

Mr. Breternitz said the Operations Committee recommended approval of items 1, 2, 4 & 5.

Ms. Aldean said the Legal Committee recommended approval of item number 3.

Ms. Santiago moved approval. Motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Santiago moved to adjourn as the TRPA and convene as the TMPO.

Ms. Marchetta introduced Jeff Marsolais as the new Forest Supervisor for the Tahoe Basin. Mr. Marsolais representing the U. S. Forest Service joined the Governing Board as a TMO Board member. Ms. Aldean asked if the Board could discuss TTC’s recommendation, if the item is not pulled. Mr. Wells said the TTC made a recommendation of approval for the proposal.

VII. TAHOE METROPOLITAN PLANNING AGENCY (TMPO) CONSENT CALENDAR

(see TMPO Consent Calendar agenda below, for specific items) 1. 2008 Regional Transportation Planning (RTP) Amendment #2

Ms. McDermid moved approval. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Santiago moved to adjourn as the TMPO and reconvene as the TRPA. Mr. Marsolais representing the U. S. Forest Service left the TMPO Governing Board.

VIII. PLANNING MATTERS

A. 2010 Aquatic Invasive Species Work Program Review – Accomplishments, Lessons Learned and Plans for the Future

Staff member Ted Thayer presented the 2010 Aquatic Invasive Species Work Program Review and introduced Dave Roberts and Kim Boyd of the Resource Conservation District.

Page 2


Board Comments & Questions: Ms. Montgomery asked what specific funding was being considered for and from whom. Also what implications would there be from the lake warming for current AIS program and how might this attract other invasives not currently in the lake. She also asked if there was an after-hours recording on the hotline with information on the most frequently asked questions. Mr. Thayer said existing funding was being received from multiple private sources and fees from the AIS Inspection Program. He said the primary source has been federal funding from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. Future funding may come from the SNPLMA proposal and the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, should it pass. There were studies being conducted to review near shore changes, but there was no analysis that would quantify the effect. Kim Boyd, Tahoe Resource Conservation District, said there have already been significant changes to the hotline to improve information dissemination. Mr. Beyer commented on the need to increase public and private partnerships for outreach efforts. Mr. Breternitz commented that there seems to be success with weed control, but not with the clams and fish. He asked if this would be a factor for funding. How much was spent last year on AIS and how much will be spent in the coming year. Mr. Thayer said approximately $2 million was spent last year and just over $5 million will be spent in the coming year. Mr. Breternitz asked how much funding would be needed to ensure a decrease in invasives. Mr. Thayer said he was not sure about how much was needed for weed control, but that could be better determined next year with the technology being put in place. It was not known if funding would be spent on Asian clams, because it was not known if the problem could be treated quickly enough to produce a decrease. Regarding warm water fish, that problem has been resolved. Ms. Santiago asked if there is any hope for treating the Tahoe Keys. Mr. Thayer said there was hope and that more work would be done in the coming year than in the past to treat weeds on both the marina side and the property owner side. Ms. Santiago asked if there would be specifically targeted areas within the Tahoe Keys that would be treated. Mr. Thayer said yes, but he did not know which areas would be targeted at this point. Ms. Santiago asked if the treatment would be similar to the treatment of Emerald Bay and if it would include an analysis for future chemical treatment.

Page 3


Mr. Thayer said yes. Ms. Santiago asked if a bottom barrier had been used for the Asian clam removal. Mr. Thayer said it was and that it had been modified to cover half an acre. It is also being considered in the SNPLMA proposal for the use of hydrogen peroxide to reduce the time that the bottom barriers need to be in place to kill the Asian clam. They would also be testing the effectiveness of bottom barriers in the winter time. Ms. Santiago asked if the algae bloom that is proliferated from the Asian clam would also be looked at. Mr. Thayer said algae bloom would be eliminated by killing the Asian clam. Ms. Santiago asked if existing algae bloom would have to be removed. Mr. Thayer said it was the Asian clam that takes nutrients out of the water to produce the algae bloom therefore blooms can no longer be produced once the Asian clam has been killed. Ms. Santiago asked if outreach was being considered for specific states where possible contaminated boats were coming from. Mr. Thayer said outreach was being focused by zip code, but he was not sure how far that would be extended. He said Ms. Santiago’s suggestion could be considered. Mr. Biaggi commented that marina dredging does not kill all invasives, but allows some invasives to be moved to other parts of the lake. He suggested a solution be found that would kill the invasives. Mr. Thayer said dredging does allow invasives to be relocated to other parts of the lake, if precautions are not in place and if weeds are in place, but the dredging he was talking about would remove invasives from the lake. Mr. Biaggi said he wanted to acknowledge the partnerships from both California and Nevada that assist with this issue. Ms. Aldean asked if part of the enhanced protocol would be to require every boat without a seal in tact to be decontaminated and not just inspected. Would this be implemented during the next boating season? Mr. Thayer said that is correct and that it would be implemented during the next boating season, if additional funding is received. Ms. Aldean asked if the Code should be amended to state that there are no resources currently available for implementation. Mr. Thayer said no. The recommended Code modification is to require inspection. Ms. Aldean asked if calls to the hotline can be rolled over to inspectors who might be available to respond to these calls.

Page 4


Mr. Thayer said that could be added to the data entry duties of inspectors, but the goal is to have one inspector man the hotline. Ms. Aldean asked if the natural decomposition of Asian clam shells would add more calcium to the lake and if that would be a potential problem for proliferation of other species. Mr. Thayer said yes and that the removal of shells is the secondary consideration. Ms. Aldean asked about the significance of listing some states twice when identifying where boats come from. Mr. Thayer stated that was an error and there was no significance. Ms. Aldean asked about the ecological impact of warm water fish. Mr. Thayer stated warm water fish have a significant effect. They exist in the same areas that native nearshore fish use for nurseries. This depletes the native forage fish. They also impact the future ability to restore the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Ms. Aldean said she was concerned that, given the limited amount of financial resources, only a little bit would be accomplished in each area, but not enough to create a significant difference. Mr. Thayer said that was one reason why they waited until now to address the issue of warm water fish. Ms. Thomas asked about the time illustrated in the graphs. Mr. Thayer said the time illustrated was a theoretical line for illustrative purposes because it takes into account all the different species. Mr. Cashman asked for clarification that we were close to having a plan for eradication, except for the Asian clam. Mr. Thayer said that is correct. Mr. Cashman said a full-blown plan including costs should be the goal. Mr. Cole asked if there should be an assessment of non-motorized watercraft or are they considered a minimal risk. Mr. Thayer said that would depend on the type of species, but that the introduction of invasives from non-motorized watercraft is significantly less than from motorized watercraft. Ms. Bresnick said she wanted to echo Ms. Montgomery’s concern about the change in water temperature. She said she wanted to clarify for the public that the Inspection Program for AIS is a separate program. She asked if the work program would identify priorities and how funding would be used.

Page 5


Mr. Thayer said that is correct and would also identify projects that are not funded. Ms. Bresnick asked if there was discussion on which agency would issue the single permit for the various projects. Mr. Thayer said he wanted to clarify that there would be a single permit from each permitting agency. Ms. Bresnick suggested there be only one application with all information required by the various agencies and for the goal to be decontamination of all watercraft for the next boating season. If this goal is not possible, there should be discussion to allow Tahoe-only boats for the next season; and, for non-motorized watercraft that inspection is required. Mr. Thayer said there was a non-motorized watercraft inspection working group that is developing a specific plan that would combine inspection with an online certification program. Mr. Biaggi said he wanted to recognize Mr. Merrill as the leader of addressing the AIS issue on the Board and thanked Mr. Merrill for his efforts. Mr. Merrill commented on the importance of the private sector cooperation on this issue. He asked if it was fair to say that the vast migration of AIS from other areas into the Lake has been via boats. Mr. Thayer said yes, particularly weed species. Mr. Merrill commented that treatment should be focused on and prioritized for areas of high boating traffic. The prevention program should also identify funding that is needed and currently at risk. Mr. Thayer said there is a funding issue because what is needed, at minimum, is one or two additional recycling water units to be placed on the west shore and the north shore. Mr. Merrill said he wanted to encourage that as a high priority. He asked about the lead time on these pieces of equipment. Mr. Thayer said he believed the last time took two months from the time the order was placed and the time it was delivered. He said there is potential funding for these units. Mr. Merrill asked about the management structure of the prevention program. Mr. Thayer said the individual marina owners and operators, both public and private, operate their marinas. The inspection staff is a combination of private marina staff and the staff from the Tahoe Resource Conservation District. Depending on the location, TRPA certifies both. Mr. Merrill asked who makes the decision to do quality control. Mr. Thayer said the quality control effort was originally managed by the Tahoe

Page 6


Resource Conservation District. Next year, it is being considered to have the contract managed by TRPA staff. Ms. McDermid suggested using social media outlets in outreach efforts. She asked about the cost per acre for weed control that was performed this year. Mr. Thayer said he did not have that information, because the cost per acre changes depending on the technique that is used. Ms. Boyd said there was approximately 1.2 acres in Emerald Bay that was treated for weed control and that it was difficult to determine a cost, because it does depend on the method. She stated two methods were used in Emerald Bay: 1) bottom barrier and 2) diver-assisted suction removal. Volunteer time was used with the bottom barrier method. The diver-assisted suction removal is a cost per day and runs approximately $1,200-$1,500 per day for one diver. Ms. McDermid asked how many acres of weeds are in Lake Tahoe. Mr. Thayer said he could provide that information, but didn’t have it with him. Ms. McDermid said her point is to know the cost per acre for each method used in order to get a better understanding of how much funding is needed for a “blitz” operation, if an epidemic should occur. Mr. Thayer said that is the direction they wanted to go. Ms. McDermid asked if it was possible to lease additional recycling units for the portion of time needed during the year and to be leased out to other areas that have boating activity when it wasn’t needed here. Mr. Thayer said he was not aware of recycling units being leased, because they are built to spec, but he liked the idea of leasing. Mr. Sher asked if minimum fines have been established and listed on signs being posted for violating requirements. Mr. Thayer said the Compact fines are incorporated in the signage at boat ramps. They could also look into including that information in billboard signs.

Public Comment: Laurel Ames, Sierra Club, commented on the thoroughness of the presentation. She pointed out the Sierra Club has provided volunteer boat inspectors for the past four years and has supported the AIS program from the beginning. She said there was a concern, however, about the use of chemical treatments. Nicole Gergans, League to Save Lake Tahoe, commented on the League’s involvement in the creation and implementation of an outreach and education plan for the evolving, non-motorized boat inspection program. This was a no action item.

Page 7


B. Revised Regional Plan Update Alternatives to Address the Tourist

Accommodation Unit Issue Staff member Harmon Zuckerman presented the Revised Regional Plan Update Alternatives to Address the Tourist Accommodation Unit Issue. Mr. Biaggi clarified the intent of today’s meeting is for the Governing Board to provide direction to staff. Board Comments & Questions: Mr. Sher asked for clarification that the current cap was at approximately 27,500 and that there is no proposal to change that cap. Mr. Zuckerman said the definition of a TAU cap is set forth in the Code as being “any tourist unit that existed at the adoption of the Regional Plan in 1987”, therefore the current cap is a group of grandfathered tourist units that adds up to approximately 12,500, which is the closest thing to a census that has been taken. Mr. Sher asked how additional bonus units would be allocated.

Mr. Hitchcock said there were two ways to earn bonus units under the current Code of Ordinance one of which, Chapter 35 allows any TAU project to earn a bonus unit if it transfers a TAU from sensitive lands or non-sensitive lands by implementing mitigation measures. Mr. Sher asked for clarification that a bonus unit cannot be earned by building a new unit. Mr. Hitchcock said Chapter 35 requires a transfer of an existing unit of use. Chapter 33 has the same requirement, but from sensitive lands. Mr. Sher asked how this new process will get people to apply for additional bonus units when they are currently not applying for them now. Mr. Zuckerman said the problem is that people are having trouble figuring out how to utilize bonus unit. Therefore, this concept would provide that assistance in a much more streamlined fashion. Mr. Sher commented that the original proposal had been regulatory rather than incentive and now the proposal is incentive plus regulatory. He said his concern was that this would be the preferred alternative. Mr. Zuckerman said previous proposal changes had been by vote of the Governing Board and that Alternative 2 has been changed to Alternative 4, because the combination of regulatory and incentives did not match the character of Alternative 2. The character of Alternative 2 will not change. Mr. Biaggi asked for clarification that what is being presented today is a consensus view of the working group.

Page 8


Mr. Zuckerman said he could not say there is a consensus, because the TAU Task Force was an ad hoc, think tank, brain storming session that was held in four parts. Staff sat in and brought some of the better ideas to the Board from those sessions. Ms. McDermid commented that it was stated that five bedroom units are vary rare. She asked how many times that occurred. Mr. Hitchcock said there were a few incidences where there were TAU units in the 3,000 square foot range. But in most cases, typically TAUs built in the hotel style. These units usually range in the 400 -1500 square foot size. Ms. McDermid asked, regarding Alternative 2, how many lodging units are in sensitive lands or stream environment zones. Mr. Hitchcock said, in total, there are approximately 2,200 to 2,400 TAUs that are in what is considered SEZs. There was another 1,200 units on low capability lands. Ms. McDermid asked if it would be a real plus to get those units out of low capability into higher capability lands. Mr. Hitchcock said yes. Ms. McDermid said 3,600 units coming out of these sensitive lands and being removed with only 547 units going away, is a drop in the bucket is it not? Mr. Zuckerman said you could say that. Ms. McDermid said it was critically important to look at how alternatives are structured, because of the difficulty individuals will face trying to get a loan in today’s economy. Alternatives should also take into consideration the impact of vacation rentals. She asked if there would be shared parking and if the four alternatives being presented cover the gauntlet of what is needed for the environmental analysis. Mr. Zuckerman said yes, the four alternatives cover what is needed for the analysis. Regarding shared parking, it could be discussed when the new Code is developed, but, in his opinion, it is not directly related to the definition and disposition of TAUs. Vacation rentals were discussed by the Task Force, but it had been decided a long time ago that there was no sustained interest in whether or not a vacation rental would require a TAU. Ms. McDermid mentioned some properties that have been bought for the purpose of vacation rentals. She said that this was a critical issue because of foreclosures that are occurring. Mr. Merrill asked if there were 11,600 or 12,600 TAUs. Mr. Zuckerman said it was 12,548. Mr. Merrill asked if that number included all TAUs in the Basin including newer ones. Mr. Hitchcock said the numbers are based on the assessor’s parcel data, from the

Page 9


projects themselves and the draft EIS for Boulder Bay and Homewood. Mr. Merrill asked for clarification if that number also includes newer TAUs. Mr. Hitchcock said yes. Mr. Merrill said, in his opinion, the purpose of the TAUs is primarily to get rid of the aged, built environment. He asked if there was a way to focus the TAU definition on that subset. Mr. Zuckerman said the concept behind awarding bonus TAUs is to reflect the environmental remediation priorities of the agency. Ms. Bresnick said she wanted to disclose that she sat on the Task Force, but more as an observer than a participant. She asked if conversion of use is still being proposed for Alternative 2. Mr. Zuckerman said it was a part of every alternative because conversion of use was on the books and was not being proposed to be removed. Ms. Bresnick asked if alternatives would be flexible to reflect market demand. Mr. Hitchcock said that could be done through conversion ordinances. Ms. Bresnick asked if item 3 in Alternative 4 was being removed. Mr. Zuckerman said yes because it was close to the universal floor area concept. Mr. Cashman asked if it had been considered putting restrictions on the amount of TAU transfers from one community to another. Mr. Zuckerman said that was not studied, but the issue did come up from residents on the North Shore who expressed concern that they would be inundated with TAUs from the South Shore. He said, in his opinion, this issue could be addressed in the Regional Plan by pursuing the concept of the community character areas. Mr. Cashman asked how Alternative 4 relates to input received from the conservation communities. Mr. Zuckerman said Rochelle Nason was the representative from the League to Save Lake Tahoe on the TAU Task Force and had provided quite a bit of input for Alternative 4. Mr. Hitchcock said the League had recommended the bedroom for bedroom definition and to move toward the universal floor area concept in Alternative 4, but that these items were being proposed for removal at today’s meeting. Ms. Aldean said she would suggest that, through the stakeholder process, eliminating certain areas as receiving areas for TAUs be considered. She said that item 3 in Alternative 2 would handle the change in market demand.

Page 10


Mr. Zuckerman agreed with Ms. Aldean’s conclusion. Ms. Santiago asked why TAUs were created to begin with. Mr. Zuckerman said TAUs are the growth management system for tourist uses. Ms. Santiago asked how the policy can be utilized to achieve a more balanced state and to apply more flexibility for market changes. She asked about the conversion of TAUs. Mr. Hitchcock said the current conversion allows for TAUs to be converted to residential units of use that are deed-restricted to affordable housing. Alternative 2 was being proposed to allow a bonus unit substitution, which would assign residential bonus units to a parcel, so existing TAUs on the parcel can be banked and sold on the open market. Ms. Santiago said she was concerned that they were perpetuating the use of a commodity that might not be needed. She asked why TAUs cannot just be retired. Mr. Hitchcock said that he has heard that most people want an economic incentive to redevelop a parcel, and there is no economic value in retiring TAUs. Mr. Zuckerman asked if Ms. Santiago was asking why TAUs are not being decreased. Ms. Santiago said yes, because the numbers that are being proposed are not realistic in terms of what is really sustainable in the Basin. This is based on what is being proposed for the area, based upon the current market and based upon the growing vacation rental business in the Basin. Ms. Marchetta said these alternatives would not preclude having that policy debate. Mr. Zuckerman said additional input did not suggest having a policy for retiring TAUs. Ms. Santiago said there should be a point where a commodity has to be based on reality. Mr. Beyer asked if these alternatives would meet the goal of moving most of the existing TAUs from sensitive zones where applicable. Mr. Zuckerman said the transfer provisions in Alternative 2 would meet that goal, if implemented. Mr. Beyer asked for clarification on what was Project 3. Mr. Hitchcock said it is the redevelopment project on Highway 50. Mr. Beyer asked where the majority of the approximately 12,000 TAUs were around the Lake. Mr. Hitchcock said they are essentially in the South Shore area. Mr. Beyer asked if the “vacation by owner” concept has been discussed.

Page 11


Mr. Zuckerman said it was discussed by the TAU Task Force and that the number of permitted, legal vacation rentals was high. Ms. Marchetta said the issue of vacation rentals was not new to the Governing Board and it had been determined that the issue of permitting vacation rentals was up to the local jurisdictions and not TRPA. Mr. Beyer asked how unit sizes were determined. Mr. Zuckerman said the numbers were rounded up. Ms. Montgomery said it was a great range of alternatives. Regarding Alternative 2, she asked if all numbers got rounded up or were numbers rounded up after a certain point. Mr. Zuckerman explained the concept and provided an example. Ms. Montgomery said her question is when the average is, for example, 5.23, is the number rounded to 5 or 6 at that point. Mr. Zuckerman said anything over .00 is rounded up. Ms. Montgomery said her concerns were regarding the implications of rounding up. She asked what would prevent retaining the existing 347 bonus units and adding more at a later time if those existing bonus units are transferred. Mr. Zuckerman said there was nothing preventing them from doing that, but the current options appear to be well suited for the alternatives to be studied in the EIS. They would remove additional units if the EIS determined they create a negative environmental impact.

Public Comment: Ellie Waller said she wanted to make it clear that the TAU Task Force made no formalized recommendation. The staff recommendation is solely staff-derived. She reviewed the conservation community’s language for Alternative 4 that was not included in the Board packets. She commented on the concern about offering bonus TAUs when they do not meet market demand or community character areas. She expressed support for Alternative 4. Pam Chanland said she was in attendance because she was concerned about the serious misuse of TAUs and was in support of the conservation alternative. She said she was in support of Alternative 4 because it supports reasonable and environmental development that would bring it closer to achieving thresholds. Jennifer Merchant, Placer County Executive Office, said she wanted to remind the Board she was on the TAU Task Force and that issues brought up at the Task Force meetings were brought up by Placer County. She said the Placer County Board of Supervisors met to offer direction in support of a TAU approach that would: 1) establish guidelines for the transfer of TAUs based on analysis and a consistent data set, but allows flexibility based on market trends and CEQA and TRPA environmental review;

Page 12


2) maintains existing practice of allowance of inner jurisdictional transfers; and 3) maintains the existing number of TAUs currently identified by staff. Mitchell Mize, Edgewood Companies, said they concur with staff’s recommendation for Alternative 2 because it offers balance, allows for the development of reasonable tourist accommodation units, retires questionable TAUs and provides environmental gain. They also believe Alternative 2 has appropriate safe guards. They would recommend recognizing larger, three-bedroom units. Carl Young, League to Save Lake Tahoe, said they were concerned that the proposed alternatives would not accomplish the original intent of the TAU program. He said they support a TAU Commodity Program that: retires and restores sensitive lands; results in a substantial net reduction of impervious coverage; maintains a one bedroom to one bedroom transfer consistent with the Code definition; appropriates square footage and transfer ratios and other measures proposed, but not necessarily limited to those contained within the RPU conservation alternative that ensures threshold achievement and maintenance. Anne Nichols, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, said alternatives cannot be approved until it was learned what the result of the increase in massing is, if TAUs are doubled or tripled for affordable housing. Gary Midkiff said that Alternative 2 provides a potentially economically-viable alternative. He said the evaluation of the EIS should look at the real data that would result in meeting the needs to grow the economy and that provides a product that responds to the demand in the market place. Lew Feldman said that the real issue is how to incentivize the removal of blight. He expressed his support for Alternative 2. Laurel Ames, Sierra Club, said the Sierra Club supports all comments made, but there was no discussion about how the new projects would attain Bailey Coverage Standards. The viability of unwanted commodities and financials should also be examined carefully. She said there should be no straw vote on this issue because of questions that are still unanswered. Leah Kaufmann said she was on the TAU Task Force and did not think four meetings of the Task Force were enough. She said she was in agreement with item 2 on page 65 regarding the goals and purposes of the TAU system, but she wanted to add the goal of maintaining and preserving unique characters of communities around the lake for different areas, because the “one size fits all” concept does not work. There also needs to be more analysis of units eligible for transfer and/or establishment of transfer development zones. She said she also wanted to encourage the running of real-life scenarios for each alternative and for several community plans around the lake. She said it is unlikely that timeshares or motels on the lake, in sensitive lands, would want to redevelop. Board Discussion: Ms. McDermid said she liked the idea that Placer County was more concerned about the configuration of the project and the idea of Alternative 1 incorporating items 5 and 6

Page 13


from Alternative 2. She said it would be a mistake not to have a mechanism for a third-bedroom and to have a suites designation, in order to be competitive. She commented on the need to be cognizant of the average daily rate. Ms. Santiago asked if TAUs for hotels are still in place, but are banked. Mr. Hitchcock said, under today’s Code, no. The TAUs are converted to residential units of use. Under Alternative 2, those TAUs could be banked and transferred off site. Ms. Santiago asked under which alternative could there be an EIS evaluation of the Edgewood and Heavenly proposal. Mr. Zuckerman said the proposal was for Alternative 2, because it’s based on the 1,200 square foot maximum which does not exist in the other alternatives. Ms. Santiago asked if there would be an exception of the three-bedroom unit. Mr. Hitchcock said yes. Ms. Santiago asked if there would be an environmental impact from the bonus TAUs proposed in Alternative 2. Mr. Hitchcock said yes. The TAUs would be banked and could be transferred to a different project, which would go through the environmental analysis. Ms. Santiago asked if there would be an environmental impact evaluated for TAUs for Alternative 2, because they will create some sort of an impact. Mr. Zuckerman said the bonus units in Alternative 2 have already been considered and analyzed for their impact, as are the residential bonus units. Ms. Montgomery said she wanted to clarify if Ms. Santiago is asking about the creation of additional units. Mr. Hitchcock said there are no net increase of TAUs, but a substitution and transfer of TAUs, which would be analyzed in the EIS. Ms. Santiago asked why an additional 200 bonus TAUs were being added. Mr. Zuckerman said they want to have an adequate range of EIS alternatives to study and that the 200 additional TAUs would be removed if it was determined they have a significant environmental impact. Ms. McDermid commented on the need to analyze the impact of the additional 200 bonus TAUs. Ms. Aldean asked if the aggregate would have the same effect, but permit flexibility for market demand. Mr. Zuckerman explained the negative impact to aggregate across the board.

Page 14


Ms. Aldean said she did not see how the environmental impact would be intensified by the aggregate. Ms. Montgomery said she disagreed with Placer County’s position on staying with the status quo. She commented that Alternative 2 only limits the number of square footage and doesn’t establish three-bedroom units. She said they are only supposed to be looking at whether or not these were a good range of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS and that, in her opinion, these were a good range of alternatives. Mr. Sher commented that new TAUs are being created through conversion and that TAUs should only be considered bonus TAUs when they are transferred from sensitive zones. Mr. Merrill asked if the TAU Task Force had some degree of acceptance on this issue. Ms. Aldean said it was more of a way to develop creative approaches to the TAU issue. There was some consensus of rehabilitating or demolishing the old, run-down motels in the Basin. Mr. Merrill asked if there was consensus among Board members who were on the TAU Task Force to support the alternatives. He said that he could not support these alternatives, because all of the alternatives were increasing bonus units. Ms. Montgomery said what we need to determined is if these alternatives are a broad enough spectrum to be analyzed in the EIS. Mr. Merrill said, in his opinion, it was not clear enough to make that determination nor is there enough information to make that determination. Ms. Bresnick said, in her opinion, this was an issue that should be studied separately by an outside source who could look at the issue objectively. She said she could not vote for these alternatives because of a lack of information and questions that still need to be answered. Mr. Cole said the 12,000 TAUs listed are an acknowledgement of how many TAUs existed in 1987. He said the tools needed to combat the viability of this issue are conversion and transfer. He said that the alternatives being presented offer a compromise to stakeholders and the ability for an EIS to begin reviewing this issue. Ms. Aldean asked if there could be a wider range of analysis if Alternative 4 was amended to include language from the conservation community. Ms. McDermid said she would be willing to amend Alternative 2 to what was presented by the proposal from Edgewood and Heavenly. Mr. Beyer said he would suggest adding these amendments as a conversation piece in each of the alternatives as they apply. Ms. Aldean moved to add the language proposed by Edgewood in Alternative 2 and to substitute for staff’s Alternative 4, the language provided by the League that’s also contained in RPU comments.

Page 15


Ms. Marchetta asked if the Board knew the language in the proposal submitted by the League. Ms. McDermid said the language was read. She asked if the language read by Elle Waller was being added to Alternative 4 and if the language written by Edgewood/Heavenly was being added to Alternative 2. Ms. Aldean said that is what is being proposed. Mr. Zuckerman said he wanted to clarify what the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club submitted. They submitted a great deal of information in the October 27th packet. He said that the six bullet points in Elle Waller’s written statement is different from the 300-page submittal from October. Mr. Biaggi asked for direction from the League to Save Lake Tahoe regarding these two versions. Carl Young, League to Save Lake Tahoe, said the conservation community was advocating adding in everything from their document related to TAUs. Mr. Biaggi said he is concerned about the time it would take staff to pick out that information and address those issues. He asked if succinct wording or a succinct summary could be provided. Ms. Rinke said there could not be a vote on something that is not yet submitted. She suggested voting on Alternative 4 “as is” and to direct staff to also consider any amendments to the TAUs from the conservation community. Another suggestion is to include the League’s six bullet points and to direct staff to include amendments, as appropriate. Ms. Aldean said she would modify her motion based on Ms. Rinke’s suggestions. Mr. Sher said he was concerned about directing staff to consider and put in language in Alternative 4 that would be referred to the EIS consultants. He said the motion should be to direct staff to work with the conservation community on language sent to the EIS consultants. Ms. Rinke said staff has already been charged with evaluating comments from the conservation community. She said she would suggest the Board vote on the alternatives as presented, but direct staff to leave Alternative 4 open to amendments based on comments from the League. Ms. Marchetta said Alternative 2 could be voted on as is because it incorporates the proposal from Edgewood. Ms. Aldean asked for a vote on alternatives as presented. If the straw vote fails, then she will restate her previous motion. She said she was withdrawing her previous motion. Ms. Rinke said she wanted to reiterate that the Board was voting on a range of alternatives that can then be analyzed in the EIS.

Page 16


Straw Vote: Motion failed Ms. Aldean moved to incorporate into staff’s Alternative 4 the six bullet points from Elle Waller. Ms. McDermid said she did not know why the Edgewood/Heavenly proposal was also not added. Ms. Marchetta said it was already encompassed in Alternative 2. Mr. Cole asked why Ms. Montgomery and Ms. Santiago voted against the previous motion. Ms. Montgomery said the reason she voted against the previous motion have already been addressed by Ms. Aldean’s new motion. Ms. Santiago said she agreed with Ms. Montgomery. Ms. Aldean said the Edgewood proposal should be added as a caveat to Alternative 2, because it does not seem to be encompassed in the alternative. Mr. Cashman asked if this would continue to maintain the 1,200 square footage overall. Ms. Aldean said yes. Ms. McDermid said the Edgewood proposal should be included because it is different than Alternative 2. Ms. Aldean said she was proposing to look at adding that as a component for Alternative 2, just for analysis purposes. Straw Vote: Motion carried. Ms. Bresnick, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Sher voted no.

IX. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

A. Resolution Recognizing Governing Board Member Allen Biaggi

Ms. Marchetta read into the record a resolution for Allen Biaggi and his service to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

Ms. McDermid moved approval. Motion carried unanimously.

B. Election of Governing Board Chair and Vice-Chair Mr. Biaggi gave the background on the election of Chair and Vice-Chair.

Ms. Aldean moved to nominate Ms. Santiago as Chair.

Page 17


Motion carried unanimously. Ms. McDermid moved to nominate Ms. Aldean as Vice-Chair. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Biaggi asked for public comment on Shorezone.

Public Comment:

Christina Hill said she wanted to request that the Board consider residential projects upland of the lake to be an exception to the rule for the freeze on projects that are not currently being reviewed by the TRPA.

Anne Nichols said she wanted to encourage not spending any public money for an appeal on the shorezone issue and for a true analysis to be done. Gregg Lien expressed his support for lifting the moratorium for his clients. Rochelle Nason, League to Save Lake Tahoe, said the Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition should be recognized for their efforts with the AIS issue. She said the real issue on shorezone is to develop a plan to achieve and maintain thresholds. Gary Midkiff said he wanted to urge the Board to implement the ’87 ordinances during the interim of the litigation and to pursue the appeal with all possible efforts. Ms. McDermid moved to go into closed session. Motion carried unanimously.

X. CLOSED SESSION

A. Closed Session to Discuss Pending or Potential Litigation Ms. McDermid moved to go into open session. Motion carried unanimously.

B. Direction to Staff Regarding Pending or Potential Litigation Including

Matters Related to Shorezone and Potential Extension of the Freeze

Mr. Biaggi moved to take action on an appeal to the shorezone decision, to continue the freeze on boat-related activities for another six months, and allow all other non-boating activities to expire on 12/21/10.

Motion carried.

Ms. Rinke clarified that the recommendation from staff and approval by the Board is to:

1) Appeal with direction to staff to explore an interim program for existing buoys

2) Continue the freeze on boating facilities for 6 months; allow the freeze to expire as to all other activities on December 21st.

Page 18


Page 19

Due to time constraints, all following items were tabled to the next meeting.

C. General Counsel’s Performance Review XI. REPORTS

A. Executive Director Status Report - tabled 1. Agency Work Program Priorities for December

a. Regional Plan Update b. Forest Fuels Management Update c. Aquatic Invasive Species d. EIP Implementation e. Shorezone Implementation f. CEP Update

B. General Counsel Status Report - XII. GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER REPORTS XIII. COMMITTEE REPORTS

A. Legal Committee

B. Operations Committee

C. Public Outreach & Environmental Education Committee

D. Catastrophic Wildfire Committee

E. Local Government Committee

XIV. ADJOURNMENT

Governing Board Chair Mr. Biaggi adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Judy Nikkel Clerk to the Board

The above meeting was taped in its entirety. Anyone wishing to listen to the tapes of the above mentioned meeting may call for an appointment at (775) 588-4547. In addition, written documents submitted at the meeting are available for review at the TRPA Office, 128 Market Street, Stateline, Nevada.

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 19, 2011 To: TRPA Governing Board From: TRPA Staff Subject: Fiscal Year 2011, November Financial Statements Requested Action: Governing Board Acceptance of the November 2010 Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2011. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Governing Board acceptance of the November financial statements for fiscal year 2011, as presented. Required Motion: In order to accept the November 2010 Financial Statement, the Governing Board must make the following motion:

1) A motion to accept the November 2010 Financial Statement.

In order for the motion to pass, an affirmative vote of any eight Board members is required. Project Description/Background: As of November 30, 2010, 41.7% of the fiscal year is complete. As of the same date, the Agency recorded 64.5% of its budgeted annual revenue and has paid 34.1% of the budgeted expenditures. Additional expenditures are currently obligated under various agency contracts. The attached reports will be reviewed with the Operations Committee prior to the Governing Board meeting. Issues/Concerns: Agency funding from California was received in early December. As of November 30, 2010, filing fees are running behind projections by $148,000. The permits collected continue to be for smaller projects paying lower dollar fees.. The Finance Team is recommending spending adjustments to the management team to offset the difference, such as maintaining vacant personnel positions and cutting contract expenses. As you know, a result of the recent Shorezone court decision is that the issuance of Mooring Permits has been temporarily halted. Some of the Shorezone staff has been temporarily reassigned to limit the associated spending resulting in about $40,000 in labor cost savings. In addition, none of the $530,000 budgeted for contractual services

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 1

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1

to remove illegal buoys by the Shorezone Enforcement team has been spent. So the net financial impact to the Shorezone Fund through November 30, 2010, is small. As of November 30, 2010 the General Fund administration and overhead revenue from Shorezone and grant funded activities are running behind projections by $185,000. With less personnel working on Shorezone, the General Fund receives less administration & overhead revenue. The Finance Team is recommending spending adjustments to the management team to offset the difference, such as maintaining vacant personnel positions and cutting contract expenses.. If you have any questions, please contact Kevin Prior at (775)589-5246 or [email protected]. Attachments: Enclosure I Agency Revenue and Expenditure Comparison

Enclosure II Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance

Enclosure III Statement of Mitigation Fund Balances

2

mailto:[email protected]

Enclosure IStatus Target

41.7%

Fund Original Budget YTD Actuals Difference

(Under) Over% of Adj. Budget

General FundRevenue 7,700,061 6,527,735 (1,172,326) 84.8%

Expenditures 7,682,278 2,544,800 (5,137,478) 33.1%gain (loss) 17,783 3,982,935 3,965,152

Implementation Grant FundRevenue 199,210 26,810 (172,400) 13.5%

Expenditures 246,002 141,546 (104,456) 57.5%gain (loss) (46,792) (114,736) (67,944)

ThresholdRevenue 256,640 257,069 429 100.2%

Expenditures 256,640 579 (256,061) 0.2%gain (loss) (0) 256,490 256,490

ShorezoneRevenue 869,981 344,426 (525,554) 39.6%

Expenditures 1,939,502 432,516 (1,506,986) 22.3%gain (loss) (1,069,521) (88,089) 981,432

SNPLMARevenue 134,561 51 (134,510) 0.0%

Expenditures 134,561 213,347 78,785 158.5%gain (loss) (0) (213,295) (213,295)

Special Studies FundRevenue 105,000 42,514 (62,486) 40.5%

Expenditures 105,000 1,000 (104,000) 1.0%gain (loss) 0 41,514 41,514

Environmental Education FundRevenue 0 41 41 na

Expenditures 0 (1,000) (1,000) nagain (loss) 0 1,041 1,041

Erosion Control FundRevenue 774,767 172,581 (602,187) 22.3%

Expenditures 789,768 209,793 (579,975) 26.6%gain (loss) (15,000) (37,212) (22,211)

Aquatic Invasive Species FundRevenue 991,811 382,536 (609,275) 38.6%

Expenditures 1,164,699 600,274 (564,424) 51.5%gain (loss) (172,888) (217,738) (44,850)

TransportationRevenue 2,160,000 761,501 (1,398,499) 35.3%

Expenditures 2,160,000 796,423 (1,363,577) 36.9%gain (loss) 0 (34,921) (34,921)

Total Special RevenueRevenue 5,491,970 1,987,531 (3,504,439) 36.2%

Expenditures 6,796,172 2,394,477 (4,401,694) 35.2%gain (loss) (1,304,201) (406,946) 897,255

Total Agency Operating Budget StatusRevenue 13,192,031 8,515,266 (4,676,766) 64.5%

Expenditures 14,478,450 4,939,277 (9,539,173) 34.1%gain (loss) (1,286,419) 3,575,989 4,862,407

C:\Documents and Settings\jnikkel\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK163\[FINANCIALS Novemberkp 2010.xls]Transportation

General Fund

Special Revenue Funds

For the Period Ending November 30, 2010Agency Revenue and Expenditure Comparison

FY 2011

3

Enclosure II

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY GENERAL FUND

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE YEAR TO DATE AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2010

BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue 5,310,061 5,309,062 (999) 99.98%Local revenue 150,000 150,000 - 100.00%Fees For Service Revenue 1,008,000 564,740 (443,260) 56.03%Investment Revenue 30,000 10,580 (19,420) 35.27%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue 1,197,000 324,126 (872,874) 27.08%Litiigation Reimbursements - 169,104 169,104 0.00%Other Revenue 5,000 122 (4,878) 2.43%

Total Revenues 7,700,061 6,527,735 (1,172,326) 84.78%

Governing BoardPersonnel 125,391 32,336 93,056 25.79%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 875 (875) 0.00%Commercial Air trans - In Stat - 1,334 (1,334) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 27,200 6,367 20,834 23.41%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 152,591 40,911 111,681 26.81%

ExecutivePersonnel 282,715 74,956 207,759 26.51%Out-of-State Travel 5,000 284 4,716 5.69%In-State Travel 2,500 947 1,553 37.89%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 2,895 1,670 1,225 57.70%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


CommunicationsPersonnel 262,385 104,284 158,101 39.74%Out-of-State Travel 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%In-State Travel - 220 (220) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 26,650 5,732 20,918 21.51%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Information TechnologyPersonnel 341,225 138,572 202,653 40.61%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 23 (23) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 170,200 35,457 134,743 20.83%Information Services 158,000 95,817 62,183 60.64%Training 9,800 - 9,800 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay 28,500 5,490 23,010 19.26%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


4

Enclosure II



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Admin Support TeamPersonnel - 5,669 (5,669) 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - 5,669 (5,669) 0.00%

General ServicesPersonnel 27,779 7,808 19,971 28.11%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 888,166 358,450 529,716 40.36%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Finance OperationsPersonnel 365,372 127,262 238,110 34.83%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 64,581 14,560 50,021 22.54%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 500 - 500 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Human ResourcesPersonnel 165,302 71,536 93,766 43.28%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 834 (834) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 60,500 22,045 38,455 36.44%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training 12,000 2,703 9,297 22.52%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


5

Enclosure II



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

ImplementationPersonnel 478,475 186,327 292,148 38.94%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 8,000 1,030 6,970 12.88%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - 170 (170) 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 15,000 - 15,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


PlanningPersonnel 1,235,439 454,959 780,480 36.83%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 6,700 4,240 2,460 63.29%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 5,000 27,951 (22,951) 559.02%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 1,247,139 487,151 759,988 39.06%

Measurement & ReportingPersonnel 69,481 48,858 20,622 70.32%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 10,000 996 9,004 9.96%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 510,000 75,000 435,000 14.71%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Regional Plan UpdatePersonnel 801,189 198,511 602,679 24.78%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 500 2,128 (1,628) 425.59%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 462,900 23,790 439,110 5.14%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - 3,705 (3,705) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 1,264,589 228,134 1,036,455 18.04%

Adaptive ManagementPersonnel 94,722 40,417 54,305 42.67%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 107 (107) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 25,000 4,101 20,899 16.40%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 70,000 31,111 38,889 44.44%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


CompliancePersonnel 182,343 59,465 122,878 32.61%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%

6

Enclosure II



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 182,343 59,465 122,878 32.61%LegalPersonnel 195,287 106,223 89,064 54.39%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 23,000 19,705 3,295 85.67%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 143,510 47,937 95,573 33.40%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 314,065 94,166 219,899 29.98%


General Fund TotalPersonnel 4,627,106 1,657,183 2,969,924 35.81%Out-of-State Travel 10,001 285 9,716 2.85%In-State Travel 2,501 3,007 (506) 120.24%Admin & Overhead Expense 1 1 - 100.00%Operating Expenses 1,286,193 476,481 809,712 37.05%Information Services 185,201 95,818 89,383 51.74%Training 21,801 2,873 18,927 13.18%Utility Expenses 1 1 - 100.00%Contract Services 1,206,911 205,790 1,001,121 17.05%Passthrough Expenditure 1 1 - 100.00%Capital Outlay 28,501 9,196 19,305 32.27%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 314,065 94,166 219,899 29.98%

Total Expenditures 7,682,278 2,544,800 5,137,478 33.13%

Total Revenue 7,700,061 6,527,735 (1,172,326) 84.78%Total Expenditures 7,682,278 2,544,800 5,137,478 33.13%

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures 17,783 3,982,935 3,965,152

7

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION FUNDS


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 109,194 12,030 (97,164) 11.02%State Revenue 31,534 15,000 (16,534) 47.57%Local revenue 58,482 - (58,482) 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - (220) (220) 0.00%

Total Revenues 199,210 26,810 (172,400) 13.46%

State Historic PreservationPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 5,000 14,972 (9,972) 299.43%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 5,000 14,972 (9,972) 299.43%

BOR Forest Fuels TFFTPersonnel 38,237 10,448 27,789 27.32%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 21,963 5,312 16,651 24.19%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 13,994 - 13,994 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


SNPLMA NV Fire Safe Data BasePersonnel 689 3,528 (2,839) 512.28%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 396 1,486 (1,090) 375.57%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 6,894 - 6,894 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 7,978 5,014 2,964 62.84%SNPLMA NV Angora Fire F&RPersonnel 32,896 6,625 26,271 20.14%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 18,895 4,038 14,857 21.37%Operating Expenses - 15,499 (15,499) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - 49,820 (49,820) 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


CTC EIPPersonnel 16,853 8,530 8,323 50.62%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 3,988 (3,988) 0.00%Operating Expenses 9,681 - 9,681 0.00%

8



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


EPA EIPPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - - - 0.00%

NDEP 604(b)Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 30,000 14,879 15,121 49.60%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


NDEP Environmental Signs GrantPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 25,000 - 25,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 25,000 - 25,000 0.00%

NDEP Environmental Signs GrantPersonnel 248 1,482 (1,233) 597.08%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 939 (939) 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 25,256 - 25,256 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


EIP Grant Fund TotalPersonnel 88,923 30,613 58,310 34.43%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 41,254 15,763 25,491 38.21%Operating Expenses 9,681 15,499 (5,818) 160.10%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%

9



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Contract Services 106,144 79,671 26,473 75.06%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Total Revenue 199,210 26,810 (172,400) 13.46%Total Expenditures 246,002 141,546 104,456 57.54%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures (46,792) (114,736) (67,944) 0.00%

10

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY THRESHOLD STUDIES FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue 256,640 256,640 - 100.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 429 429 0.00%

Total Revenues 256,640 257,069 429 100.17%

Threshold Studies - GeneralPersonnel - 177 (177) 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses 1,200 149 1,051 12.43%Contract Services 202,060 - 202,060 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay 53,380 - 53,380 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 256,640 326 256,314 0.13%

Shorezone Noise MonitoringPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - (72) 72 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses - (72) 72 0.00%

Threshold Studies - GeneralPersonnel - 865 (865) 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses - 865 (865) 0.00%

Adaptive ManagementPersonnel 1,377 33 1,344 2.40%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 1,377 33 1,344 2.40%

MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%

11



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (1,377) (574) (803) 41.67%

Total Expenses (1,377) (574) (803) 41.67%

Threshold Studies Fund TotalPersonnel 1,377 1,075 302 78.07%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - (72) - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses 1,200 149 1,051 12.43%Contract Services 202,060 - 202,060 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay 53,380 - 53,380 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (1,377) (574) (803) 41.67%

Total Expenditure 256,640 579 256,061 0.23%

Total Revenue 256,640 257,069 429 100.17%Total Expenditure 256,640 579 256,061 0.23%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses (0) 256,490 256,490

12

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY SHOREZONE FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE VARIANCE % TO DATEREVENUES

Federal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue 124,000 124,000 - 100.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue (Enforecement 50% of RF + >1 Buoy) 720,000 64,211 (655,789) 8.92%Investment Revenue - 2,745 2,745 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Scenic Mitigation Revenue 30,000 2,170 (27,830) 7.23%Mooring Application Permit Fee (2,519) 36,520 39,039 -1449.62%Monitoring Fees (30% RF) (1,500) 7,740 9,240 -516.00%Blue Boating Fees - 107,040 107,040 0.00%

Total Revenues 869,981 344,426 (525,554) 39.59%

EnforcementPersonnel 290,212 90,513 199,699 31.19%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 102 (102) 0.00%Operating Expenses 239,077 102,388 136,689 42.83%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 530,001 3,063 526,939 0.58%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 1,059,290 196,065 863,225 18.51%

Shorezone ImplementationPersonnel 289,990 81,426 208,564 28.08%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 101,497 24,037 77,459 23.68%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 391,487 105,463 286,023 26.94%

Shorezone MonitoringPersonnel 114,767 54,253 60,514 47.27%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 40,168 15,630 24,539 38.91%Operating Expenses 10,000 2,168 7,832 21.68%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 88,200 28,750 59,450 32.60%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 253,135 100,800 152,335 39.82%

Blue Boating ProgramPersonnel 80,139 17,665 62,474 22.04%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 28,049 5,806 22,242 20.70%Operating Expenses 24,403 6,715 17,688 27.52%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 103,000 - 103,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 235,590 30,187 205,403 12.81%

Watercraft Fund TotalPersonnel 775,108 243,857 531,251 31.46%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 102 (102) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 307,294 123,824 183,470 40.29%Operating Expenses 135,900 32,920 102,979 24.22%

13



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE VARIANCE % TO DATEInformation Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - 3,063 (3,063) 0.00%Contract Services 721,201 28,750 692,451 3.99%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditure 1,939,502 432,516 1,506,986 22.30%

Total Revenue 869,981 344,426 (525,554) 39.59%Total Expenditure 1,939,502 432,516 1,506,986 22.30%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses (1,069,521) (88,089) 981,432

14

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY SNPLMA FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 134,561 - (134,561) 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 51 51 0.00%

Total Revenues 134,561 51 (134,510) 0.04%

LIDARPersonnel 4,774 1,073 3,700 22.48%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 592 (592) 0.00%Operating Expenses - 38,798 (38,798) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 95,227 172,132 (76,905) 180.76%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 100,001 212,596 (112,595) 212.59%

SNPLMA TIIMSPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses - - - 0.00%

SNPLMA Thresholds Round 7Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


SNPLMA ThresholdsPersonnel 34,561 477 34,084 1.38%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 274 (274) 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 34,561 751 33,810 2.17%


15



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESUtility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditure - - - 0.00%

SNPLMA Fund TotalPersonnel 39,334 1,550 37,784 3.94%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 866 (866) 0.00%Operating Expenses - 38,798 (38,798) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 95,227 172,132 (76,905) 180.76%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditure 134,561 213,347 (78,785) 158.55%

Total Revenue 134,561 51 (134,510) 0.04%Total Expenditure 134,561 213,347 (78,785) 158.55%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures (0) (213,295) (213,295)

16

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL STUDIES FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue 105,000 42,500 (62,500) 40.48%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 14 14 0.00%

Total Revenues 105,000 42,514 (62,486) 40.49%

Special StudiesPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%



Total Expenses 105,000 1,000 104,000 0.95%

Special Studies Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 105,000 1,000 104,000 0.95%

Total Expenses 105,000 1,000 104,000 0.95%

Total Revenue 105,000 42,514 (62,486) 40.49%Total Expense 105,000 1,000 104,000 0.95%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses - 41,514 41,514

17

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 41 41 0.00%

Total Revenues - 41 41 0.00%

Environmental EducationPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%

MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (5,000) (1,000) (4,000) 20.00%

Total Expenses (5,000) (1,000) (4,000) 20.00%

Environmental Education Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (5,000) (1,000) (4,000) 20.00%

Total Expenses - (1,000) 1,000 0.00%

Total Revenue - 41 41 0.00%Total Expense - (1,000) 1,000 0.00%


18

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY EROSION CONTROL FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 627,366 146,594 (480,771) 23.37%State Revenue 147,402 25,891 (121,510) 17.57%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 95 95 0.00%

Total Revenues 774,767 172,581 (602,187) 22.28%

Consolidated GrantsPersonnel 159,140 58,737 100,403 36.91%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 91,410 26,049 65,361 28.50%Operating Expenses - 3,625 (3,625) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 65,000 - 65,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 315,550 88,411 227,139 28.02%

BMP Manual Army Corps Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 95,000 22,896 72,104 24.10%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 95,000 22,896 72,104 24.10%

General Fund Erosion ControlPersonnel 75,942 21,658 54,284 28.52%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 43,621 11,906 31,715 27.29%Operating Expenses - 48 (48) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 119,563 33,613 85,950 28.11%

BMP Federal 319 (CA) GrantPersonnel 14,739 4,465 10,274 30.29%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 8,466 2,308 6,159 27.26%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 100,000 6,946 93,054 6.95%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 123,206 13,719 109,487 11.14%

BMP Federal 319 (NV) GrantPersonnel 34,689 19,334 15,355 55.74%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 19,926 8,666 11,260 43.49%Operating Expenses 1,500 - 1,500 0.00%

19



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE


Total Expenses 56,115 28,000 28,115 49.90%

TRCD Prop 50 - Enforecement & OtherPersonnel 63,767 26,970 36,797 42.29%Out-of-State Travel 4,433 - 4,433 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 39,174 13,039 26,136 33.28%Operating Expenses - 3,884 (3,884) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 60,000 3,750 56,250 6.25%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 167,375 47,643 119,732 28.46%

BOR BMP Enforcement & OtherPersonnel 77,266 36,692 40,574 47.49%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 44,381 17,217 27,164 38.79%Operating Expenses - 31 (31) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 15,000 - 15,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 136,647 53,940 82,707 39.47%

LTLP ECAMPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 15,000 21,025 (6,025) 140.17%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 15,000 21,025 (6,025) 140.17%

Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Op Trans In(Out) (238,688) (99,453) (139,234) 41.67%

Total Expenses (238,688) (99,453) (139,234) 41.67%

Erosion Control Fund TotalPersonnel 425,544 167,857 257,687 39.45%Out-of-State Travel 4,433 - 4,433 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 246,979 79,184 167,794 32.06%Operating Expenses 1,500 7,588 (6,088) 505.86%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 350,000 54,617 295,383 15.60%

20



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (238,688) (99,453) (139,234) 41.67%

Total Expenses 789,768 209,793 579,975 26.56%


Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses (15,000) (37,212) (22,211) 0.00%

21

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES FUND

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE YEAR TO DATE AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2010

BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 670,811 171,606 (499,205) 25.58%State Revenue 61,000 12,865 (48,135) 21.09%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue 260,000 197,654 (62,346) 76.02%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Pass-through Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 411 411 0.00%

Total Revenues 991,811 382,536 ($609,275) 38.57%

Bureau of Reclamation TRCD AIS - 7Personnel - - - 0.00%

Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expenses - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 40,000 17,305 22,695 43.26%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 40,000$ 17,305$ 22,695$ 43.26%

Bureau of Reclamation TRCD AIS - 9Personnel 8,901 9,026 (125) 101.41%

Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expenses - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 16,000 5,969 10,031 37.31%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Bureau of Reclamation TRCD AIS - 6Personnel 45,927 28,073 17,854 61.13%

Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 598 (598) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expenses - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 7,000 7,445 (445) 106.36%Training - 825 (825) 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 150,000 - 150,000 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 202,927 36,941$ 165,986$ 18.20%

BOR TRCD AISPersonnel 15,016 15,069 (53) 100.36%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 15,401 9,046 6,355 58.74%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Boat Supplies 6,500 73 6,427 1.13%Office and Equipment over 2500 - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 36,917 24,189 $12,728 65.52%Total Expenses

SNPLMA US Fish Wild. Svc. AISPersonnel 53,074 33,730 19,344 63.55%Per Diem - Out-of-State - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 159,140 8,987 150,153 5.65%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 20,000 - 20,000 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%

22



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%Total Expenditures 232,214 42,716 $189,498 18.40%

Total ExpensesArmy Corp of Engineers AISPersonnel 60,426 22,736 37,690 37.63%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 5,576 (5,576) 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - 3,971 (3,971) 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 60,426 32,284 $28,142 53.43%

Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - - $0 0.00%USFWS Roadway Boat InspectionsPersonnel 14,940 4,239 10,701 28.37%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 1,058 (1,058) 0.00%Operating Expenses 22,731 4,000 18,731 17.60%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 529,643 192,311 337,332 36.31%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - 230,236 (230,236) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Op Trans In(Out) - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - - $0 0.00%

AIS Fund TotalsPersonnel 198,284 112,874 85,536 56.93%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 598 (598) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 174,541 24,667 149,874 14.13%Operating Expenses 22,731 4,000 18,731 17.60%Information Services 47,000 24,750 (445) 52.66%Training - 825 (825) 0.00%Utility Expenses 20,000 - 20,000 0.00%Contract Services 702,143 202,325 489,787 28.82%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - 230,236 (230,236) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Total Revenue 991,811 382,536 (609,275) 38.57%Total Expenditures 1,164,699 600,274 564,424 51.54%

Contingency - - - 0.00%

23



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures (172,888) (217,738) ($44,850)

24

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY TRANSPORTATION FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 1,598,000 454,229 (1,143,771) 28.42%State Revenue 462,000 305,244 (156,756) 66.07%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - 2,028 2,028 0.00%Passthrough Revenue 100,000 - (100,000) 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%

Total Revenues 2,160,000 761,501 (1,398,499) 35.25%

Transportation ExpensesPersonnel 509,555 168,748 340,807 33.12%Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 114,605 78,085 36,520 68.13%Operating Expenses 299,355 17,594 281,761 5.88%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 1,336,485 573,662 762,823 42.92%Passthrough Expenditure (100,000) (41,667) (58,333) 41.67%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 2,160,000$ 796,423$ 1,363,577$ 36.87%

Total Revenue 2,160,000 761,501 (1,398,499) 35.25%Total Expense 2,160,000 796,423 1,363,577 36.87%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses - (34,921) (34,921)

25

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 128 MARKET STREET FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Use of Property (1,049,829) (438,374) 611,455 41.76%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue (1,200) (1,381) (181) 115.09%

Total Revenues (1,051,029) (439,755) 611,274 41.84%

128 Market Street ExpensesPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 101,983 36,192 65,791 35.49%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Debt Service Principal - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - 50 (50) 0.00%Interest Expense 666,325 1,838 664,487 0.28%

Total Expenses 768,308 38,080 730,228 4.96%

128 Market Street - CAMPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 90,934 30,821 60,113 33.89%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 90,934 30,821 60,113 33.89%


Total Expenses 246,635 5,514 241,121 2.24%

128 Market Street Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 192,917 67,013 125,904 34.74%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - 50 (50) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 912,960 7,352 905,608 0.81%

Total Expenses 1,105,877 74,416 1,031,462 6.73%

Total Revenue (1,051,029) (439,755) 611,274 41.84%Total Expense 1,105,877 74,416 1,031,462 6.73%

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses 54,848 (365,340) 1,642,736

26

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - - - 0.00%

Total Revenues - - - 0.00%

Land Records management SystemPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Computer Supplies - - - 0.00%Computer Software - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Computer Hardware - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Computer Supplies - - - 0.00%Computer Software - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Computer Hardware - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Capital Improvement Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Computer Supplies - - - 0.00%Computer Software - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Computer Hardware - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Total Revenue - - - 0.00%Total Expense - - - 0.00%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses - - - 0.00%

27

800 - Mitigation FundsPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010

Beginning BalancesNet Monthly

Activity Ending Balance Interest Earned Admin Fee

Ending Balance

Cash Balances800-00-00-1004 Mitigation Funds - Wells Fargo 108,127 20,428.87 128,555.70 - - 128,555.70 800-00-00-1020 Mitigation Funds - Wells Capital 2,318,535 553,870.92 2,872,405.87 (1,265.04) - 2,871,140.83 800-00-00-1030 Mitigation Funds - LAIF 4,950,501 (553,870.92) 4,396,630.03 - - 4,396,630.03

Net Cash Balance 7,377,163 20,429 7,397,592 (1,265.04) - 7,396,327

800-00-00-2801 City of SLT WQ Mitigation 318,362.25 - 318,362.25 318,362.25 800-00-00-2802 City of SLT WQ Interest 153,597.88 - 153,597.88 (80.79) - 153,517.09

City of SLT WQ Total 471,960.13 - 471,960.13 (80.79) - 471,879.34

800-00-00-2803 City of SLT SEZ Restoration 572,357.97 - 572,357.97 572,357.97 800-00-00-2804 City of SLT SEZ InterestLong 124,598.88 - 124,598.88 (119.18) - 124,479.70

City of SLT SEZ Total 696,956.85 - 696,956.85 (119.18) - 696,837.67

800-00-00-2805 City of SLT AQ Mitigation 335,951.59 - 335,951.59 335,951.59 800-00-00-2806 City of SLT AQ Interest 198,571.21 - 198,571.21 (91.41) - 198,479.80

City of SLT AQ Total 534,522.80 - 534,522.80 (91.41) - 534,431.39

800-00-00-2807 Douglas Co WQ Mitigation 136,783.29 - 136,783.29 136,783.29 800-00-00-2808 Douglas Co WQ Interest 35,813.19 - 35,813.19 (29.52) - 35,783.67

Douglas Co WQ Total 172,596.48 - 172,596.48 (29.52) - 172,566.96

800-00-00-2809 Douglas Co SEZ Restoration 214,572.43 - 214,572.43 214,572.43 800-00-00-2810 Douglas Co SEZ Interest 52,323.39 - 52,323.39 (45.64) - 52,277.75

Douglas Co SEZ Total 266,895.82 - 266,895.82 (45.64) - 266,850.18

800-00-00-2811 Douglas Co AQ Mitigation 189,261.88 - 189,261.88 189,261.88 800-00-00-2812 Douglas Co AQ Interest 129,125.89 - 129,125.89 (54.45) - 129,071.44

Douglas Co AQ Total 318,387.77 - 318,387.77 (54.45) - 318,333.32

800-00-00-2813 Placer Co WQ Mitigation 142,718.47 - 142,718.47 142,718.47 800-00-00-2814 Placer Co WQ Interest 3,005.49 - 3,005.49 (24.92) - 2,980.57

Placer Co WQ Total 145,723.96 - 145,723.96 (24.92) - 145,699.04

800-00-00-2815 Placer Co SEZ Restoration 153,083.00 - 153,083.00 153,083.00 800-00-00-2816 Placer Co SEZ Interest 1,183.18 - 1,183.18 (26.38) - 1,156.80

Placer Co SEZ Total 154,266.18 - 154,266.18 (26.38) - 154,239.80

800-00-00-2817 Placer Co AQ Mitigation 64,642.42 - 64,642.42 64,642.42 800-00-00-2818 Placer Co AQ Interest 56,738.33 - 56,738.33 (20.76) - 56,717.57

Placer Co AQ Total 121,380.75 - 121,380.75 (20.76) - 121,359.99

800-00-00-2819 El Dorado Co WQ Mitigation 8,658.97 18,121.97 26,780.94 26,780.94 800-00-00-2820 El Dorado Co WQ Interest 27,931.44 - 27,931.44 (9.36) - 27,922.08

El Dorado Co WQ Total 36,590.41 18,121.97 54,712.38 (9.36) - 54,703.02

800-00-00-2821 El Dorado SEZ Restoration 250,344.00 - 250,344.00 250,344.00 800-00-00-2822 El Dorado Co SEZ Interest 58,065.08 (752.68) 57,312.40 (52.61) - 57,259.79

Information in this report is Unaudited 28




Ending Balance

El Dorado SEZ Total 308,409.08 (752.68) 307,656.40 (52.61) - 307,603.79

800-00-00-2823 El Dorado Co AQ Mitigation 197,950.68 7,075.20 205,025.88 205,025.88 800-00-00-2824 El Dorado Co AQ Interest 156,720.40 - 156,720.40 (61.86) - 156,658.54

El Dorado Co AQ Total 354,671.08 7,075.20 361,746.28 (61.86) - 361,684.42

800-00-00-2825 Meyers CPC Mitigation 760.00 - 760.00 760.00 800-00-00-2826 Meyers CPC Mitigation Interest 271.26 - 271.26 (0.18) - 271.08

Myers CPC Total 1,031.26 - 1,031.26 (0.18) - 1,031.08

800-00-00-2827 Washoe Co WQ Mitigation 958,881.41 - 958,881.41 958,881.41 800-00-00-2828 Washoe Co WQ Interest 228,336.33 - 228,336.33 (203.02) - 228,133.31

Washoe Co WQ Total 1,187,217.74 - 1,187,217.74 (203.02) - 1,187,014.72

800-00-00-2829 Washoe Co SEZ Restoration 82,700.00 - 82,700.00 82,700.00 800-00-00-2830 Washoe Co SEZ Interest 92,043.85 - 92,043.85 (29.88) - 92,013.97

Washoe Co SEZ Total 174,743.85 - 174,743.85 (29.88) - 174,713.97

800-00-00-2831 Washoe Co AQ Mitigation 462,015.72 - 462,015.72 462,015.72 800-00-00-2832 Washoe Co AQ Interest 224,541.73 - 224,541.73 (117.41) - 224,424.32

Washoe Co AQ Total 686,557.45 - 686,557.45 (117.41) - 686,440.04

800-00-00-2833 Shorezone Mitigation 43,690.00 - 43,690.00 43,690.00 800-00-00-2834 Shorezone Interest 1,131.10 - 1,131.10 (7.66) - 1,123.44

Shorezone Total 44,821.10 - 44,821.10 (7.66) - 44,813.44

800-00-00-2857 STPUD Forest Mitigation 250,000.00 - 250,000.00 250,000.00 800-00-00-2858 STPUD Forest Mit Interest 46,658.79 - 46,658.79 (50.73) - 46,608.06

STPUD Forest Total 296,658.79 - 296,658.79 (50.73) - 296,608.06

800-00-00-2859 Douglas Co Bike Trail Mit 18,230.08 - 18,230.08 18,230.08 800-00-00-2860 Douglas Co Bike Trail Int 17,929.60 - 17,929.60 (6.18) - 17,923.42

Douglas Co Bike Trail Total 36,159.68 - 36,159.68 (6.18) - 36,153.50

800-00-00-2861 Stateline Beautification 110,795.75 - 110,795.75 - 110,795.75 800-00-00-2892 Stateline Beautification Interest 2,005.88 - 2,005.88 (19.29) - 1,986.59

Stateline Beautification Total 110,795.75 - 112,801.63 (19.29) - 110,795.75

800-00-00-2862 Shorezone Public Access Mit - - - - 800-00-00-2863 Shorezone Public Access Int. (0.80) - (0.80) - - (0.80)

Shorezone Public Access Total - - (0.80) - - (0.80)

800-00-00-2864 Boat Wash Station Mitigation - - - - 800-00-00-2865 Boat Wash Station Interest (62.38) - (62.38) 0.01 - (62.37)

Boat Wash Station Total (62.38) - (62.38) 0.01 - (62.37)

800-00-00-2868 Shorezone Scenic Mitigation 293,138.00 2,800.00 295,938.00 295,938.00 800-00-00-2869 Shorezone Scenic Interest 4,111.37 - 4,111.37 (51.31) - 4,060.06





Ending Balance

Shorezone Scenic Mitigation Total 293,138.00 2,800.00 300,049.37 (51.31) - 299,998.06

800-00-00-2871 Fish Habitat Mitigation 13,225.03 - 13,225.03 13,225.03 800-00-00-2872 Fish Habitat Mitigation Int 239.52 - 239.52 (2.30) - 237.22

Fish Habitat Mitigation Total 13,225.03 - 13,464.55 (2.30) - 13,462.25

800-00-00-2873 City of SLT 217,715.10 - 217,715.10 (37.23) - 217,677.87 800-00-00-2874 Douglas Co 124,120.30 - 124,120.30 (21.23) - 124,099.07 800-00-00-2875 Placer Co. 35,276.50 - 35,276.50 (6.03) - 35,270.47 800-00-00-2876 El Dorado Co. 66,387.70 (3,213.00) 63,174.70 (10.80) - 63,163.90 800-00-00-2877 Washoe Co. 465,971.80 - 465,971.80 (79.68) - 465,892.12

Jurisdiction O&M Mitigation Total 909,471.40 (3,213.00) 906,258.40 (154.97) - 906,103.43

800-00-00-2893 Blue Boating Mitigation Fee 34,624.57 (3,602.62) 31,021.95 31,021.95 800-00-00-2894 Blue Boating Mitigation Interest 120.59 - 120.59 (5.33) - 115.26

Blue Boating Mitigation Total 34,745.16 (3,602.62) 31,142.54 (5.33) - 31,137.21

Total Ending Balance 7,370,864.14 20,428.87 7,397,648.98 (1,265.13) - 7,394,397.26


801 - Excess Coverage MitigationPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010

Period Ending November 30, 2010Beginning Balances Net Monthly Activity Ending Balance Interest Earned Admin Fee Ending Balance

Cash Balances801-00-00-1004 Excess Coverage Mitigation - Wells Fargo 140,610.22 (15,870.78) 124,739.44 - - 124,739.44 801-00-00-1020 Excess Coverage Mitigation - Wells Capital 13,226.54 22,295.50 35,522.04 (11.88) - 35,510.16 801-00-00-1030 Excess Coverage Mitigation - LAIF 10,009,763.50 - 10,009,763.50 - - 10,009,763.50

Net Cash Balance 10,163,600.26 6,424.72 10,170,024.98 (11.88) - 10,170,013.10

801-00-00-2835 Washoe Co Excess Coverage 201,940.50 - 201,940.50 201,940.50 801-00-00-2836 Washoe Co Excess Cov Interest 39,548.66 - 39,548.66 (0.28) - 39,548.38

Washoe Co Excess Cov Total 241,489.16 - 241,489.16 (0.28) - 241,488.88

801-00-00-2837 Douglas Co Excess Coverage 283,374.14 1,388.63 284,762.77 284,762.77 801-00-00-2838 Douglas Co Excess Cov Interest 15,204.49 - 15,204.49 (0.35) - 15,204.14

Douglas Co Excess Cov Total 298,578.63 1,388.63 299,967.26 (0.35) - 299,966.91

801-00-00-2839 El Dorado Co Excess Coverage 4,618,890.47 4,179.22 4,623,069.69 4,623,069.69 801-00-00-2840 El Dorado Co Excess Cov Interest 565,840.55 - 565,840.55 (6.06) - 565,834.49

El Dorado Co Excess Cov Total 5,184,731.02 4,179.22 5,188,910.24 (6.06) - 5,188,904.18

801-00-00-2841 Placer Co Excess Coverage 3,026,851.83 856.87 3,027,708.70 3,027,708.70 801-00-00-2842 Placer Co Excess Cov Interest 600,818.85 - 600,818.85 (4.24) - 600,814.61

Placer Co Excess Cov Total 3,627,670.68 856.87 3,628,527.55 (4.24) - 3,628,523.31

801-00-00-2843 City SLT Excess Coverage 685,352.68 - 685,352.68 685,352.68 801-00-00-2844 City SLT Excess Cov Interest 125,778.09 - 125,778.09 (0.95) - 125,777.14

City SLT Excess Cov Total 811,130.77 - 811,130.77 (0.95) - 811,129.82

Total Ending Balance 10,163,600.26 6,424.72 10,170,024.98 (11.88) - 10,170,013.10

31

802 - Securities Trust FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Earned Interest802-00-00-1004 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Fargo 88,965.78 (79,596.71) 9,369.07 - - 9,369.07 802-00-00-1020 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Capital 4,050,665.72 (102,724.54) 3,947,941.18 (1,949.28) - 3,945,991.90 802-00-00-1030 Securities Trust Fund - LAIF (3.06) 3.06 - - - -

Net Cash Balance 4,139,628.44 (182,318.19) 3,957,310.25 (1,949.28) - 3,955,360.97

Paid-Interest802-00-00-1004 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Fargo 88,965.78 (79,596.71) 9,369.07 - 9,369.07 802-00-00-1020 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Capital 4,050,665.72 (102,724.54) 3,947,941.18 (1,949.28) 3,945,991.90 802-00-00-1030 Securities Trust Fund - LAIF (3.06) 3.06 - - -

Net Cash Balance 4,139,628.44 (182,318.19) 3,957,310.25 (1,949.28) - 3,955,360.97

802-00-00-2845 Securities Held 3,673,543.99 (78,169.04) 3,595,374.95 3,595,374.95 802-00-00-2846 Securities Interest Payable 466,159.57 (1,427.67) 464,731.90 1,997.90 466,729.80

Securities Trust Fund Total 4,139,703.56 (79,596.71) 4,060,106.85 1,997.90 - 4,062,104.75

101-00-00-1004 WF Checking - 101-00-00-1020 WF Capital (3,947.18) (3,947.18) 101-00-00-1030 LAIF - 802-00-00-1004 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Fargo - - 802-00-00-1020 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Capital 1,997.90 - 1,997.90 802-00-00-1030 Securities Trust Fund - LAIF - - -

Total Interest earnings - - - (1,949.28) - -

101-00-00-4601 Security Interest Income (3,947.18) (3,947.18) GF Secuirity Interest Income - - - (3,947.18) - (5,896.46)

32

803 - CTRPA Tahoe Keys FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Cash Balances803-00-00-1004 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Fund - Wells Fargo - - - - - - 803-00-00-1020 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Fund - Wells Capital 7,603.51 - 7,603.51 (3.71) - 7,599.80 803-00-00-1030 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Fund - LAIF 359,715.39 - 359,715.39 - - 359,715.39

Net Cash Balance 367,318.90 - 367,318.90 (3.71) - 367,315.19

803-00-00-2847 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Mitigation 6,500.00 - 6,500.00 6,500.00 803-00-00-2848 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Interest 360,818.90 - 360,818.90 (3.71) - 360,815.19

CTRPA Tahoe Keys Total 367,318.90 - 367,318.90 (3.71) - 367,315.19

33

804 - CTRPA Securities FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Cash Balances804-00-00-1004 CTRPA Securities Fund - Wells Fargo - - - - - - 804-00-00-1020 CTRPA Securities Fund - Wells Capital 107,569.65 - 107,569.65 (52.43) - 107,517.22 804-00-00-1030 CTRPA Securities Fund - LAIF - - - - - -

Net Cash Balance 107,569.65 - 107,569.65 (52.43) - 107,517.22

804-00-00-2849 CTRPA Securities Held 1,523.00 - 1,523.00 1,523.00 804-00-00-2850 CTRPA Securities Interest 106,046.65 - 106,046.65 (52.43) - 105,994.22

CTRPA Securities Fund Total 107,569.65 - 107,569.65 (52.43) - 107,517.22

34

805 - CTRPA Indirect Source FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Cash Balances805-00-00-1004 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund - Wells Fargo - - - - - - 805-00-00-1020 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund - Wells Capital 8,629.09 - 8,629.09 (4.21) - 8,624.88 805-00-00-1030 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund - LAIF - - - - - -

Net Cash Balance 8,629.09 - 8,629.09 (4.21) - 8,624.88

805-00-00-2851 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund 5,950.54 - 5,950.54 5,950.54 805-00-00-2852 CTRPA Indirect Source Interest 2,678.55 - 2,678.55 (4.21) - 2,674.34

CTRPA Indirect Source Fund Total 8,629.09 - 8,629.09 (4.21) - 8,624.88

35

36

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 19, 2011 To: TRPA Governing Board From: TRPA Staff Subject: Fiscal Year 2011, December Financial Statements Requested Action: Governing Board Acceptance of the December 2010 Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2011. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Governing Board acceptance of the December financial statements for fiscal year 2011, as presented. Required Motion: In order to accept the December 2010 Financial Statement, the Governing Board must make the following motion:

1) A motion to accept the December 2010 Financial Statement.

In order for the motion to pass, an affirmative vote of any eight Board members is required. Project Description/Background: As of December 31, 2010, 50% of the fiscal year is complete. As of the same date, the Agency recorded 78.1% of its budgeted annual revenue and has paid 44% of the budgeted expenditures. Additional expenditures are currently obligated under various agency contracts. The attached reports will be reviewed with the Operations Committee prior to the Governing Board meeting. Issues/Concerns: Agency funding from California was received in early December. As of December 31, 2010, filing fees are running behind projections by $133,000. The permits collected continue to be for smaller projects paying lower dollar fees.. The Finance Team is recommending spending adjustments to the management team to offset the difference, such as maintaining vacant personnel positions and cutting contract expenses. As you know, a result of the recent Shorezone court decision is that the issuance of Mooring Permits has been temporarily halted. Some of the Shorezone staff has been temporarily reassigned to limit the associated spending resulting in about $40,000 in labor cost savings. In addition, none of the $530,000 budgeted for contractual services

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 37

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2

to remove illegal buoys by the Shorezone Enforcement team has been spent. So the net financial impact to the Shorezone Fund through December 31, 2010, is small. As of December 31, 2010 the General Fund administration and overhead revenue from Shorezone and grant funded activities are running behind projections by $197,000. With less personnel working on Shorezone, the General Fund receives less administration & overhead revenue. The Finance Team is recommending spending adjustments to the management team to offset the difference, such as maintaining vacant personnel positions and cutting contract expenses. If you have any questions, please contact Kevin Prior at (775)589-5246 or [email protected]. Attachments: Enclosure I Agency Revenue and Expenditure Comparison

Enclosure II Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance

Enclosure III Statement of Mitigation Fund Balances

38


Enclosure IStatus Target

50.0%

Fund Original Budget YTD Actuals Difference

(Under) Over% of Adj. Budget

General FundRevenue 7,700,061 6,790,918 (909,143) 88.2%

Expenditures 7,682,278 3,351,533 (4,330,746) 43.6%gain (loss) 17,783 3,439,386 3,421,603

Implementation Grant FundRevenue 199,210 157,584 (41,626) 79.1%

Expenditures 246,002 168,547 (77,454) 68.5%gain (loss) (46,792) (10,963) 35,829

ThresholdRevenue 256,640 257,069 429 100.2%

Expenditures 256,640 3,776 (252,865) 1.5%gain (loss) (0) 253,293 253,294

ShorezoneRevenue 658,804 351,320 (307,484) 53.3%

Expenditures 1,939,502 500,934 (1,438,568) 25.8%gain (loss) (1,280,698) (149,614) 1,131,084

SNPLMARevenue 134,561 51 (134,510) 0.0%

Expenditures 134,561 218,605 84,044 162.5%gain (loss) (0) (218,554) (218,554)

Special Studies FundRevenue 105,000 63,014 (41,986) 60.0%

Expenditures 105,000 1,000 (104,000) 1.0%gain (loss) 0 62,014 62,014

Environmental Education FundRevenue 0 41 41 na

Expenditures 0 (1,000) (1,000) nagain (loss) 0 1,041 1,041

Erosion Control FundRevenue 774,767 367,519 (407,249) 47.4%

Expenditures 789,768 316,134 (473,634) 40.0%gain (loss) (15,000) 51,384 66,385

Aquatic Invasive Species FundRevenue 991,811 725,118 (266,693) 73.1%

Expenditures 1,164,699 720,730 (443,968) 61.9%gain (loss) (172,888) 4,388 177,275

TransportationRevenue 2,160,000 1,431,371 (728,629) 66.3%

Expenditures 2,160,000 1,097,090 (1,062,910) 50.8%gain (loss) 0 334,281 334,281

Total Special RevenueRevenue 5,280,793 3,353,088 (1,927,705) 63.5%

Expenditures 6,796,172 3,025,817 (3,770,354) 44.5%gain (loss) (1,515,379) 327,271 1,842,649

Total Agency Operating Budget StatusRevenue 12,980,854 10,144,006 (2,836,848) 78.1%

Expenditures 14,478,450 6,377,350 (8,101,100) 44.0%gain (loss) (1,497,596) 3,766,656 5,264,252

C:\Documents and Settings\jnikkel\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK163\[FINANCIALS December 2010.xls]Transportation

General Fund

Special Revenue Funds

For the Period Ending December 31, 2010Agency Revenue and Expenditure Comparison

FY 2011

39

Enclosure II


PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE YEAR TO DATE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010

BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue 5,310,061 5,309,062 (999) 99.98%Local revenue 150,000 150,000 - 100.00%Fees For Service Revenue 1,008,000 590,133 (417,867) 58.54%Investment Revenue 30,000 10,580 (19,420) 35.27%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue 1,197,000 505,614 (691,386) 42.24%Litiigation Reimbursements - 224,962 224,962 0.00%Other Revenue 5,000 567 (4,433) 11.33%

Total Revenues 7,700,061 6,790,918 (909,143) 88.19%

Governing BoardPersonnel 125,391 39,428 85,963 31.44%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 875 (875) 0.00%Commercial Air trans - In Stat - 1,687 (1,687) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 27,200 6,954 20,246 25.57%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


ExecutivePersonnel 282,715 101,702 181,013 35.97%Out-of-State Travel 5,000 284 4,716 5.69%In-State Travel 2,500 947 1,553 37.89%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 2,895 1,745 1,150 60.28%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - 110 (110) 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - 15,000 (15,000) 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


CommunicationsPersonnel 262,385 132,284 130,101 50.42%Out-of-State Travel 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%In-State Travel - 678 (678) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 26,650 7,555 19,095 28.35%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Information TechnologyPersonnel 341,225 182,529 158,696 53.49%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 45 (45) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 170,200 44,798 125,402 26.32%Information Services 158,000 126,259 31,741 79.91%Training 9,800 - 9,800 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay 28,500 5,490 23,010 19.26%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


40

Enclosure II



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Admin Support TeamPersonnel - 5,669 (5,669) 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - 5,669 (5,669) 0.00%

General ServicesPersonnel 27,779 10,941 16,838 39.39%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 888,166 430,598 457,568 48.48%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Finance OperationsPersonnel 365,372 181,876 183,496 49.78%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 64,581 18,933 45,648 29.32%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 500 - 500 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Human ResourcesPersonnel 165,302 88,931 76,371 53.80%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 834 (834) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 60,500 41,682 18,818 68.90%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training 12,000 3,393 8,607 28.27%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


41

Enclosure II



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

ImplementationPersonnel 478,475 248,197 230,278 51.87%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 8,000 1,030 6,970 12.88%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - 170 (170) 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 15,000 - 15,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


PlanningPersonnel 1,235,439 589,570 645,869 47.72%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 6,700 4,240 2,460 63.29%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 5,000 27,951 (22,951) 559.02%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Measurement & ReportingPersonnel 69,481 60,321 9,160 86.82%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 10,000 996 9,004 9.96%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 510,000 75,000 435,000 14.71%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Regional Plan UpdatePersonnel 801,189 257,664 543,525 32.16%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 500 2,128 (1,628) 425.59%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 462,900 29,405 433,495 6.35%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - 3,705 (3,705) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Adaptive ManagementPersonnel 94,722 45,831 48,891 48.38%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 107 (107) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 25,000 4,101 20,899 16.40%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 70,000 42,270 27,730 60.39%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


CompliancePersonnel 182,343 76,933 105,410 42.19%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%

42

Enclosure II



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 182,343 76,933 105,410 42.19%LegalPersonnel 195,287 135,400 59,887 69.33%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 677 (677) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 23,000 45,953 (22,953) 199.79%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 143,510 120,831 22,679 84.20%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%




General Fund TotalPersonnel 4,627,106 2,157,277 2,469,829 46.62%Out-of-State Travel 10,001 285 9,716 2.85%In-State Travel 2,501 4,165 (1,664) 166.56%Admin & Overhead Expense 1 1 - 100.00%Operating Expenses 1,286,193 610,713 675,479 47.48%Information Services 185,201 126,259 58,941 68.17%Training 21,801 3,673 18,127 16.85%Utility Expenses 1 1 - 100.00%Contract Services 1,206,911 310,457 896,453 25.72%Passthrough Expenditure 1 1 - 100.00%Capital Outlay 28,501 9,196 19,305 32.27%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 314,065 129,505 184,560 41.24%

Total Expenditures 7,682,278 3,351,533 4,330,746 43.63%

Total Revenue 7,700,061 6,790,918 (909,143) 88.19%Total Expenditures 7,682,278 3,351,533 4,330,746 43.63%

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures 17,783 3,439,386 3,421,603

43



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 109,194 55,819 (53,375) 51.12%State Revenue 31,534 95,694 64,160 303.46%Local revenue 58,482 6,291 (52,191) 10.76%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - (220) (220) 0.00%

Total Revenues 199,210 157,584 (41,626) 79.10%

State Historic PreservationPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 5,000 14,972 (9,972) 299.43%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


BOR Forest Fuels TFFTPersonnel 38,237 13,229 25,008 34.60%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 21,963 7,598 14,365 34.60%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 13,994 - 13,994 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


SNPLMA NV Fire Safe Data BasePersonnel 689 4,151 (3,463) 602.78%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 396 2,385 (1,989) 602.78%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 6,894 - 6,894 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 7,978 6,536 1,442 81.92%SNPLMA NV Angora Fire F&RPersonnel 32,896 6,625 26,271 20.14%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 18,895 3,805 15,090 20.14%Operating Expenses - 15,499 (15,499) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - 49,820 (49,820) 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


CTC EIPPersonnel 16,853 8,659 8,195 51.38%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 4,974 (4,974) 0.00%Operating Expenses 9,681 - 9,681 0.00%

44



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE



EPA EIPPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - - - 0.00%

NDEP 604(b)Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 30,000 29,831 169 99.44%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 30,000 29,831 169 99.44%

NDEP Environmental Signs GrantPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 25,000 - 25,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 25,000 - 25,000 0.00%

NDEP Environmental Signs GrantPersonnel 248 1,482 (1,233) 597.08%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 851 (851) 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 25,256 4,667 20,589 18.48%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


EIP Grant Fund TotalPersonnel 88,923 34,146 54,777 38.40%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 41,254 19,613 21,641 47.54%Operating Expenses 9,681 15,499 (5,818) 160.10%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%

45



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Contract Services 106,144 99,290 6,854 93.54%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Total Revenue 199,210 157,584 (41,626) 79.10%Total Expenditures 246,002 168,547 77,454 68.51%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures (46,792) (10,963) 35,829 0.00%

46



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue 256,640 256,640 - 100.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 429 429 0.00%

Total Revenues 256,640 257,069 429 100.17%

Threshold Studies - GeneralPersonnel - 3,404 (3,404) 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses 1,200 233 967 19.44%Contract Services 202,060 - 202,060 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay 53,380 - 53,380 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 256,640 3,638 253,002 1.42%

Shorezone Noise MonitoringPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - (72) 72 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses - (72) 72 0.00%

Threshold Studies - GeneralPersonnel - 865 (865) 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses - 865 (865) 0.00%

Adaptive ManagementPersonnel 1,377 33 1,344 2.40%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 1,377 33 1,344 2.40%


47



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (1,377) (689) (689) 50.00%

Total Expenses (1,377) (689) (689) 50.00%

Threshold Studies Fund TotalPersonnel 1,377 4,303 (2,925) 312.37%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - (72) - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses 1,200 233 967 19.44%Contract Services 202,060 - 202,060 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay 53,380 - 53,380 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (1,377) (689) (689) 50.00%

Total Expenditure 256,640 3,776 252,865 1.47%

Total Revenue 256,640 257,069 429 100.17%Total Expenditure 256,640 3,776 252,865 1.47%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses (0) 253,293 253,294

48



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE VARIANCE % TO DATEREVENUES

Federal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue 124,000 124,000 - 100.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue (Enforecement 50% of RF + >1 Buoy) 720,000 71,104 (648,896) 9.88%Investment Revenue - 2,745 2,745 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Scenic Mitigation Revenue 30,000 2,170 (27,830) 7.23%Mooring Application Permit Fee (25,500) 36,520 62,020 -143.22%Monitoring Fees (30% RF) (101,497) 7,740 109,237 -7.63%Blue Boating Fees (88,200) 107,040 195,240 -121.36%

Total Revenues 658,804 351,320 (307,484) 53.33%

EnforcementPersonnel 290,212 103,106 187,106 35.53%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 102 (102) 0.00%Operating Expenses 239,077 111,354 127,722 46.58%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 530,001 3,063 526,939 0.58%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 1,059,290 217,625 841,665 20.54%

Shorezone ImplementationPersonnel 289,990 101,464 188,526 34.99%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 101,497 35,512 65,984 34.99%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 391,487 136,976 254,510 34.99%

Shorezone MonitoringPersonnel 114,767 62,456 52,310 54.42%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 40,168 21,860 18,309 54.42%Operating Expenses 10,000 2,168 7,832 21.68%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 88,200 28,750 59,450 32.60%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 253,135 115,233 137,901 45.52%

Blue Boating ProgramPersonnel 80,139 18,062 62,077 22.54%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 28,049 6,322 21,727 22.54%Operating Expenses 24,403 6,715 17,688 27.52%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 103,000 - 103,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 235,590 31,099 204,491 13.20%

Watercraft Fund TotalPersonnel 775,108 285,088 490,019 36.78%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 102 (102) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 307,294 139,536 167,758 45.41%Operating Expenses 135,900 44,395 91,504 32.67%

49



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE VARIANCE % TO DATEInformation Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - 3,063 (3,063) 0.00%Contract Services 721,201 28,750 692,451 3.99%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditure 1,939,502 500,934 1,438,568 25.83%

Total Revenue 658,804 351,320 (307,484) 53.33%Total Expenditure 1,939,502 500,934 1,438,568 25.83%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses (1,280,698) (149,614) 1,131,084

50



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 134,561 - (134,561) 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 51 51 0.00%

Total Revenues 134,561 51 (134,510) 0.04%

LIDARPersonnel 4,774 1,197 3,577 25.07%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 688 (688) 0.00%Operating Expenses - 38,798 (38,798) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 95,227 177,172 (81,945) 186.05%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 100,001 217,855 (117,854) 217.85%

SNPLMA TIIMSPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


SNPLMA Thresholds Round 7Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


SNPLMA ThresholdsPersonnel 34,561 477 34,084 1.38%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 274 (274) 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 34,561 751 33,810 2.17%


51



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESUtility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditure - - - 0.00%

SNPLMA Fund TotalPersonnel 39,334 1,674 37,660 4.26%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 962 (962) 0.00%Operating Expenses - 38,798 (38,798) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 95,227 177,172 (81,945) 186.05%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditure 134,561 218,605 (84,044) 162.46%

Total Revenue 134,561 51 (134,510) 0.04%Total Expenditure 134,561 218,605 (84,044) 162.46%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures (0) (218,554) (218,554)

52

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL STUDIES FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue 105,000 63,000 (42,000) 60.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 14 14 0.00%

Total Revenues 105,000 63,014 (41,986) 60.01%

Special StudiesPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%



Total Expenses 105,000 1,000 104,000 0.95%

Special Studies Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 105,000 1,000 104,000 0.95%

Total Expenses 105,000 1,000 104,000 0.95%



53

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 41 41 0.00%

Total Revenues - 41 41 0.00%

Environmental EducationPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%

MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (5,000) (1,000) (4,000) 20.00%

Total Expenses (5,000) (1,000) (4,000) 20.00%

Environmental Education Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 5,000 - 5,000 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (5,000) (1,000) (4,000) 20.00%

Total Expenses - (1,000) 1,000 0.00%

Total Revenue - 41 41 0.00%Total Expense - (1,000) 1,000 0.00%


54



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 627,366 292,860 (334,506) 46.68%State Revenue 147,402 74,564 (72,838) 50.59%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 95 95 0.00%

Total Revenues 774,767 367,519 (407,249) 47.44%

Consolidated GrantsPersonnel 159,140 77,577 81,563 48.75%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 91,410 44,560 46,850 48.75%Operating Expenses - 3,625 (3,625) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - 625 (625) 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 65,000 893 64,107 1.37%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 315,550 127,281 188,269 40.34%

BMP Manual Army Corps Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 95,000 22,896 72,104 24.10%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 95,000 22,896 72,104 24.10%

General Fund Erosion ControlPersonnel 75,942 23,798 52,144 31.34%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 43,621 13,670 29,951 31.34%Operating Expenses - 48 (48) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 119,563 37,517 82,047 31.38%

BMP Federal 319 (CA) GrantPersonnel 14,739 5,471 9,269 37.12%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 8,466 3,142 5,324 37.12%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 100,000 26,728 73,272 26.73%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 123,206 35,341 87,865 28.68%

BMP Federal 319 (NV) GrantPersonnel 34,689 27,891 6,799 80.40%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 19,926 16,020 3,905 80.40%Operating Expenses 1,500 - 1,500 0.00%

55



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE


Total Expenses 56,115 43,911 12,204 78.25%

TRCD Prop 50 - Enforecement & OtherPersonnel 63,767 34,235 29,533 53.69%Out-of-State Travel 4,433 - 4,433 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 39,174 19,664 19,510 50.20%Operating Expenses - 3,884 (3,884) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 60,000 3,750 56,250 6.25%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 167,375 61,533 105,842 36.76%

BOR BMP Enforcement & OtherPersonnel 77,266 47,332 29,934 61.26%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 44,381 27,188 17,194 61.26%Operating Expenses - 31 (31) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 15,000 - 15,000 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 136,647 74,550 62,097 54.56%

LTLP ECAMPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 15,000 32,450 (17,450) 216.33%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 15,000 32,450 (17,450) 216.33%

Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Op Trans In(Out) (238,688) (119,344) (119,343) 50.00%

Total Expenses (238,688) (119,344) (119,343) 50.00%

Erosion Control Fund TotalPersonnel 425,544 216,304 209,240 50.83%Out-of-State Travel 4,433 - 4,433 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 246,979 124,245 122,734 50.31%Operating Expenses 1,500 7,588 (6,088) 505.86%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - 625 (625) 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 350,000 86,716 263,284 24.78%

56



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) (238,688) (119,344) (119,343) 50.00%

Total Expenses 789,768 316,134 473,634 40.03%


Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses (15,000) 51,384 66,385 0.00%

57


PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE YEAR TO DATE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010

BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 670,811 510,144 (160,667) 76.05%State Revenue 61,000 12,865 (48,135) 21.09%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue 260,000 201,698 (58,302) 77.58%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Pass-through Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - 411 411 0.00%

Total Revenues 991,811 725,118 ($266,693) 73.11%

Bureau of Reclamation TRCD AIS - 7Personnel - - - 0.00%

Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expenses - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 40,000 23,244 16,756 58.11%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Bureau of Reclamation TRCD AIS - 9Personnel 8,901 9,026 (125) 101.41%

Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expenses - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 16,000 14,833 1,167 92.71%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Bureau of Reclamation TRCD AIS - 6Personnel 45,927 32,416 13,511 70.58%

Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 598 (598) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expenses - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 7,000 8,872 (1,872) 126.75%Training - 825 (825) 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 150,000 - 150,000 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 202,927 42,711$ 160,216$ 21.05%

BOR TRCD AISPersonnel 15,016 19,259 (4,243) 128.26%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 15,401 16,710 (1,309) 108.50%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Boat Supplies 6,500 73 6,427 1.13%Office and Equipment over 2500 - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures 36,917 36,042 $875 97.63%Total Expenses

SNPLMA US Fish Wild. Svc. AISPersonnel 53,074 40,581 12,493 76.46%Per Diem - Out-of-State - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 159,140 25,004 134,136 15.71%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 20,000 - 20,000 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%

58



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%Total Expenditures 232,214 65,585 $166,629 28.24%

Total ExpensesArmy Corp of Engineers AISPersonnel 60,426 32,526 27,900 53.83%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 18,683 (18,683) 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - 3,971 (3,971) 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Personnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - - $0 0.00%USFWS Roadway Boat InspectionsPersonnel 14,940 5,209 9,731 34.86%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - 2,992 (2,992) 0.00%Operating Expenses 22,731 6,286 16,445 27.65%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 529,643 229,385 300,258 43.31%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - 230,236 (230,236) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - - - 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Op Trans In(Out) - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenditures - - $0 0.00%

AIS Fund TotalsPersonnel 198,284 139,017 59,392 70.11%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - 598 (598) 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 174,541 63,389 111,152 36.32%Operating Expenses 22,731 6,286 16,445 27.65%Information Services 47,000 32,117 (1,872) 68.33%Training - 825 (825) 0.00%Utility Expenses 20,000 - 20,000 0.00%Contract Services 702,143 248,263 452,713 35.36%Pass-through Expenditure - - - 0.00%Pass-through Expenses - 230,236 (230,236) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Total Revenue 991,811 725,118 (266,693) 73.11%Total Expenditures 1,164,699 720,730 443,968 61.88%

Contingency - - - 0.00%

59



BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures (172,888) 4,388 $177,275

60

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY TRANSPORTATION FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue 1,598,000 1,073,719 (524,281) 67.19%State Revenue 462,000 355,625 (106,375) 76.98%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - 2,028 2,028 0.00%Passthrough Revenue 100,000 - (100,000) 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%

Total Revenues 2,160,000 1,431,371 (728,629) 66.27%

Transportation ExpensesPersonnel 509,555 223,065 286,490 43.78%Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense 114,605 128,128 (13,523) 111.80%Operating Expenses 299,355 21,816 277,539 7.29%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services 1,336,485 774,081 562,404 57.92%Passthrough Expenditure (100,000) (50,000) (50,000) 50.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 2,160,000$ 1,097,090$ 1,062,910$ 50.79%

Total Revenue 2,160,000 1,431,371 (728,629) 66.27%Total Expense 2,160,000 1,097,090 1,062,910 50.79%


61

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 128 MARKET STREET FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Use of Property - (542,520) (542,520) 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - (1,381) (1,381) 0.00%

Total Revenues - (543,902) (543,902) 0.00%

128 Market Street ExpensesPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 101,983 40,521 61,462 39.73%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Debt Service Principal - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - 50 (50) 0.00%Interest Expense - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 101,983 40,571 61,412 39.78%

128 Market Street - CAMPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 90,934 46,941 43,993 51.62%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%

Total Expenses 90,934 46,941 43,993 51.62%

MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses - 1,838 (1,838) 0.00%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 246,635 7,352 239,283 2.98%

Total Expenses 246,635 9,190 237,445 3.73%

128 Market Street Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Operating Expenses 192,917 89,300 103,617 46.29%Information Services - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Capital Outlay - 50 (50) 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) 246,635 7,352 239,283 2.98%

Total Expenses 439,552 96,702 342,850 22.00%

Total Revenue - (543,902) (543,902) 0.00%Total Expense 439,552 96,702 342,850 22.00%

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses 439,552 (447,199) (201,051)

62

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND


BUDGET YEAR-TO-DATE

VARIANCE % TO DATE

REVENUESFederal Grant Revenue - - - 0.00%State Revenue - - - 0.00%Local revenue - - - 0.00%Fees For Service Revenue - - - 0.00%Investment Revenue - - - 0.00%Passthrough Revenue - - - 0.00%Admin and Overhead Revenue - - - 0.00%Other Revenue - - - 0.00%

Total Revenues - - - 0.00%

Land Records management SystemPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Computer Supplies - - - 0.00%Computer Software - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Computer Hardware - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


MiscellaneousPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Computer Supplies - - - 0.00%Computer Software - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Computer Hardware - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Capital Improvement Fund TotalPersonnel - - - 0.00%Out-of-State Travel - - - 0.00%In-State Travel - - - 0.00%Admin & Overhead Expense - - - 0.00%Computer Supplies - - - 0.00%Computer Software - - - 0.00%Training - - - 0.00%Utility Expenses - - - 0.00%Contract Services - - - 0.00%Passthrough Expenditure - - - 0.00%Computer Hardware - - - 0.00%Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - 0.00%


Total Revenue - - - 0.00%Total Expense - - - 0.00%

Contingency - - - 0.00%Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenses - - - 0.00%

63




Ending Balance

Cash Balances800-00-00-1004 Mitigation Funds - Wells Fargo 128,556 (128,555.70) - - - - 800-00-00-1020 Mitigation Funds - Wells Capital 2,868,238 (154,534.32) 2,713,704.00 - - 2,713,704.00 800-00-00-1030 Mitigation Funds - LAIF 4,390,670 - 4,390,670.05 - - 4,390,670.05

Net Cash Balance 7,387,464 (283,090) 7,104,374 - - 7,104,374

800-00-00-2801 City of SLT WQ Mitigation 318,362.25 6,727.62 325,089.87 325,089.87 800-00-00-2802 City of SLT WQ Interest 152,950.19 - 152,950.19 (0.08) - 152,950.11

City of SLT WQ Total 471,312.44 6,727.62 478,040.06 (0.08) - 478,039.98

800-00-00-2803 City of SLT SEZ Restoration 572,357.97 - 572,357.97 572,357.97 800-00-00-2804 City of SLT SEZ InterestLong 123,642.43 - 123,642.43 - - 123,642.43

City of SLT SEZ Total 696,000.40 - 696,000.40 - - 696,000.40

800-00-00-2805 City of SLT AQ Mitigation 335,951.59 6,516.80 342,468.39 342,468.39 800-00-00-2806 City of SLT AQ Interest 197,837.67 - 197,837.67 - - 197,837.67

City of SLT AQ Total 533,789.26 6,516.80 540,306.06 - - 540,306.06

800-00-00-2807 Douglas Co WQ Mitigation 136,783.29 - 136,783.29 136,783.29 800-00-00-2808 Douglas Co WQ Interest 35,576.32 - 35,576.32 - - 35,576.32

Douglas Co WQ Total 172,359.61 - 172,359.61 - - 172,359.61

800-00-00-2809 Douglas Co SEZ Restoration 214,572.43 - 214,572.43 214,572.43 800-00-00-2810 Douglas Co SEZ Interest 51,957.13 - 51,957.13 - - 51,957.13

Douglas Co SEZ Total 266,529.56 - 266,529.56 - - 266,529.56

800-00-00-2811 Douglas Co AQ Mitigation 189,261.88 - 189,261.88 189,261.88 800-00-00-2812 Douglas Co AQ Interest 128,688.95 - 128,688.95 - - 128,688.95

Douglas Co AQ Total 317,950.83 - 317,950.83 - - 317,950.83

800-00-00-2813 Placer Co WQ Mitigation 142,718.47 15,013.92 157,732.39 157,732.39 800-00-00-2814 Placer Co WQ Interest 2,805.50 - 2,805.50 - - 2,805.50

Placer Co WQ Total 145,523.97 15,013.92 160,537.89 - - 160,537.89

800-00-00-2815 Placer Co SEZ Restoration 153,083.00 - 153,083.00 153,083.00 800-00-00-2816 Placer Co SEZ Interest 971.47 - 971.47 - - 971.47

Placer Co SEZ Total 154,054.47 - 154,054.47 - - 154,054.47

800-00-00-2817 Placer Co AQ Mitigation 64,642.42 6,516.80 71,159.22 71,159.22 800-00-00-2818 Placer Co AQ Interest 56,571.75 - 56,571.75 - - 56,571.75

Placer Co AQ Total 121,214.17 6,516.80 127,730.97 - - 127,730.97

800-00-00-2819 El Dorado Co WQ Mitigation 26,780.94 (128,570.48) (101,789.54) (101,789.54) 800-00-00-2820 El Dorado Co WQ Interest 27,878.12 (10,000.00) 17,878.12 - - 17,878.12

El Dorado Co WQ Total 54,659.06 (138,570.48) (83,911.42) - - (83,911.42)

800-00-00-2821 El Dorado SEZ Restoration 250,344.00 (58,000.00) 192,344.00 192,344.00 800-00-00-2822 El Dorado Co SEZ Interest 56,889.29 - 56,889.29 - - 56,889.29





Ending Balance

El Dorado SEZ Total 307,233.29 (58,000.00) 249,233.29 - - 249,233.29

800-00-00-2823 El Dorado Co AQ Mitigation 205,025.88 (129,424.80) 75,601.08 75,601.08 800-00-00-2824 El Dorado Co AQ Interest 156,232.47 - 156,232.47 - - 156,232.47

El Dorado Co AQ Total 361,258.35 (129,424.80) 231,833.55 - - 231,833.55

800-00-00-2825 Meyers CPC Mitigation 760.00 - 760.00 760.00 800-00-00-2826 Meyers CPC Mitigation Interest 269.85 - 269.85 - - 269.85

Myers CPC Total 1,029.85 - 1,029.85 - - 1,029.85

800-00-00-2827 Washoe Co WQ Mitigation 958,881.41 2,300.82 961,182.23 961,182.23 800-00-00-2828 Washoe Co WQ Interest 226,707.08 - 226,707.08 - - 226,707.08

Washoe Co WQ Total 1,185,588.49 2,300.82 1,187,889.31 - - 1,187,889.31

800-00-00-2829 Washoe Co SEZ Restoration 82,700.00 - 82,700.00 82,700.00 800-00-00-2830 Washoe Co SEZ Interest 91,804.05 - 91,804.05 - - 91,804.05

Washoe Co SEZ Total 174,504.05 - 174,504.05 - - 174,504.05

800-00-00-2831 Washoe Co AQ Mitigation 462,015.72 - 462,015.72 462,015.72 800-00-00-2832 Washoe Co AQ Interest 223,599.54 - 223,599.54 - - 223,599.54

Washoe Co AQ Total 685,615.26 - 685,615.26 - - 685,615.26

800-00-00-2833 Shorezone Mitigation 43,690.00 - 43,690.00 43,690.00 800-00-00-2834 Shorezone Interest 1,069.59 - 1,069.59 - - 1,069.59

Shorezone Total 44,759.59 - 44,759.59 - - 44,759.59

800-00-00-2857 STPUD Forest Mitigation 250,000.00 - 250,000.00 250,000.00 800-00-00-2858 STPUD Forest Mit Interest 46,251.68 - 46,251.68 - - 46,251.68

STPUD Forest Total 296,251.68 - 296,251.68 - - 296,251.68

800-00-00-2859 Douglas Co Bike Trail Mit 18,230.08 - 18,230.08 18,230.08 800-00-00-2860 Douglas Co Bike Trail Int 17,879.98 - 17,879.98 - - 17,879.98

Douglas Co Bike Trail Total 36,110.06 - 36,110.06 - - 36,110.06

800-00-00-2861 Stateline Beautification 110,795.75 - 110,795.75 - 110,795.75 800-00-00-2892 Stateline Beautification Interest 1,851.08 - 1,851.08 - - 1,851.08

Stateline Beautification Total 110,795.75 - 112,646.83 - - 110,795.75

800-00-00-2862 Shorezone Public Access Mit - - - - 800-00-00-2863 Shorezone Public Access Int. (0.80) - (0.80) - - (0.80)

Shorezone Public Access Total - - (0.80) - - (0.80)

800-00-00-2864 Boat Wash Station Mitigation - - - - 800-00-00-2865 Boat Wash Station Interest (62.31) - (62.31) - - (62.31)

Boat Wash Station Total (62.31) - (62.31) - - (62.31)

800-00-00-2868 Shorezone Scenic Mitigation 295,938.00 - 295,938.00 295,938.00 800-00-00-2869 Shorezone Scenic Interest 3,702.94 - 3,702.94 - - 3,702.94





Ending Balance

Shorezone Scenic Mitigation Total 295,938.00 - 299,640.94 - - 299,640.94

800-00-00-2871 Fish Habitat Mitigation 13,225.03 - 13,225.03 13,225.03 800-00-00-2872 Fish Habitat Mitigation Int 221.04 - 221.04 - - 221.04

Fish Habitat Mitigation Total 13,225.03 - 13,446.07 - - 13,446.07

800-00-00-2873 City of SLT 217,416.33 - 217,416.33 - - 217,416.33 800-00-00-2874 Douglas Co 123,949.96 - 123,949.96 - - 123,949.96 800-00-00-2875 Placer Co. 35,228.09 - 35,228.09 - - 35,228.09 800-00-00-2876 El Dorado Co. 63,084.15 - 63,084.15 - - 63,084.15 800-00-00-2877 Washoe Co. 465,332.33 - 465,332.33 - - 465,332.33

Jurisdiction O&M Mitigation Total 905,010.86 - 905,010.86 - - 905,010.86

800-00-00-2893 Blue Boating Mitigation Fee 31,021.95 5,829.30 36,851.25 36,851.25 800-00-00-2894 Blue Boating Mitigation Interest 73.52 - 73.52 - - 73.52

Blue Boating Mitigation Total 31,095.47 5,829.30 36,924.77 - - 36,924.77

Total Ending Balance 7,381,747.19 (283,090.02) 7,104,431.43 (0.08) - 7,102,580.27


801 - Excess Coverage MitigationPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Cash Balances801-00-00-1004 Excess Coverage Mitigation - Wells Fargo 124,739.44 32,468.51 157,207.95 - - 157,207.95 801-00-00-1020 Excess Coverage Mitigation - Wells Capital 35,493.89 - 35,493.89 - - 35,493.89 801-00-00-1030 Excess Coverage Mitigation - LAIF 9,997,712.62 - 9,997,712.62 - - 9,997,712.62

Net Cash Balance 10,157,945.95 32,468.51 10,190,414.46 - - 10,190,414.46

801-00-00-2835 Washoe Co Excess Coverage 201,940.50 200.00 202,140.50 202,140.50 801-00-00-2836 Washoe Co Excess Cov Interest 39,261.66 - 39,261.66 - - 39,261.66

Washoe Co Excess Cov Total 241,202.16 200.00 241,402.16 - - 241,402.16

801-00-00-2837 Douglas Co Excess Coverage 284,762.77 904.00 285,666.77 285,666.77 801-00-00-2838 Douglas Co Excess Cov Interest 14,849.64 - 14,849.64 - - 14,849.64

Douglas Co Excess Cov Total 299,612.41 904.00 300,516.41 - - 300,516.41

801-00-00-2839 El Dorado Co Excess Coverage 4,623,069.69 4,726.00 4,627,795.69 4,627,795.69 801-00-00-2840 El Dorado Co Excess Cov Interest 559,678.70 - 559,678.70 - - 559,678.70

El Dorado Co Excess Cov Total 5,182,748.39 4,726.00 5,187,474.39 - - 5,187,474.39

801-00-00-2841 Placer Co Excess Coverage 3,027,708.70 23,575.64 3,051,284.34 3,051,284.34 801-00-00-2842 Placer Co Excess Cov Interest 596,507.51 - 596,507.51 - - 596,507.51

Placer Co Excess Cov Total 3,624,216.21 23,575.64 3,647,791.85 - - 3,647,791.85

801-00-00-2843 City SLT Excess Coverage 685,352.68 3,062.87 688,415.55 688,415.55 801-00-00-2844 City SLT Excess Cov Interest 124,814.10 - 124,814.10 - - 124,814.10

City SLT Excess Cov Total 810,166.78 3,062.87 813,229.65 - - 813,229.65

Total Ending Balance 10,157,945.95 32,468.51 10,190,414.46 - - 10,190,414.46

67

802 - Securities Trust FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Earned Interest802-00-00-1004 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Fargo 9,369.07 (9,369.07) - - - - 802-00-00-1020 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Capital 3,944,393.86 (371,529.05) 3,572,864.81 - - 3,572,864.81 802-00-00-1030 Securities Trust Fund - LAIF 3.06 - 3.06 - - 3.06

Net Cash Balance 3,953,765.99 (380,898.12) 3,572,867.87 - - 3,572,867.87

Paid-Interest802-00-00-1004 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Fargo 9,369.07 (9,369.07) - #DIV/0! #DIV/0!802-00-00-1020 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Capital 3,944,393.86 (371,529.05) 3,572,864.81 - 3,572,864.81 802-00-00-1030 Securities Trust Fund - LAIF 3.06 - 3.06 - 3.06

Net Cash Balance 3,953,765.99 (380,898.12) 3,572,867.87 #DIV/0! - #DIV/0!

802-00-00-2845 Securities Held 3,595,374.95 (20,536.00) 3,574,838.95 3,574,838.95 802-00-00-2846 Securities Interest Payable 461,187.64 (1,665.22) 459,522.42 7,596.73 467,119.15

Securities Trust Fund Total 4,056,562.59 (22,201.22) 4,034,361.37 7,596.73 - 4,041,958.10

101-00-00-1004 WF Checking - 101-00-00-1020 WF Capital (7,596.73) (7,596.73) 101-00-00-1030 LAIF - 802-00-00-1004 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Fargo - - 802-00-00-1020 Securities Trust Fund - Wells Capital 7,596.73 - 7,596.73 802-00-00-1030 Securities Trust Fund - LAIF - - -

Total Interest earnings - - - - - -

101-00-00-4601 Security Interest Income (7,596.73) (7,596.73) GF Secuirity Interest Income - - - (7,596.73) - (7,596.73)

68

803 - CTRPA Tahoe Keys FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Cash Balances803-00-00-1004 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Fund - Wells Fargo - - - - - - 803-00-00-1020 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Fund - Wells Capital 7,578.20 - 7,578.20 - - 7,578.20 803-00-00-1030 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Fund - LAIF 359,294.31 - 359,294.31 - - 359,294.31

Net Cash Balance 366,872.51 - 366,872.51 - - 366,872.51

803-00-00-2847 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Mitigation 6,500.00 - 6,500.00 6,500.00 803-00-00-2848 CTRPA Tahoe Keys Interest 360,372.51 - 360,372.51 - - 360,372.51

CTRPA Tahoe Keys Total 366,872.51 - 366,872.51 - - 366,872.51

69

804 - CTRPA Securities FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Cash Balances804-00-00-1004 CTRPA Securities Fund - Wells Fargo - - - - - - 804-00-00-1020 CTRPA Securities Fund - Wells Capital 107,384.85 - 107,384.85 - - 107,384.85 804-00-00-1030 CTRPA Securities Fund - LAIF - - - - - -

Net Cash Balance 107,384.85 - 107,384.85 - - 107,384.85

804-00-00-2849 CTRPA Securities Held 1,523.00 - 1,523.00 1,523.00 804-00-00-2850 CTRPA Securities Interest 105,861.85 - 105,861.85 - - 105,861.85

CTRPA Securities Fund Total 107,384.85 - 107,384.85 - - 107,384.85

70

805 - CTRPA Indirect Source FundPeriod Beginning November 1, 2010


Cash Balances805-00-00-1004 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund - Wells Fargo - - - - - - 805-00-00-1020 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund - Wells Capital 8,614.26 - 8,614.26 - - 8,614.26 805-00-00-1030 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund - LAIF - - - - - -

Net Cash Balance 8,614.26 - 8,614.26 - - 8,614.26

805-00-00-2851 CTRPA Indirect Source Fund 5,950.54 - 5,950.54 5,950.54 805-00-00-2852 CTRPA Indirect Source Interest 2,663.72 - 2,663.72 - - 2,663.72

CTRPA Indirect Source Fund Total 8,614.26 - 8,614.26 - - 8,614.26

71

72

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 19, 2011 To: TRPA Governing Board From: TRPA Staff Subject: Resolution of Enforcement Action, John Stannard, Unauthorized Grading

in the Shorezone, 3795 Belleview Ave., Placer County, CA, Assessor’s Parcel Number 085-202-011.

Requested Action: Governing Board action on the proposed Settlement Agreement. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Governing Board accept the proposed Settlement Agreement (Attachment A) in which John Stannard (“Stannard”) agrees to pay $6,000 to TRPA and restore the disturbed area pursuant to a TRPA approved landscape restoration plan. Required Motion: In order to approve the proposed violation resolution, the Board must make the following motion, based on this staff summary and the evidence in the record:

A motion to approve the Settlement Agreement as set forth in Attachment A. In order for the motion to pass, an affirmative vote of any 8 members of the Board is required. Violation Description/Background: On June 24, 2010, TRPA forester Brian Hirt (“Hirt”) visited the lakefront property located at 3795 Belleview Ave., Placer County, CA, Assessor’s Parcel Number 085-202-011 (“Stannard Property”) to issue a tree removal permit requested by Stannard. During the inspection, Hirt observed an active landscaping project in Stannard’s backyard that Hirt suspected had not been permitted as necessary by TRPA. Hirt immediately informed an on-site worker to stop all grading activity. The next day, TRPA violation resolution staff visited the site and confirmed that the unauthorized grading and landscaping had occurred in the backshore without the necessary TRPA permit in violation of TRPA Code of Ordinances (“Code”). Specifically, Stannard was in the process of replacing the existing non-native grass installed in the backyard by the previous property owner with sod. During this landscaping project, Stannard leveled a number of small hummocks in the yard to create a flatter surface. Stannard also had placed flagstone on the borders of the new sod in the backyard. By failing to obtain the necessary TRPA permits for this project, Stannard violated Code Section 4.2.A, which prohibits such grading and landscaping projects in the backshore

SDS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3

73

Stannard 2 of 4


without a TRPA permit. Stannard also violated Code Section 54.4, which prohibits the addition of coverage and disturbance of vegetation in the backshore absent specific environmental findings designated by TRPA.1 Finally, Stannard violated Code Section 64.2.D which requires installation and maintenance of erosion control devices for such a project. Staff recommends that Stannard pay a monetary penalty of $6,000 and restore the disturbed area of the Stannard Property by implementing a landscape restoration plan to be approved by TRPA Planning staff through a single family dwelling addition permit. The landscape restoration will include removing all sod from the backshore and planting the area with native species. The restoration will be completed by September 30, 2011. Regional Plan Compliance: The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact Article VI (k), Compliance, provides for enforcement and substantial penalties for violations of TRPA ordinances or regulations. The proposed resolution complies with all requirements of the TRPA Goals and Policies, Plan Area Statements, and Code of Ordinances. Supporting evidence for making the determination of a violation includes the violation file and photographs of the site. These documents are in TRPA’s possession and may be reviewed at the TRPA Offices. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Sweet, Senior Environmental Specialist at [email protected] or 775-589-5250. Attachments: Settlement Agreement (Attachment A)

1 Because this violation occurred while the shorezone regulations adopted in October 2008 were in effect, TRPA pursued this as a violation of the Code applicable at that time. This unpermitted activity also would have violated the equivalent standards under the newly-reimposed shorezone Code Chapter 55.4.

74

Stannard 3 of 4

ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Settlement Agreement is made by and between John Stannard (“Stannard”) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”).

This Settlement Agreement represents the full and complete compromise and settlement of certain violations alleged by TRPA, as described below:

On June 24, 2010, TRPA forester, Brian Hirt (“Hirt”) visited the lakefront property located at 3795 Belleview Ave., Placer County, CA, Assessor’s Parcel Number 085-202-011 (“Stannard Property”) to issue a tree removal permit requested by Stannard. During the site visit Hirt noted extensive grading and landscaping occurring in the backshore area of the Stannard Property without proper installation of erosion control devices. Hirt also noted that a small amount of flagstone was placed in an area adjacent to the backyard, creating unauthorized coverage. At that time, Hirt advised an employee of Stannard’s representative, Ogilvy Consulting, to stop all grading activity in the shorezone area.

On June 25, 2010, TRPA violation resolution staff visited the site and confirmed that unauthorized grading and landscaping had occurred in the backshore in violation of TRPA Code of Ordinances (“Code”) Section 4.2.A(8). Staff also found that the unauthorized coverage created by the small area of flagstone had been removed from the backyard.

By failing to obtain permits for grading and landscaping in the backshore, Stannard violated (1) Code Section 4.2.A(4) which prohibits grading of more than three cubic yards to occur without a TRPA permit; (2) Code Section 4.2.A(8) which prohibits additional or new landscaping to occur in a stream environment zone or backshore; and (3) Code Section 64.2.D which requires that all erosion control devices be maintained throughout the entire project. In addition, by installing flagstone and creating coverage without a permit, Stannard violated Code Section 4.7 which states that an activity that is not exempt from TRPA review and approval requires TRPA’s authorization. This Settlement Agreement is conditioned upon approval by the TRPA Governing

Board. Execution of the Agreement prior to Board action shall not be binding on either party in the event that the Board does not authorize settlement on the terms set forth below:


75

Stannard 4 of 4


In order to fully resolve the matter, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Stannard shall pay TRPA a total of $6,000 within 30 days of Governing Board approval of this Settlement Agreement.

2. Stannard shall submit a landscape restoration plan to TRPA by January 30,

2011. The restoration shall be completed no later than September 30, 2011. The restoration must include removing all sod from the backshore.

3. If Stannard fails to comply with all actions required by this Settlement Agreement,

Stannard confesses to judgment against him and in favor of TRPA in the amount of $18,000 (payable immediately) and an injunction to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement. Stannard also agrees to pay all reasonable attorneys fees and costs associated with collecting the increased settlement of $18,000. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the confession of judgment shall not be filed unless TRPA has provided Stannard with written notice of default and notice to cure such default within ten days of the date of written notice. If the default has not been cured by that time, TRPA may file the confession of judgment.

4. Once Stannard has fully complied with all of the terms herein, TRPA shall

release Stannard of all claims arising out of his failure to follow TRPA grading and landscaping requirements as described herein.

Stannard has read this Settlement Agreement and understands all of its terms.

Stannard has executed this Settlement Agreement after opportunity to review the terms with an attorney and acknowledges that the above-described activities constitute a violation of TRPA regulations. Stannard agrees to comply with all applicable TRPA requirements in the future. Signed: _____________________________ __________________________ John Stannard Date ______________________________ __________________________ Joanne S Marchetta, Executive Director Date Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

76

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 19, 2011 To: TRPA Governing Board From: TRPA Staff Subject: Adoption and Approval of the Supporting Resolution for the Fiscal Year

2011 Federal Transit Administration 5311 Program of Projects for California

Requested Action: Adoption of the attached supporting resolution (Attachment A) regarding the Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 Program of Projects (POP) by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, sitting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for the California portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, sitting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, adopt Fiscal Year 2011 FTA 5311 POP allocations. Any change in the final apportionment shall be adjusted according to the following percentages for each service; South Tahoe Area Transit Authority—69% and Placer County—31%. TTC Recommendation: The Tahoe Transportation Commission recommended adoption of the resolution at its January 21, 2010 meeting. Required Motions: In order to adopt the attached resolution, the Board must make the following motion, based on this staff summary and the evidence in the record:

1) A motion to adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A).

In order for the motion to pass, an affirmative vote of any eight Board members is required. Background: In order for a transit service within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) to receive a Section 5311 Grant, the project must be included in the Regional Program of Projects, which is submitted by TRPA to Caltrans for approval. This year the estimated 5311 allocation to TRPA based on direction from Caltrans is $133,854 (same as 2010 allocation). The percentage distribution of 5311 funds is derived by utilizing the TTD approved formula based on percentage of Vehicle Service Hours (VSH), percentage of Vehicle Service Miles (VSM), and percentage of Population (Pop).

NH/jw TRPA CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5

77


FY 2011 5311 Allocations

Transit Service Provider Allocation % FY2011 Allocation

Placer County (TART) 31% $ 40,862 Tahoe Trans. Dist. (BlueGO) 69% $ 92,992 TOTAL 100% $ 133,854 Issues/Concerns: There are no known issues or concerns with the documents. Regional Plan Compliance: The proposed resolution complies with all requirements of the TRPA Goals and Policies, Plan Area Statements, and Code of Ordinances. Contact Information: If you have any questions, please contact Nick Haven at [email protected] or 775/589-5256. Attachment: A. Resolution

78

ATTACHMENT A

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, SITTING AS THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY

RESOLUTION NO. 2011-___

APPROVAL OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 5311 FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS

WHEREAS, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is designated by the State of

California as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for the Tahoe Region;

WHEREAS, there are Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Grant Funds available for transit assistance for non-urbanized areas for use to support public transit agencies;

WHEREAS, the TRPA, as the RTPA, has submitted a request for programming of transit operating assistance for Tahoe Transportation District and Placer County;

WHEREAS, these funds are essential in providing dependable transit service in the Lake Tahoe Basin;

WHEREAS, these funds are consistent with the TRPA Regional Transportation Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency, sitting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, adopts this resolution approving the State of California Federal Transit Administration Fiscal Year 2011 Program of Projects, available to non-urbanized areas, to be programmed for use by Tahoe Transportation District and Placer County to support the local public transit systems.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, sitting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, at its regular meeting held on January 26, 2011 by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: ___________________________ Norma Santiago, Chair Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board


79

80

NUR/sjl CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5

MEMORANDUM

January 19, 2011 To: TRPA Governing Board From: Nicole Rinke, General Counsel; Scott Lichtig, Associate Attorney Subject: Resolution of Enforcement Litigation, TRPA v. Edgar “Red” Roberts

(Case No. 3:09-CV-376-LRH-RAM, D.NV) Proposed Action: Staff proposes the resolution described herein to settle litigation initiated by the Agency against Edgar “Red” Roberts (“Roberts”) for violations on his property at 1200 Highway 50, Douglas County, Nevada (APN 1418-34-301-001) (“Roberts Property”) and the neighboring property owned by the Ledbetter Marital Trust at 1192 Highway 50, Douglas County, Nevada (APN 1418-34-301-007) (“Ledbetter Property”). The violations relate to Roberts’s reconstruction of a rockwall in the shorezone of the 2 properties without the necessary permits and importation of significant quantities of fill into the shorezone. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Governing Board approve the conceptual settlement reached between Roberts and the Agency in the settlement conference before Magistrate Judge McQuaid for the United States District Court, District of Nevada on January 5, 2011. The terms of the settlement, as set forth in this staff summary and in the sealed transcript of the settlement conference, involve modification of the rockwall and a penalty of $120,000. Required Motion: In order to approve the proposed violation resolution, the Board must make the following motion, based on this staff summary and the evidence in the record:

A motion to approve the Settlement Agreement as described in Attachment B. In order for the motion to pass, an affirmative vote of any 8 members of the Board is required. Violation Description/Background: In 2008, over a period of approximately 28 days, Roberts reconstructed a rockwall in the shorezone of his Property without the necessary TRPA permits and in violation of TRPA’s construction and design standards. Specifically, Roberts imported over 200 tons of 9 to 12 inch diameter granite rock into the shorezone to create a sloping rockwall revetment. Roberts arranged this fill material on an angle that extended the mass of the shorezone structure approximately 10 feet lakeward of the previously existing vertical rockwall that roughly followed the high-water line. Roberts also extended the wall onto the Ledbetter Property and imported fill into the backshore to replace and stabilize areas of the backshore that had eroded behind the rockwall on his property. During the course of the construction, Roberts operated

81

Roberts Staff Summary January 26, 2011 Page 2 of 6


heavy equipment in the shorezone, relocated sand within the foreshore, and failed to install temporary construction BMPs. Because Roberts never submitted a permit application to TRPA, the Agency did not perform the necessary review for structural integrity or for scenic compliance of the resulting structure. The specific violations of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances (“Code”) associated with Roberts’s unauthorized project are described in Attachment A. Significantly, Roberts has admitted to TRPA that he was both aware that: (1) a TRPA permit was required to undertake the shorezone project and (2) reconstruction of the rockwall further into the shorezone, as conceived and eventually built, was prohibited by TRPA’s construction and design standards. Roberts went forward with the project despite this knowledge that he was violating TRPA’s Compact and Code. From the beginning, TRPA staff has recognized the importance that Mr. Roberts be penalized appropriately in order to deter him and others from similarly deciding to purposefully ignore TRPA’s environmental regulations. Summary of Litigation: Through an anonymous complaint, TRPA discovered the violations on the Roberts Property in early December 2008. For 6 months, TRPA Staff diligently worked with Roberts to negotiate a violation resolution. However, after first agreeing to waive TRPA’s 65-day statute of limitations, Roberts refused to sign an additional waiver that would have allowed settlement negotiations to continue. As a result, TRPA, as authorized by the Legal Committee, filed a Complaint against Roberts in the District Court of Nevada in July 2009. Upon the initiation of litigation, TRPA continued to work with Roberts to resolve the violations and, as such, stipulated to extend the time for Roberts to file an Answer until December 2009. Unfortunately, additional negotiations were unsuccessful. Roberts retained legal counsel and filed his Answer on December 21, 2009, denying all claims against him. On March 10, 2010, representatives of the Ledbetter Marital Trust filed a motion to intervene in the litigation due to the encroachment of the reconstructed rockwall onto their property. Magistrate McQuaid agreed with the position taken by TRPA and the Ledbetter Marital Trust and granted the request to intervene. Upon receiving initial disclosures from Roberts in June 2009, TRPA discovered that the extent of the violation committed on the Roberts Property was even greater than originally believed. Specifically, newly submitted pictures revealed that the amount and areas into which Roberts imported fill was significantly greater than alleged in TRPA’s original Complaint. Subsequently, TRPA petitioned the court to include these newly discovered violations as well as the full scope of Roberts’s unauthorized activities that occurred on the Ledbetter Property in the pending action. Despite standard practice, Roberts refused to stipulate to the amended pleading and opposed TRPA’s request. After a full briefing of the merits, Magistrate McQuaid granted TRPA’s petition to file its First Amended Complaint on October 14, 2010. At the October 14, 2010 hearing, TRPA, Roberts, and the Ledbetter Marital Trust agreed to participate in a settlement conference supervised by Magistrate McQuaid in order to resolve this matter before additional resources were expended on discovery, motion

82



practice, and trial. The Parties stipulated to stay all discovery and motion deadlines until after the conference, which was scheduled for January 5, 2011. Summary of Proposed Resolution: At the settlement conference on January 5, 2011 the parties agreed upon a settlement, pending approval by this Board, to resolve the violations that occurred on the Roberts and Ledbettter Properties. The proposed resolution, set forth in full in Attachment B, involves: (1) rehabilitation of the rockwall pursuant to a TRPA permit and (2) payment of a monetary penalty of $120,000. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the matter and has mandated full compliance with the settlement terms by August 1, 2011. Rehabilitation of the Rockwall: Under the proposed settlement, Roberts is required to submit a permit application to TRPA that includes a rehabilitation plan for the sloping rockwall. The proposed rehabilitation plan must ensure the rockwall’s structural stability while also reducing the lakeward encroachment of the rockwall to the minimum amount necessary to achieve such stability. The proposal must also bring the shorezone structure into compliance with TRPA’s scenic requirements. In developing the rehabilitation requirement, TRPA Staff evaluated many different options to determine the best outcome for Lake Tahoe’s shorezone. TRPA believes this is the best result because it minimizes the encroachment of the structure into the foreshore while also providing for stability and scenic compliance. In addition, it retains the sloping design of the shorezone protective structure, which allows for the natural dissipation of wave energy and is, therefore, environmentally preferable to the vertical structure that previously existed on the Roberts Property. Further, the rehabilitation agreed upon minimizes the future disturbance of the shorezone by allowing the reconstructed wall to remain with modifications, rather than requiring the removal of the wall and rehabilitation of the pre-existing wall, activities that would necessarily involve a significantly greater disturbance of the environmentally sensitive shorezone. Monetary Penalty: Under the proposed settlement, Roberts must pay TRPA a monetary penalty of $120,000. Staff believes that a $120,000 penalty is appropriate given the nature of the violations committed. TRPA’s Compact authorizes penalties of up to $5,000 per violation of TRPA’s regulations, plus an additional $5,000 for each day that the violation persists. The Compact also directs the Agency to increase penalties for willfull and/or knowing violations of the applicable rules. Based on these factors, TRPA staff recommends the penalty of $120,000 because (1) it is sufficient to penalize Roberts for the environmental harm caused by the unauthorized project; (2) it is sufficient to punish Roberts for his knowing and willful violations of TRPA Code and will deter others from similarly disregarding TRPA’s regulations, and (3) the amount proposed is consistent with past violations. A $120,000 penalty is appropriate given the nature of the unauthorized construction activity in the shorezone and its resulting effects. Roberts’s unauthorized reconstruction project violated at least 10 provisions of TRPA’s Code. All but one of these violations was continuing during the 28-day construction period, and 5 violations continue to persist on the ground today, 808 days after commencement of the project. While, under a strict reading of the Compact, TRPA could seek a penalty in Court far exceeding this

83



proposal, staff recommends the $120,000 as appropriate given the extent of the violations and environmental harm attributable to the unauthorized construction project. Most significantly, TRPA staff recommends approval of the $120,000 penalty because it appropriately reprimands Roberts for his knowing and willful violations of TRPA’s regulations and will also sufficiently deter similar future intentional violations. By his own admission, Roberts was aware that (1) the shorezone project required environmental review and a TRPA permit, and (2) the extension of the existing vertical shorezone protective structure lakeward into the foreshore violated TRPA’s design and construction standards. In fact, Roberts contacted TRPA many years earlier to discuss such a project and was correctly told by staff that the project was likely unpermittable. Despite this knowledge, Roberts nonetheless reconstructed the shorezone rockwall without a TRPA permit and in violation of the Agency’s standards. Compliance with TRPA’s Code is critical to TRPA’s ability to uphold the Compact’s mandate that the Agency maintain and achieve its environmental threshold carrying capacities. Knowing and willful violations of these important regulations are particularly offensive and cannot be tolerated by the Agency. People must be aware that, should they decide to purposefully ignore TRPA’s environmental regulations, they will be subject to a serious financial penalty. TRPA believes that the penalty imposed through this settlement will serve the dual purpose of sufficiently penalizing Roberts for his actions, while also serving as a significant deterrent for others. Finally, the penalty proposed is commensurate with the financial penalties imposed by the Agency for past similar violations. For example, in 2002 TRPA settled enforcement litigation involving the unauthorized construction of an off-shore breakwater without the necessary review or approval by TRPA (Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency v. Gonzales, District of Nevada Case No. CV-N-02-0378 ECR (VPC)). Pursuant to the settlement, Gonzales was required to remove the unpermitted shorezone structure and forfeit to TRPA a monetary fine of $145,000, plus a $75,000 payment to TRPA’s education fund. While Gonzales’s creation of an unauthorized break-water is comparable in many ways to Roberts’s reconstruction of the rockwall, the violations are distinct enough to warrant a lower penalty in the Roberts matter. Specifically:

• Gonzales did not reconstruct an existing structure, but rather constructed an entirely new breakwater in the shorezone.

• The size of the offending structure and its corresponding negative environmental impact in the Gonzales matter were substantially greater than the structure and impact of the violation on the Roberts Property.

• Gonzales also constructed an unpermitted boat lift and catwalk on the offending structure.

TRPA therefore believes that a lesser penalty of $120,000 is appropriate for Roberts and commensurate with the Gonzales precedent given the nature of the particular offenses. If there are any questions regarding this agenda item, please contact TRPA General Counsel Nicole Rinke at (775) 589-5286 or via e-mail at: [email protected].

84



Attachment A – Code Violations In the course of reconstructing the rockwall, Roberts committed the following violations of TRPA’s Code. Many of these violations were continuing for the 28-day period of construction and many remain present today, 808 days after commencement.

• Code § 52.3.E: An activity in the shorezone or lakezone which is not exempt pursuant to 52.3.B or 52.3.C. is subject to TRPA review and approval. In order to ensure that projects undertaken in the environmentally-sensitive shorezone do not interfere with the attainment of environmental carrying capacity thresholds mandated by the Compact, TRPA approval is required for activities that are not specifically designated as “Exempt” or “Qualified Exempt.” The major rehabilitation of an existing shorezone structure is neither “Exempt” nor “Qualified Exempt” from TRPA’s review and therefore required a TRPA permit.

• Code § 54.13: Shoreline protective structures may be permitted only upon TRPA

finding that the proposed project will not denigrate environmental thresholds and is designed and constructed to adequately protect the shorezone. The rockwall on the Roberts Property is classified as a “shoreline protective structure” under TRPA’s Code. Because Roberts did not submit a permit application for the rockwall reconstruction, TRPA did not make the threshold-attainment and design and construction findings for shoreline protective structures that are required by the Code.

• Code § 54.14.B: The placement of fill in the shorezone is prohibited absent

TRPA approval. Roberts imported rocks and soil to fill in the areas both lakeward and landward of the existing vertical rockwall without a TRPA permit.

• Code § 54.14.C: The dredging of materials in the shorezone is prohibited except

at those locations where such removal or rearrangement is found by TRPA to be beneficial to existing shorezone conditions. Roberts’s representative used heavy construction equipment to dredge sand from the shorezone of the Ledbetter Property.

• Code § 54.14.E: Spoil materials from dredging shall not be deposited in the

lakezone or the shorezone. Roberts’s representative subsequently dumped the sand extracted from the Ledbetter Property into the shorezone of the Roberts Property.

• Code § 64.1 & § 4.2.A(4): All grading activities in excess of three cubic yards in

the Tahoe Region require TRPA review and approval. In reconstructing the rockwall, Roberts caused a total of approximately 225 tons of earthen material to be graded in both the backshore and the foreshore of the Roberts and Ledbetter Properties without TRPA authorization.

• Code § 64.2.A: Excavation, filling, and other disturbances of the soil shall not

occur between October 15 and May 1 of each year. Roberts undertook this project during TRPA’s annual grading moratorium from October 15 until May 1.

85



TRPA prohibits grading during this period because winter storm activity is common, and the threat for erosion and sediment runoff into Lake Tahoe is increased.

• Code § 64.3.C: Temporary erosion control devices are required for all grading

activities. During the grading project, Roberts did not install the requisite erosion control devices to prevent a discharge to Lake Tahoe.

• Code § 25.2.A: Temporary erosion control devices are required for all

construction sites. Roberts did not implement erosion control devices in accordance with TRPA’s Handbook of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on his construction site. Construction projects that fail to maintain appropriate BMPs allow sediment discharges and threaten the water quality of Lake Tahoe.

• Code § 30.15: Projects in the shorezone must undergo a scenic analysis. In

order to uphold TRPA’s scenic resources threshold, the Agency must perform a scenic assessment and evaluation for all projects within the shorezone. Because Roberts did not submit an application for his rockwall, TRPA was unable to analyze its effects on scenic resources.

86



Attachment B – Proposed Settlement On January 5, 2011, the parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge McQuaid for the United States District of Nevada and reached a settlement agreement, pending this Board’s approval, with the following terms:

1. Roberts will submit a permit application to TRPA for the previous reconstruction of the shorezone rockwall.. The permit application will include: (A) a proposed redesign of the structure to minimize its lakeward encroachment while also ensuring stability; (B) an evaluation of the redesigned rockwall’s integrity by a certified engineer; and (C) any required scenic assessments and modifications necessary to ensure compliance with TRPA’s scenic requirements.

2. Roberts will remove entirely the portion of the rockwall that encroaches on the

neighboring Ledbetter Property. Roberts’s engineer will consider the removal of this section of the rockwall when evaluating the future stability of the structure in the permit application to TRPA. In addition, Roberts will pay the Ledbetter Marital Trust $27,500 to cover litigation costs incurred in this matter.

3. Roberts will obtain the necessary permits from all agencies with concurrent

jurisdiction over the shorezone project, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Douglas County, Nevada.

4. Roberts will complete reconstruction of the rockwall by August 1, 2011.

Extensions of this deadline will be granted only upon a showing of necessity.

5. Roberts will pay a monetary penalty of $120,000 to TRPA by August 1, 2011.

6. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter and all parties will participate in a status conference on June 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., or as otherwise directed by the Court.

The foregoing terms are reflected in the sealed transcript of the Settlement Conference held before Magistrate McQuaid of the United States District Court of Nevada on January 5, 2011.

87

88

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: January 19, 2011

To: TRPA Governing Board

From: TRPA Staff

Subject: Placer County Redevelopment Plan Presentation Requested Action: The Placer County Redevelopment Agency (RDA) requests that Governing Board consideration of four Preliminary Redevelopment Plans be suspended. Instead, the RDA would like to present an informational-only item (see Attachment A: Placer County Redevelopment Agency Letter, dated December 17, 2010) and have the Board acknowledge that the RDA may, in the future, submit revised plans for consideration by the Board. No formal action is required. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board allow the RDA to present the information-only item and acknowledge that the RDA may, in the future, submit revised Redevelopment Plans. Project Description/Background: TRPA Code Chapter 15 sets forth the provisions for development and approval of Preliminary Redevelopment Plans. The Code authorizes the preparation of such plans in Plan Area Statements that are:

• predominantly urbanized and blighted, • designated as eligible for redevelopment • located within an adopted Community Plan (CP) area

The Code requires that preparation of a Preliminary Redevelopment Plan be recommended by the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) and approved by the Board prior to initiating the redevelopment planning process. In September, 2010, staff took four Preliminary Redevelopment Plans (for Tahoe City, Kings Beach, Tahoe Vista, and Lake Forest) to the APC for recommendation. As proposed by the RDA, all four plans were inconsistent with the required findings of Chapter 15, in that they included lands that are not designated as redevelopment areas and are not located within adopted CPs. The item was continued to the October, 2010, APC meeting. At that meeting, staff recommended amending the Code to allow redevelopment planning outside of CP areas. This amendment would be consistent with existing Land Use Goal #2 and Policy #13, both of which encourage redevelopment in Plan Area Statements designated for “Redirection of Development” management strategies. The areas the RDA had proposed for redevelopment are so-designated. Based on the staff recommendation and the evidence in the record, the APC voted to recommend approval of the Preliminary Redevelopment Plans and staff’s proposed amendment to Chapter 15 to the Board.

AGENDA ITEM NO.VII.A. 89

AGENDA ITEM NO.VII.A.

After the APC’s positive action in October, TRPA legal counsel delivered an interpretation of the requirements of Chapter 15 that calls the APC’s recommendation into question. This interpretation involved two important determinations:

1. Non-designated Plan Areas would need to adopt a CP that designates the Plan Area as urbanized and blighted in order to qualify for redevelopment planning.

2. The Board must make the appropriate findings to designate a Plan Area as eligible for redevelopment planning prior to developing a Preliminary Redevelopment Plan.

These determinations suggest that if the Board took action on the plans before the Plan Areas in question are adopted into CPs and are designated urban and blighted, the action would be out of sequence per TRPA Code. The chain of events described above has raised the question of the effectiveness of Chapter 15 as a planning tool. The concept of redevelopment planning under TRPA Code is to offer development incentives in exchange for environmental improvements and the achievement of desired community character. But, the only Redevelopment Plan ever approved by TRPA is the South Tahoe Redevelopment Demonstration Plan for Ski Run and Stateline Areas. History has shown that the redevelopment planning process has been cumbersome and has had very limited effectiveness in achieving its desired goals in other areas of the Basin. When it comes to promoting environmental redevelopment, a more streamlined, clear, and consistent process is needed. A tool like transect planning (combined with form-based coding and the development of desired community character designations) could be more effective in spurring beneficial redevelopment activity. Transects define detailed zoning criteria (such as height, density, form, and permissible uses). They promote desired conditions and reflect community context in a manner that is transparent and easy-to-understand. If a local jurisdiction wants to pursue redevelopment, it should use its taxing and legal authority to develop a source of funds and a means to disburse them to redevelopment projects. If, through the community planning process proposed in the Regional Plan Update (RPU), it is agreed that additional height and density are needed to make redevelopment projects viable, such height and density can be built into the transect and character districts in the redevelopment area. If the participants in the planning process cannot agree that an area is primed for redevelopment and decide on transect and character districts that do not allow additional height and density, the TRPA Board should not be put in the position of allowing such incentives to support redevelopment on an ad hoc basis, as is the case today. One of the desired results of the RPU is the dramatic amendment or complete deletion of Code Chapter 15. Staff and the RDA have discussed this concept in great detail, and the RDA concurs that using the community planning process to establish appropriate character in its potential future redevelopment areas is the best approach. Therefore, the RDA’s request to suspend the redevelopment planning effort is based on its focus on collaboration on the RPU effort and, particularly, the development of the transects. Please contact John Hitchcock, Regional Plan Update Team Lead, at (775) 589-5220 or [email protected] if you have any questions. Attachment: Attachment A Placer County RDA Letter, dated December 17, 2010

90


Attachment A January 26, 2011

91

Attachment A January 26, 2011

92

M E M O R A N D U M Date: January 19, 2010


From: TRPA Staff

Subject: Discussion and Direction to Staff on Additional Input to the Regional Plan Update EIS Alternatives

Requested Action: Governing Board provide direction on adding input to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives for the Regional Plan Update (RPU). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board review the staff analysis (see Attachment A) and select the additional input to be included in the EIS alternatives. Requested Motion: To provide staff direction, the Board must make the following motion:

• A motion to accept the additional input to the EIS alternatives as recommended in the staff analysis (Attachment A).

For the motion to pass, an affirmative vote of any eight (8) Board members is required. Background: At the August 26, 2010, Governing Board meeting, the RPU Team presented a collation of the 152 changes made to the EIS alternatives resulting from the Milestones in Phase One. Staff also presented a list of the 181 Phase One meetings. The purpose was to ensure that the Board had all the information it needed to formalize the EIS alternatives so that the environmental contractor could begin to analyze them. The vast majority of stakeholders agreed that the range of policy choices in the EIS alternatives was satisfactory to begin environmental analysis and a sound basis for moving on to Phase Two of the RPU Milestones. Environmental interest groups and a few Board members raised the question of whether time should be allowed for additional review of RPU materials and additional input to the EIS alternatives before tackling implementation issues in Phase Two. The Board decided to continue to review the RPU materials. It directed staff to encourage additional input by all parties interested in developing the EIS alternatives and set a deadline of October 13, 2010, for submission of additional input to staff. Staff proactively reached out to stakeholders, sending letters to over 220 individuals, providing a uniform format for submittal, and making over 100 follow-up calls. At the October 13th deadline, staff had received about 350 pages of suggestions from 24 stakeholders and Board members. (Two additional letters have since been reviewed and provided to the Board as Appendices A and B of the attached analysis.) Over 80% of the suggestions came from the environmental interest groups. Contact Information: If you have any questions, please contact Harmon Zuckerman, Director, Regional Plan Update, at [email protected] or (775) 589-5236.

AGENDA ITEM NO. VII.B. 93


AGENDA ITEM NO. VII.B.

This page intentionally left blank

94

Additional Input to the Regional Plan Update EIS Alternatives 1 January 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO. VII.B.

Attachment A

STAFF ANALYSIS Additional Input to the Regional Plan Update EIS Alternatives January 2011 Brief Recap Since October 13th, staff has been working to analyze and provide recommendations on the suggestions submitted by every Board member, partner, and stakeholder. In all, there were 27 submittals: four letters from Board members, one set of Board member comments delivered verbally, 21 letters and matrices from stakeholders and partners, and a set of matrices (representing each of the 27 Subelements in the RPU) submitted by the League to Save Lake Tahoe, et al. Two letters were submitted after the deadline and were not included in the October Board Packet. They are attached as Appendices A and B to this analysis. Appendix C is the suggestions from the League, et al. regarding the Community Design Subelement (staff accidentally omitted that one file from the October packet). The other 25 submittals were reproduced in the October packet and have been available on-line http://www.trpa.org/documents/packets/gb_packets/2010_gb_packets/oct_2010_gb_packet.pdf (see pp. 71 to 428) since shortly after the October Board meeting. Criteria for Positive and Negative Recommendations The volume of additional input was large enough that staff developed standard criteria to streamline the work. In all, twelve criteria were used to determine whether a given suggestion was viable or not viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives. The suggestions that were deemed viable are being recommended to the Board because they reasonably enhance the range of the EIS alternatives. This section lists the criteria and provides an example to illustrate how each criterion was applied to the suggestions. The exact language of the example suggestions is provided in footnotes. Language deleted in a given example suggestion is represented by struckthrough words, and added language is represented by underlined words. The criteria used to determine a suggestion as viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives were the following:

1. Clarifies the Intent of Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures

95

http://www.trpa.org/documents/packets/gb_packets/2010_gb_packets/oct_2010_gb_packet.pdf


Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested adding language to a Vegetation Implementation Measure1 related to noxious and invasive weed control. The additional language clarifies the intent of the measure by correctly implying that weed avoidance is as important as weed control. In this and other cases where a stakeholder suggestion clarifies the intent of a provision, staff recommends inclusion in all Alternatives where the provision is contained.

2. Broadens the Range of the Alternatives by Adding Regulatory Restrictions

Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested a new Vegetation Implementation Measure2 in the Wildlife and Fisheries Subelement that would require development projects to include a TRPA-approved weed control and management plan prior to permitting. This is a new regulatory restriction that is not currently proposed in any of the Regional Plan alternatives, and therefore it would broaden the range of the alternatives to be studied in the EIS.

3. Broadens the Range of the Alternatives by Adding a New Concept Example Suggestion: Former Board Member Steven Merrill suggested a new Implementation Measure3 that would address chronic traffic congestion at key intersections during peak travel periods. This is a new concept that is not currently proposed in any of the Regional Plan alternatives, and therefore it would broaden the range of the alternatives to be studied in the EIS.

4. Broadens the Range of the Alternatives by Promoting Adaptive Management Concepts

1 “VG.IMP-2: Require projects to implement measures, such as noxious-weed risk assessments and weed prevention BMPs, to prevent the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds during project activities.” See p. 192, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 2 “New Wildlife and Fisheries IMP: All projects within the Basin (residential, commercial, conservation, forestry) must have a TRPA approved Weed Control and Management Plan in order for a project to be permitted.” See p. 203, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 3 “I continue to be [sic] believe we need a standard for traffic congestion beyond VMT and LOS that addresses the specific issue of excessive delay time at certain “hotspots” in the Basin. My suggestion is the plan designates a new LOS standard (for simplicity call it LOS “F minus“) defined in terms of the delay time per vehicle plus number of vehicles so effected for a period of time and number of days in the year. Once the hot spots are identified and the degree of delay quantified, the Regional Plan would target levels of improvement with timelines. Improving such hot spots will involve much more than standard mitigations such as mix of check out times, timing of lights, etc,. Instead, they will require significant redesign of the intersections and roadways and consideration of alternative transportation methods. Establishing this standard and requiring improvements will force communities and the Basin to put resources to these problems.” See p. 427, August 2010 Governing Board packet.

96


Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested modifying a Policy4 in the Measurement & Evaluation Subelement that would allow future amendments to Threshold Standards and Indicators that are outdated or inadequate. This suggestion is a good example of how adaptive management strategies can be incorporated into the RPU. In this and other cases where a stakeholder suggestion promotes adaptive management concepts, staff recommends inclusion in all Alternatives where the provision is contained.

5. More Succinct Language Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested modifying a Policy5 in the Community Design Subelement, shortening it while retaining the meaning and intent of the original language. In this and other cases where a stakeholder suggestion promotes more succinct language, staff recommends inclusion in all Alternatives where the provision is contained.

The criteria used to determine a suggestion as not viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives were the following:

6. Redundancy (Already Covered in Existing Code or the Proposed EIS Alternatives)

Example Suggestion: Douglas County suggested a new Implementation Measure6 in the Noise Subelement requiring that new noise standards allow for outdoor entertainment at the South Stateline casino core. This is redundant because existing noise standards in Code reasonably allow for outdoor entertainment events.

7. Inconsistency with Prior Governing Board Direction

Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested the re-inclusion of an Implementation Measure7 in the Noise Subelement requiring local jurisdictions to

4 “Policy 1.6: Adopt numeric threshold standards & indicators - where appropriate and science-based evidence exists, TRPA will identify new or replace qualitative or vaguely articulated threshold standards and standards and/or indicators that are deemed outdated or inadequate by best available science with numeric threshold standards that best represent desired environmental values and adopt associated indicators that quantitatively measure environmental conditions and characterize divergence from threshold standard attainment. The aim is to improve the agency’s ability to objectively, consistently and comprehensively assess environmental conditions and trends.” See p. 203, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 5 “Policy CD-3.1.E(4): When possible all efforts should be made to co-locate telecommunication devices will be co-located on existing towers.” See p. 16, Appendix C of this analysis. 6 “Recognize and encourage the economic and social values provided by the outdoor entertainment industry by adopting flexible noise standards that will allow for such activity.” See p. 303, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 7 “N Imp 10 Local Jurisdiction Enforcement -- Local, state and federal jurisdictions shall maintain a program to monitor and enforce noise standards.” See p. 128, August 2010 Governing Board packet.

97


monitor and enforce noise standards. This suggestion is inconsistent with prior Governing Board direction; it was deleted in FactSheet #4 (which the Board approved with the Transportation Milestone) because local jurisdictions are already tasked with enforcing state and federal noise regulations.

98


8. Unnecessary Reference to Thresholds

Example Suggestion: The League, et al., provided dozens of suggestions that would amend provisions8 with language requiring TRPA “to attain and maintain” environmental Thresholds. The added language is unnecessary because TRPA is already required to make Threshold findings on all project actions per Subparagraph 6.3.A (2) of the TRPA Code. Moreover, these findings are enumerated in Articles V (c), V (g), and VI (b) of the TRPA Compact.

9. Not Implementable

Example Suggestion: The League, et al. suggested amending a Policy9 in the Dispersed Recreation Subelement that would limit the use of snowmobiles on days when air quality or noise Thresholds could be exceeded. This suggestion is not implementable because such a large number of private residential parcels at Tahoe back onto public lands and have uncontrolled access to those lands. No local, state, or regional agency has the resources establish access control and monitor and enforce limits on dispersed recreational activities like snowmobiling.

10. Unsoundness

Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested amending an Implementation Measure10 in the Noise Subelement that would require the noise level on a newly-developed parcel to be no greater than it was before development. This suggestion is unsound; it would prohibit owners of new homes from making noise.

11. Internal Inconsistency

Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested two new Implementation Measures11 in the Community Design Subelement that conflict with each other.

8 “VG-1.6: Management for late stages of Stand development – accelerate old growth: promote forest practices to accelerate development of old growth characteristics in appropriate stands to attain and maintain the vegetation threshold.” See p. 198, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 9 “R-3.5: Dispersed winter activities such as cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are allowed encouraged throughout the Basin. Motorized winter activities such as snowmobiling are only permitted within areas designated for such motorized winter use where use will not negatively effect [sic] threshold attainment and maintenance. Limits on number of motorized vehicles per day may be applied when the potential to violate air quality or noise thresholds exist.” See p. 241, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 10 “N. Imp 34 CNEL Exceedances: TRPA shall not approve a project which causes a community noise standard (CNEL) to be exceeded or causes further degradation to an existing non-compliance condition. New single family homes on individual parcels must not increase noise levels above pre-construction conditions. All other new projects, including redevelopment projects, shall include provisions and designs that will reduce existing noise levels in an area.” See p. 132, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 11 “New Community Design IMPs: 1. No more than two stories in any community except additional height may be allowed in South Stateline (3 to 4 stories, (3 stories)[sic]; and 2. Existing

99


They are internally inconsistent for this reason. One measure would allow additional height in South Stateline while the other would prohibit additional height everywhere in the Basin, including South Stateline.

12. Enforcement Being Better Left to Another Jurisdiction

Example Suggestion: The League, et al., suggested an Implementation Measure12 in the Dispersed Recreation Subelement that would require off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to have air quality emission certificates demonstrating compliance with unspecified air quality standards. Law enforcement agencies have existing resources in place to enforce this measure, which is better left to state and local jurisdictions.

Staff Recommendation The staff recommendation is based on a complete review and analysis of the many13 suggestions submitted by the Board and other stakeholders. Twelve criteria were used to determine whether a given suggestion was viable or not viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives. The suggestions that were deemed viable are being recommended to the Board because they reasonably enhance the range of the EIS alternatives. The recommended suggestions are included in Appendices D and E of this analysis.

height ordinance without any special height districts.” See pp. 1-4, Appendix C of this analysis. 12 “New Dispersed Recreation IMP: All OHVs must have air quality emissions certificates to assure exhaust is compatible with air quality standards.” See p. 241, August 2010 Governing Board packet. 13 The next section in this analysis quantifies how many suggestions were received, how many are recommended as viable, and from whom the suggestions originated.

100

Quantitative Analysis of Suggestions Received The spreadsheet below is a quantitative analysis of the suggestions received. In all, staff analyzed 973 pieces of additional input.

Element/Subelement Stakeholder Viable Non‐Viable TOTAL Percentage ViableCommunity Design LSLT, et al. 6 32 38 16%Housing LSLT, et al. 4 8 12 33%Institutional Partnerships LSLT, et al. 2 5 7 29%Performance Review LSLT, et al. 10 12 22 45%Public Service LSLT, et al. 4 21 25 16%Scenic Resource LSLT, et al. 5 16 21 24%Air Quality LSLT, et al. 15 30 45 33%Land Use LSLT, et al. 54 92 146 37%Transportation LSLT, et al. 18 39 57 32%Developed Recreation LSLT, et al. 3 31 34 9%Environmental Improvement LSLT, et al. 4 11 15 27%Dispersed Recreation LSLT, et al. 3 20 23 13%Energy & Sustainability LSLT, et al. 7 10 17 41%General Recreation LSLT, et al. 2 19 21 10%Urban Recreation LSLT, et al. 6 5 11 55%Noise LSLT, et al. 14 21 35 40%Open Space LSLT, et al. 3 9 12 25%Water Quality LSLT, et al. 35 48 83 42%Vegetation LSLT, et al. 13 12 25 52%Cultural Resources LSLT, et al. 0 0 0 0%Recreation Education LSLT, et al. 0 1 1 0%Wildlife & Fisheries LSLT, et al. 9 22 31 29%Soils LSLT, et al. 10 26 36 28%SEZ LSLT, et al. 16 17 33 48%Measurement & Evaluation LSLT, et al. 15 10 25 60%

258 517 775 33%Water Quality Byron Scher 0 3 3 0%Land Use Byron Scher 1 2 3 33%Soils Byron Scher 0 4 4 0%Land Use Steven Merrill 1 2 3 33%Water Quality Steven Merrill 0 4 4 0%Transportation Steven Merrill 1 1 2 50%Land Use Shelly Aldean 0 2 2 0%Air Quality Shelly Aldean 0 3 3 0%Performance Review Shelly Aldean 1 0 1 100%Transportation Shelly Aldean 1 2 3 33%Measurement & Evaluation Shelly Aldean 1 1 2 50%Noise Shelly Aldean 0 1 1 0%Land Use Jennifer Montgomery 1 0 1 100%Performance Review Jennifer Montgomery 2 0 2 100%Performance Review Mara Bresnick 1 0 1 100%Measurement & Evaluation Mara Bresnick 1 0 1 100%Housing St. Joseph Community Land Trust 6 0 6 100%Wildlife & Fisheries CalTrout 3 3 6 50%Land Use Placer County 1 3 4 25%Housing Placer County 1 0 1 100%Transportation Placer County 1 1 2 50%Noise Placer County 0 1 1 0%Soils Placer County 0 1 1 0%Water Quality Placer County 0 7 7 0%SEZ Placer County 0 1 1 0%Land Use NV Lt. Governor 1 2 3 33%Air Quality City of South Lake Tahoe 0 2 2 0%Transportation City of South Lake Tahoe 0 4 4 0%Land Use Douglas County 3 0 3 100%Noise Douglas County 0 1 1 0%Transportation Douglas County 0 1 1 0%Soils Douglas County 1 0 1 100%Land Use Edgewood Companies 10 37 47 21%

Suggestions

LSLT, et al. SUBTOTAL

Additional Input to the Regional Plan Update EIS Alternatives 7

January 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO. VII.B.

101

Element/Subelement Stakeholder Viable Non‐Viable TOTAL Percentage ViableLand Use Placer County 1 3 4 25%Housing Placer County 1 0 1 100%Transportation Placer County 1 1 2 50%Noise Placer County 0 1 1 0%Soils Placer County 0 1 1 0%Water Quality Placer County 0 7 7 0%SEZ Placer County 0 1 1 0%Land Use NV Lt. Governor 1 2 3 33%Air Quality City of South Lake Tahoe 0 2 2 0%Transportation City of South Lake Tahoe 0 4 4 0%Land Use Douglas County 3 0 3 100%Noise Douglas County 0 1 1 0%Transportation Douglas County 0 1 1 0%Soils Douglas County 1 0 1 100%Land Use Edgewood Companies 10 37 47 21%Noise Edgewood Companies 0 1 1 0%Natural Hazards Edgewood Companies 0 1 1 0%Community Design Edgewood Companies 3 4 7 43%Transportation Edgewood Companies 2 3 5 40%Performance Review Edgewood Companies 2 7 9 22%Land Use Heavenly Resort 3 2 5 60%Water Quality John Falk 0 2 2 0%SEZ John Falk 0 1 1 0%Recreation John Falk 0 1 1 0%Land Use John Falk 0 2 2 0%Housing John Falk 0 1 1 0%Transportation John Falk 0 1 1 0%Air Quality John Falk 0 2 2 0%Vegetation John Falk 0 1 1 0%General Comment Joint Chambers of Commerce 0 1 1 0%Land Use Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance 3 0 3 100%Air Quality Caltrans, Mike Brady 0 3 3 0%Transportation Mike Brady, Caltrans 0 1 1 0%Land Use Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority 2 0 2 100%Land Use South Shore Chamber of Commerce 3 0 3 100%Air Quality Snowlands 0 1 1 0%General Comment Caltrans, Timonthy Hart 0 1 1 0%Wildlife & Fisheries Ron Gregg 1 0 1 100%Water Quality NDEP 0 4 4 0%EIP NDEP 2 0 2 100%Land Use TCPUD 0 4 4 0%Air Quality TCPUD 0 1 1 0%Transportation TCPUD 0 3 3 0%Noise TCPUD 0 1 1 0%Water Quality TCPUD 0 1 1 0%

59 139 198 30%317 656 973 33%

All Others SUBTOTALTOTALS

Suggestions


102


Appendices:

A. NDEP e-mail, submitted October 26, 2010 B. Placer County matrix, submitted October 20, 2010 C. Community Design suggestions from the League, et al. D. Suggestions recommended as viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives –

LSLT et al. E. Suggestions recommended as viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives –

All Others.

103

Appendix A NDEP e-mail

Additional Input to the Regional Plan Update EIS Alternatives January 2011 Appendix Page 1

From: Jason Kuchnicki [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:34 AM To: Paul Nielsen Subject: comments Hi Paul, Sorry this is coming late, but I wanted to follow-up to our conversation the other day. I did a quick review of the WQ Subelement issues summary and have the following comments.

1. Parcel level BMPs – a. Assuming that compliance with BMP Retrofit Ordinance is still years

away, parcel-level compliance enforcement should proceed in a manner which supports jurisdiction’s load reduction plans (once they are developed)

b. While it is important to retain the BMP Retrofit requirement, it is important to include language in the RPU that enable “in lieu” compliance with the Retrofit Ordinance other than installation of BMPs on every parcel. This stems from complaints from some of the jurisdictions that parcel level BMPs don’t work and/or they drain public support for a stormwater tax or utility district. Jurisdictions may or may not include parcel level BMP implementations as a strategy for their load reduction plans. If they don’t, but choose to accomplish load reductions more through area-wide means, then their needs to be a mechanism(s) by which homeowners can be in compliance with the ordinance.

c. A primary component that is currently missing is a comprehensive inspection program to ensure that parcel level BMPs are being maintained in proper functioning condition.

2. TMDL (implementation) - I didn’t see anything in there about adopting milestones contained in the TM bgDL or evaluating progress toward meeting them (through Crediting Program).

I also took a look at the Air & WQ Mitigation Fund Release Policies. After reviewing the policies, I hope the RPU can institute more flexible policies in order to help overcome some of the funding and implementation challenges jurisdictions have identified. Specific policies that could use refinement:

a. Allowing only the interest on funds to be used for planning: project and programmatic planning is an essential and costly part of the project delivery process. In particular, load reduction plans provide are beneficial in focusing implementation efforts & thus funding on the most cost-effective actions and strategies in locations with the greatest bang-for-the-buck. These plans are not intended to be static, but must be updated on a regular basis.

b. Allowing funds to be spent only on effectiveness monitoring: while allowing expenditures on effectiveness monitoring is good, local jurisdictions should be permitted to fund monitoring programs that provide information on whether your actions are having an effect on the system. RSWMP is currently under development but due to funding constraints, it is likely that the effectiveness monitoring component will be dropped and

104

Appendix A NDEP e-mail

that it will become a status and trends monitoring program for the TMDL urban stormwater source category.

c. Allowing only 25% of the funding for a one-time EIP program related administration and O&M: this is the largest issue that I see. The TMDL and Crediting Program are really poised to prompt jurisdictions to establish Tahoe specific stormwater programs. However, funding is a huge limitation. Allowing jurisdictions to spend monies on staffs would facilitate this. Keeping the 1:1 match requirement is a good stipulation to retain, however clarification needs to be provided that “local” mean from the jurisdiction – not federal or state monies. Moreover, reporting costs are likely to balloon once the Crediting Program goes online, and jurisdictions will need a variety of mechanisms to finance these increased costs. The same goes for O&M; and there are already a variety of funding opportunities for capital costs, however they cannot be used for O&M.

d. The same argument applies to the purchase of sweepers. There are (limited) funding opportunities out there for these types of equipment, but one barrier to this is that jurisdictions cannot come up with funding to operate & maintain them. Therefore, funding should be allowed to fund O&M for them.

I understand your argument that these funds are intended to “mitigate” development and so should be used primarily for implementing capital water quality improvements. However, if you really think about the barriers to water quality improvement, it really comes down to funding. Building a more flexible approach to the use of mitigation funds can and will in fact go a long way to mitigating the barriers, which will in turn improve water quality more efficiently. Well, feel free to call me if you have any questions or want to discuss any of these comments. Thanks, Jason

Jason Kuchnicki Lake Tahoe Watershed Program Manager Environmental Laboratory Services Program Supervisor Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 901 S. Stewart St., Ste 4001 Carson City NV 89701 p: 775.687-9450 f: 775.687-5856 www.ndep.nv.gov


105


http://ndep.nv.gov/index.htm

Appendix B Placer County matrix


From: Paul Thompson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 5:52 PM To: John Hitchcock Subject: FW: TRPA RPU Comments Hi John - Attached are the County's comments approved by our Board on Tuesday in the matrix format that you requested. If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Thanks, Paul Paul Thompson Deputy Planning Director Placer County Planning Department 3091 County Center Drive, Ste. 140 Auburn, CA. 95603 (530) 745-3044

Stakeholder Element or Subelement Alternative

Suggested Goal Language

Placer County Land Use 2, 3, 4

Maintain consistency with existing and proposed Placer County land use regulations including: permitting requirements for cellular communication facilities in residential and along scenic roadway areas; adding to one of the proposed alternatives a modification to the definition of "domestic animal raising" to allow for the keeping of chicken hens; and allowance for a Wayfinding Signage program for the Lake Tahoe Basin

Placer County Land Use 2, 3, 4

The County supports a Tourist Accommodation Unit (TAU) approach that: Establishes guidelines for the transfer of TAUs, based on analysis and consistent data set, but allows flexibility based on market trends and CEQA/TRPA environmental review; Maintains existing practice of allowing inter-jurisdictional transfers; and maintains existing number of TAUs

106





Placer County Transportation 2, 3, 4

Eliminate incorporation of bike and pedestrian facilities into all public service projects. Coverage for public bike paths/trails/walkways should not be deducted from land development projects when they are for public benefit.

Placer County Noise 2, 3, 4

Eliminate the prohibition of development in areas that exceed noise standards. The County previously commented that this is excessive and should be considered on a case by case basis, especially in more dense urbanized nodes with mitigation, not a wholesale prohibition.

Placer County Soils 2, 3, 4

Include in one of the proposed alternatives, evaluation of the effectiveness of the mathematical calculation that has inadvertently led to Placer County's high Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) score which has consequently resulted in a reduction of the inventory of buildable lots. This process does not meet the intent of the goals and policies in this section and unfairly limits development on land that is developable in other jurisdictions.

107





Placer County Water Quality

• In California, local jurisdictions are already regulated by Lahontan. TRPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate and attain water quality thresholds, which overlaps Lahontan's authority. Through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), rather than have two agencies with overlapping authorities, add an alternative that analyzes utilization of TRPA's authority to delegate to Lahontan its water quality regulation authority on the California side, and instead focus on incentives to accomplish the goals jointly set forth by Lahontan and TRPA.


• The TRPA Compact gives TRPA the authority and responsibility to regulate water quality matters which in California overlap the California Water Quality Control Board’s Lahontan's authority. Through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), rather than have two agencies with overlapping authorities, add an alternative that analyzes utilization of TRPA's authority to delegate to Lahontan its water quality regulation authority on the California side, or vice versa, and include incentives to accomplish goals jointly set forth by Lahontan and TRPA.

108





Placer County Water Quality 4

Required implementation of the TMDL in the Tahoe basin is an unfunded mandate for which local governments have little control or authority to fund. The Regional Plan should acknowledge this fact and consider implementation based on reasonably-available funding sources.

Placer County Water Quality 4

The draft Regional Plan proposes to provide land use commodities to facilitate the transfer of development rights and impervious coverage from non Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) sending areas that are verified as low capability lands and thus gain water quality benefits. These sending areas must be clearly identified, including location and capacity by jurisdiction. In addition, an economic feasibility analysis needs to be completed prior to implementation of this program


Placer County agrees with TRPA’s recent change in assessment that the Regional Plan needs to analyze various Best Management Practices (BMP) enforcement strategies, even including point of sale but wants to emphasize those local jurisdictions should not be responsible for enforcement.


Alternative 4 requires acquisition and buyout programs to permanently retire excess coverage to assist in the maintenance of the stable commodity prices. It is not possible to “require” acquisition and buyout programs as they are based on willing sellers.

109






Updated BMP design criteria and disposal practices for snow removal/storage is a good goal, but may not be practical to implement especially for municipal/county operations that involve utilizing easements on private property for storage.


Placer County agrees with TRPA’s recent change in assessment that the Regional Plan needs to analyze various Best Management Practices (BMP) enforcement strategies, even including point of sale but wants to emphasize those local jurisdictions should not be responsible for enforcement.

Placer County SEZ

Implementation measures proposed in this Sub-element recommend the development and adoption of more stringent permitting and environmental review process for project involving SEZ encroachment, increased mitigation to impact ratios and new minimum performance standards for SEZ mitigation. It is unclear as to whether there is a need for these new implementation measures and whether or not they will result in attainment of SEZ goals. In fact, the measures may result in reduced SEZ improvements due to cost increases incurred during the permitting process and attainment of new ratios.

110





Placer County

The Tahoe City Golf Course, the Gateway location (lower Truckee River), the landfill site north of Tahoe City and Lake Forest center, are all currently labeled ‘special areas’ and these designations by default have created a roadblock to environmental or economic improvement. All three sites suffer from a lack of BMPs, and due to current code language economic incentives to correct environmental challenges and/or sensitive land rehabilitation are non-existent. Provisions for addressing these unique sites should be explicit in the Regional Plan Update.

Placer County

A Housing Obligation Policy provision should be addressed in Alternative 2 and 4 to allow developers to bank or credit constructed affordable housing units that can later be sold to other developers in order to satisfy a housing obligation.

Placer County

The measure to require Class I bike trails on both sides of a street in a redevelopment area is not only cost prohibitive to sustainable development, it is not physically feasible in most redevelopment communities in North Lake Tahoe.

111

Appendix C Community Design suggestions from the League, et al.


112



113



114



115



116



117



118



119



120



121



122



123



124



125



126



127



128



129



130



131


Additional Input to the Regional Plan Update EIS Alternatives

January 2011 Appendix Page 29

132



133

Appendix D Suggestions recommended as viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives – LSLT et al.


Land Use: Goal-1

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1: The primary function of the region shall be as is a mountain ecosystem that offers outdoor recreation area along with outstanding scenic & natural values.

Rationale: More succinct language.

2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Incentivize

restoration of natural functioning open space within PAS boundaries. Incentivize connectivity of habitat within and when designating open space. Focus public land use projects on threshold-benefitting low-impact outdoor recreational activities.

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Vegetation

and tree retention standards must be incorporated with defensible space requirements and must take into consideration how vegetation helps water infiltrate and soil health, blocks noise, improves air quality and scenery. Consider developing a vegetation density standard for native trees.


4. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: No conversion from or reduction of areas

currently designated for Conservation Use as defined by Chapter 13.5.B (in the 1987 Regional Plan). Expansion of such areas is encouraged.

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

5. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Floor area ratio for all residential type

projects (single family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, and tourist accommodation projects).


6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP:

[Residential]: 10,000 sf lot and under - max floor area- 3000 sf. 10,000 sf to 1/2 acre sf - 20%. over 1 acre- 15% of acreage. override for the TDZ areas- 10% increase in floor area for TDZ areas.



[Commercial] : 50% floor area ratio based on parcel size. under 1/2 acre- 50% floor area ratio- one story. for two stories or mixed use such as live/work- a 5% override? 1/2 acre to 1 acre- 35% floor area ratio. over 1 acre- 40% floor area ratio? *override for the TDZ areas- 10% increase in floor area for TDZ areas.

134




8. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Definition of Redevelopment. Addition” means construction of a new structure or the modification of the existing footprint that increases the “conditioned floor area” of a building and/or dwelling unit. 1. “Major Addition” means the expansion of conditioned floor area by 50% or more. 2. “Minor Addition” means the expansion of conditioned floor area by less than 50%. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

9. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Projects that are major additions exceeding Bailey coverage must have a component of reducing coverage on a sliding scale based on the land coverage that exceeds Bailey. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

10. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP–17: Amend Chapter 20, Coverage to raise the maximum allowable coverage (base+transferred) to 70% for commercial, tourist accommodation, and mixed-use facilities on existing developed parcels within adopted community plan areas to define allowable coverage to meet existing Bailey 1974 standards, without overrides.


11. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Update

Plan Area Statements to reflect Basin resident and visitor neighborhood and community goals and values as appropriate to each PAS in conjunction with attaining thresholds.

Rationale: Clarifies intent of provision.

12. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: No

minimum density standards and maximum density standards similar to those in current Regional Plan.



Development Transfer Zones would be designated that contain the existing infrastructure to support mass transit facilities (South Stateline, Kings Beach and Tahoe City). Nonconforming heights, densities, and massing in these areas would not be perpetuated. A few of the commercial corridors within some of the DTZs, these DTZs would be confined to the tightly bound commercial corridors and adjoining parcels of South Stateline (which would run from lower Kingsbury along Highway 50 to the Ski Run and Pioneer Trail) , Kings Beach and Tahoe City. The South Stateline DTZ would be eligible for additional height of commercial or tourist structures.


135



14. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Height limits will conform with the 1987 Regional Plan without special height districts.



Commodities can be transferred between Kings Beach and Tahoe City DTZs and within Community Plans in same subwatershed. Commodity transfers between from South Shore non-DTZ to North Shore would require commodities to be transferred at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. Transfers of commodities out of the South Shore DTZ would not be allowed. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

16. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: No new

TAUs.


17. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Transfer of TAUs based on one bedroom/one bathroom, not to exceed 550 square feet.


18. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Cap the

number of TAUs that can be transferred from the South Shore to the North Shore.


19. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: TAU inventory to be limited to existing inventory within Community Plans except for DTZ areas.


20. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: TAUs:

Each TAU has a limit of 550 square feet, 1 bedroom, and 1 bathroom available for transfer. TAU’s may be combined with a maximum of 4 bedrooms/3 bathrooms. The additional bathroom is not transferrable.


21. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: All TAU's/

CFA that are transferred off-site will require that coverage is permanently removed and retired based on the footprint of the TAU, CFA, etc. transferred. (Retired land coverage cannot be transferred back onto the parcel) . Land coverage retired can be banked and transferred only to a TDZ area or for public service and recreation projects.


136



22. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2: Prohibit the transfer of coverage (soft and potential) to TAU, multi family, commercial or public service facilities. Exceptions are made for bike trails/paths that use pervious coverage not to exceed Class II standards.Soft coverage can only be converted pervious coverage.


23. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Do a

massing study to be within the character of the community and cap the size of fractional/timeshares.


24. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: No potential

coverage transfers allowable for commercial, tourist, or mixed use. Soft coverage is not allowable to convert to hard coverage and is not transferable offsite, however TMDL credit would be available for soft coverage retirement.


25. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Any new

allocations or commodities would be dependent upon measurable progress towards threshold achievement and maintenance.


26. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Update

code to establish maximum floor area caps per unit type. (refer to example page 103 of the community design Sub element 1.8.7.


27. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Any structure that is constructed within a Development Transfer Zone and eligible for a height increase would be subject to both increased setback and offset requirements to maintain view corridors.


28. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Any new or

redevelopment project would require pedestrian and bike facilities.


29. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3; New IMP: No minimum density standards. Density must go hand in hand with Community Design Standards; No minimum density standards.


137



30. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3; New IMP: Redevelopment of existing inventory should be the primary focus prior to infill or development of vacant land.


Land Use: Goal-2

31. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.1; New IMP: Incentivize use of existing entitlements/inventory before allowing new entitlements. i.e. allow additional floor area/entitlements based on true above and beyond environmental gains for projects already built vs. projects that are on vacant or on underdeveloped land.


32. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2: Based upon measurable progress towards

achievement and maintenance of the environmental threshold carrying capacities, direct land use and growth to appropriate areas of the region, and concentrate additional development in urban area, where there is existing infrastructure capacity and facilities can be made available most efficiently.


33. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2; IMP-32: PTOD by

focusing on concentrating development in plan areas with new allocations and commodities. New allocations would be used in conjunction with transfers of development and would focus on 5 areas within existing urban areas with the greatest potential for redevelopment that would enhance community character, environmental quality, and walkability. More concentrated development would take place within a portion of the following five designated Plan Areas: South Y, South Stateline, North Stateline, Lower Kingsbury, Kings Beach.


34. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2; New IMP: No

additional CFA will be allowed above levels remaining from the 1987 Plan until existing inventory if unused and vacant CFA is depleted except for exemptions for industrial areas and with transfer from sensitive lands into designated developed areas.


35. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2; New IMP: Between 0

and 2000 allocations in addition to those remaining from the 1987 plan would be allowable based on measured Basin-wide and County/City conformance with threshold achievement and maintenance.


138



36. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2; New IMP: Between 0 and 1000 bonus units remaining from 1987 Regional Plan could be distributed based on measured County or City conformance with threshold achievement and maintenance.


37. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.3: The planning area statements set forth

special policy direction to respond to the particular needs, problems, and future development of a specific area. Each planning area statement may vary in detail or specificity depending on the nature of the area, community input and the detail or specificity of related local jurisdiction plans. County/TRPA code amendments must show substantial conformance to the original intent of the plan area statement and goals.


38. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.6: In order to be responsive to the needs and

opportunities of various areas within the region, specific community plans (CPS) shall be developed or updated for designated commercial areas or rural communities (as desired by the local community). Community plans shall guide development in specified areas and shall be kept current by periodic review (every 5 years, at minimum). No new development shall be permitted in existing Community Plans that have not been updated within the last 5 years until such updates are completed and adopted with community participation and support. The TRPA shall actively encourage prompt development of community plans for all designated areas with a goal of completing the community plans concurrent with the Regional Plan update. The areas designated shall be those where commercial use is concentrated or should be concentrated. They shall be areas served, or easily served, by transit systems, which have adequate highway access, which have, or can have, housing in the vicinity available for employees working in the area, and which otherwise qualify as areas suitable for continued or increased levels of commercial activity. Some areas, because of their existing and proposed development patterns, may incorporate more than commercial use classifications. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

39. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.14: Prioritize Protection of the natural

environment, restoration and rehabilitation shall be a high priority for improving environmental quality and community character of areas designated for redirection but not included in a redevelopment plan.


Land Use: Goal-3

40. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.1: Promote compact development patterns and minimize parking to that discourage single-occupant private automobile commuting

139



and to reduce to the extent feasible air and water pollution which is caused by motor vehicles encourage transit or other nonautomobile-oriented transportation. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

41. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy; Require both sidewalks and bike lanes

that are safe, functional, and require at least semi-pervious pavement.


42. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.2: Designate pedestrian transit oriented development (PTOD) districts that Encourage communities who desire to design to include a mix of civic, commercial, cultural, institutional, residential, tourist and entertainment uses that support the creation of a vibrant destination and central gathering place for workers, visitors, and residents. Rationale: Clarifies intent of provision.

43. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.3: Promote the development of compact,

mixed-use development and uses within districts designated as PTOD districts and Provide for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian choices within these areas facilities as a requirement for development and redevelopment projects. Rationale: Clarifies intent of provision.

44. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.3; New IMP: Smaller

projects could bond for pedestrian and bike facilities whereas recreational and larger projects must construct them. Alternative solutions required if site has constraints.


45. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.4: Promote the development of compact

designs to reduce land coverage Reduce land coverage through compact design within constraints of height, tree preservation, density, and community character.


46. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.5: Promote pedestrian-oriented development

within walking distance of transit opportunities at densities and intensities that will help support transit usage Require pedestrian and bike facilities to be provided with any new project.


47. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.8: Promote the availability redevelopment of

existing housing stock to provide affordable housing. Encourage housing with a range of types and affordability to accommodate persons of all income levels and in locations that utilize existing housing stock and the rehabilitation of blighted structures. Housing should be located adjacent to are near employment centers, transit routes, commercial centers, and public facilities.

140




48. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.9: Encourage Require enhancement of bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes access through public and private investment in PTOD districts the construction of any new project.


Land Use: Goal-4

49. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.1; IMP-36: Amend Chapter 20, Coverage to require that in lieu excess coverage mitigation fees be used for the acquisition and restoration off existing coverage only, and not for the acquisition and retirement of potential land coverage with priority for monies to be targeted for removal of structures within SEZs.


50. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.3; New IMP: Allow for

other permeable substrate by incentivizing permeable driveways for water quality benefits. (DC)


51. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.3; New IMP: Define

areas where retiring coverage is the most important.


52. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Prohibit the use of conservation easements to increase development potential.


53. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.4; New IMP: All new

residential units (single-family, duplex, second units or multi-family), and major additions (50% or greater increase in conditioned floor area) are required to achieve 50 points through Build it Green’s GreenPoint Rated program. Large single family homes that equal or exceed 3,500 square feet are required to achieve 60 points. Minor additions (less than 50% of conditioned floor area) are also required to submit a GreenPoint checklist. Commercial/non-residential: Development over 2,500 square feet and all commercial renovation over $0.5 million, including City Facilities must achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-Silver rating. Those projects under the qualifying thresholds are also required to submit a LEED checklist but hiring a certified LEED-AP is optional.


141



Housing: Goal-2

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1: Special incentives, such as bonus development units, will be made available to promote housing for moderate income households (120 percent of respective county's median income). Such incentives shall be made available within jurisdictions that develop housing programs that are substantially consistent with and complementary to the regional plan. Retain allocation system for moderate income housing. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1; IMP-4: Discontinue the moderate income housing plan requirement of the moderate income program Require allocations for moderate income housing.


Housing: Goal-3

3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; New Policy: A fair share of affordable housing through distribution within each Community to be delineated.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; New IMP: Community Plans to identify fair share cap of new units. No one community should house the entire County’s requirements.


142



Noise: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP-1: Region-wide Standards/Implementation – Adopt and Iimplement the most stringent federal, state, and local noise standards and implementation strategies Region-wide.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; IMP-3: Restrict OHV

1000' -- Prohibit off-highway vehicle, motorcycles, and over-the-snow vehicles within 1000 feet of residences and other sensitive areas or users. Where entrances into approved use areas occur in residential areas, vehicles must only use entryways for ingress and egress to approved areas and must not idle or loiter in such areas.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; IMP-28: State Specific

Standards/Implementation Measures -- Adopt and implement different noise standards and implementation strategies between the two states.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP-7: Exemptions To

Noise Limitations -- The standards of this chapter shall not apply to noise from TRPA-approved construction or maintenance projects, forest and fuels management projects, or the demolition of structures, provided such activities are limited to occurring Monday through Saturday between 8 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction aActivities outside this period are limited to 60dBA 1-hour Leq. The standards of this chapter shall not apply to safety signals, warning devices, or emergency pressure relief valves and other similar devices. Emergency work to protect life or property and fireworks used in accordance with a state or local permit are exempt from noise standards.


5. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP-9: Noise

Monitoring -- TRPA will use best available technology to create and maintain an adequate noise monitoring and reporting system and enforcement programs, and routinely monitor noise associated with motor vehicles, motorcycles, over-the-snow vehicles, and aircraft use to ensure the serenity of the community and neighborhood is preserved. The required noise monitoring equipment at the South Lake Tahoe airport will be managed and controlled by the TRPA. All noise monitoring results will be available to the public in real time.


6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP-13: Level of

Significance -- The level of significance for noise is defined as an increase of 3.0 2.0 dB or greater at any monitoring location or any increase in noise if the area already violates noise standards.

143




7. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Define noise-sensitive site and identify in updated PASs under planning considerations and policies. Update TRPA Checklist.


8. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP-16: Noise

Containment -- Require noise containment measures using Best Available Technology (BAT) such as sound proofing and enclosures for generators and other loud sources.


9. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP-20: Mitigation --

Projects will be required to mitigate all noise associated with their project, including noise generated within their project area as well as off-site traffic noise associated with the project. If actual mitigation s not feasible for the project proponent to implement, payment into a noise mitigation fund may be utilized to offset the impact at a 1.5 to 1.0 cost ratio. Noise that cannot be mitigated at the site is not permissible.


10. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP-23: Engine

Brakes -- Use of engine brakes shall be prohibited in the Region, except for emergencies


Noise: Goal-2

11. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2:1; Reinserted IMP-38: Education & Signage -- Marinas and boat launching facilities and off-highway recreation areas shall post conspicuous notices of the noise ordinances and the impacts of noise. Signs prohibiting the use of engine brakes shall be posted on all highways. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternative by adding regulatory restrictions.

12. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.3: Noise Mitigation Implement a noise

mitigation fund.

Rationale: More succinct language. Noise: Goal-4

13. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.1: Regional Transportation Plan -- The Regional Transportation Plan will incorporate measures and regulations to ensure attainment and maintenance of noise threshold standards and perseveration of the community's serenity at the earliest practicable date.

144




14. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.34; New IMP: Plans to reduce transmission of noise from transportation corridors will be developed and adopted, along with implementation schedules within on year of the adoption of the RPU.


145



Natural Hazards: Goal-1

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Goal 1.4: RELOCATION OF FACILITIES FROM NATURAL HAZARD AREA: Work with local, state and federal agencies to d Develop programs and incentives that encourage public and private entities to decommission retrofit and/or relocate facilities from known natural hazard areas.


2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.;Policy 1.5: EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS:

Assist public safety agencies and public service agencies with the preparation of emergency response plans for wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural hazards in the region.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.5; New IMP: Response

after Earthquake: A response protocol would be developed so in the event of a significant earthquake, broken sewer mains are contained quickly to prevent sewage discharge to the Lake.


146



Air Quality: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.1; IMP-5: AQ Imp 5 Reduced Fees -- Reduce permit fees by: 15% for all LEED Silver Certified Construction; 25% for all LEED Gold Certified Construction; 50% for all LEED Platinum Certified Construction.

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by promoting adaptive management concept.

2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.1; IMP-13: Diesel

Idling -- Diesel trucks, buses and other large vehicles are prohibited from idling longer than 5 minutes. Where conditions may require heating or cooling, shore power must be utilized at high use areas. Emergency vehicles are exempt while performing emergency functions and/or as needed to maintain emergency equipment.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.1; IMP-24: Emissions

Benefits -- Transportation projects shall provide estimates of pre- and post project emission levels in pounds per pollutant and emissions per person per mile for each criteria pollutant.

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept

4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.9; IMP-17: Wood Stove

Certification -- All properties purchased, sold, or transferred title shall ensure the wood stove is compliant with all current regulations. Evidence of such will be included in escrow documents. Wood Heater Retrofit Program: Prior to the sale, transfer or conveyance of any building, all existing wood heaters in the building, excluding legally existing open fireplaces which are not primary heat sources, shall be in conformance with the following emission standards: 4.5g/hr of PM for a non-catalyst and 2.5 g/hr of PM for a catalyst equipped stove. Evidence shall be required in escrow documentation. Where wood heaters were replaced in conformance with the Wood Heater Retrofit Program adopted by TRPA in the 1987 Regional Plan (which became effective January 1, 1993), homeowners must replace the unit by 2020 with a unit conforming to the revised emission standards.


5. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.9; IMP-32: Wood Stove

Replacement at Time of Sale: Wood stove replacements would occur at time of sale; and the property certified as part of the escrow process.

Rationale: Clarifies intent of provision

6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.9; New IMP: The Air

Quality Mitigation Fund, and other funding sources where possible, will be used in part to provide rebates for replacement of existing wood stoves that do not meet the following emission standards: 4.5g/hr of PM for a non-catalyst and 2.5 g/hr of PM for a catalyst

147



equipped stove. Funding programs will prioritize rebates as follows: 1) Replacement of wood heaters that are the primary heat source which do not meet the following emission standards: 4.5g/hr of PM for a non-catalyst and 2.5 g/hr of PM for a catalyst equipped stove; 2) Replacement of wood heaters that are not the primary heat source and which do not meet the following emission standards: 7.5g/hr of PM for a non-catalyst and 4.1 g/hr of PM for a catalyst equipped stove; 3) Replacement of open-burning fireplaces that are used for primary or secondary heat (non-aesthetic); and 4) Replacement of wood heaters that do not meet the following emission standards: 4.5g/hr of PM for a non-catalyst and 2.5 g/hr of PM for a catalyst equipped stove but which are certified to emit less than 7.5g/hr of PM for a non-catalyst and 4.1 g/hr of PM for a catalyst equipped stove.


7. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.9; IMP-29: Mitigation --

Require on-site AQ mitigation where possible. Off site AQ mitigation will be mitigated 1:1 for pollutants that are in-attainment with a positive or neutral trend and 2:1 for all other situations AQ mitigation, direct and/or through use of mitigation funds, will be required based on the pollutant type, impact type, and location of impact(s). For projects increasing an air quality pollutant with localized impacts (e.g. Carbon Monoxide), mitigation must occur where the pollutant exposure will occur. For pollutants with area-wide and/or Basin-wide impacts, local mitigation will be prioritized; however mitigation may occur at the area-wide or Basin-wide level, or a combination thereof, as needed to protect human and ecological health and visibility both locally and basin-wide.


8. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.4; New IMP: In

coordination with air quality researchers, academic institutions and other regulatory bodies, TRPA will develop and maintain a comprehensive Emissions Inventory specific to the Lake Tahoe Basin. Publicly available, via website, real-time monitoring, evaluation, and reporting data would be provided by a third party scientific entity, such as TSC, UNR, and UCD.


9. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.1.5; New IMP: Consider

seeking grant funds and coordinating with public land agencies to replace diesel trucks that move biomass with best available technology.


Air Quality: Goal-2

10. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.2.3; New IMP: Emissions per Person Mile (EPPM): All plans and projects must evaluate the emissions per person per mile associated with the project or plan.


148



Air Quality: Goal-3

11. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.32; IMP-42: Fugitive Dust: Unless weather or surface conditions render road sweeping impossible, street sweeping to recover anti- and de-icing materials would be required immediately after a storm event and be completed within 4 days.

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternative by adding regulatory restrictions.

Air Quality: Goal-4

12. Suggested Implemention Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.43; IMP-58: Improved Mitigation -- New projects, programs, and planning efforts must result in a net reduction in air pollution will need to mitigate their air quality impacts at a 3.0 to 1.0 ratio for all non-attainment air pollutants.

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternative by adding regulatory restrictions.

13. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.3; IMP-5: Require

environmental documentation consultants to include a cumulative GHG emissions analysis as part of over-all project EIS. all environmental assessments and impact statements.

Rationale: More succinct language

14. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 2.6: Coordinate with state and federal agencies

to develop apply state and federal carbon sequestration and other GHG emission off-set programs to the Lake Tahoe Basin. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

15. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.6; IMP-8: Through

Climate Change Initiative pursue support the development of a carbon crediting program with USFS, CA/NV State Lands.


149



Water Quality: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; IMP-3: Continue to develop the 3rd Edition of the BMP Handbook to provide clear technical guidance on BMP maintenance consistent with Water Quality subelement and threshold findings and Defensible Space measures and as verified by an annual field monitoring and reporting program.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Strengthen

Handbook of Best Management Practices by integrating defensible space, water quality and vegetation standards. Create protective standards for sanding/salting and street sweeping (including required schedule of sweeping with BAT) to strengthen protection of water quality. Identify roadways that have the greatest impacts on water quality and prioritize sweeping and BMPs for those areas first.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: To support

the substantial increase in demand for contractors and services related to BMP installation that results from increased enforcement, TRPA will advertise beyond the Lake Tahoe Region for contractors and other service providers to be educated on BMP installation in Lake Tahoe and be on a list of available contractors and companies. Enough trained companies must be available to support the installation of BMPs on every property in the first four years after Plan adoption.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: TRPA will

work with local agencies to create a low- and moderate-income loan program for assisting homeowners with BMP installation.


5. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3: Implementation and continuous

maintenance of temporary and permanent BMPs will be required as a condition of approval for permitting new projects.


6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3; IMP-5: Continue to

support the funding for the Erosion Control Team as a critical implementation program to achieve Water Quality threshold and policy objectives. Assist in securing continued long term funding for current BMP Retrofit Program and seriously explore Budget Change Proposal (BCP) process to and include (request and propose) permanent program funding as a line item in TRPA's general fund. Discontinue reliance on federal 319h grant funds and state proposition grant funds to continue supporting the BMP program.


150



7. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.4: Restore native vegetation and the natural hydrologic function of the soil to more than 90 percent of the disturbed public lands within the Tahoe Basin. Require restoration of native vegetation and hydrologic function of the soil on private parcels in the Basin, and removal of illegal hard and soft coverage.


8. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.5: Local governments, state transportation

departments and other implementing agencies will restore the hydrologic function of SEZ’s that have been disturbed, developed, or subdivided in accordance with attainment and maintenance of the SEZ. threshold.


9. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.5; New IMP: Land Banks

should be integrated with the Regional Plan to act effectively to acquire disturbed, developed and subdivided and SEZs in need of protection for restoration and deed restriction. Excess coverage mitigation fees must be commensurate with costs to purchase, deed restrict and restore disturbed and developed SEZ lands.


10. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.6: Prohibit the use of fertilizers that introduce

additional nitrogen and phosphorous into Tahoe’s environment and prohibit the outdoor use of pesticides in the Lake Tahoe basin.


11. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.6; New IMP: Incorporate

prohibition of pesticides and fertilizers into BMP/Defensible Space/Native vegetation guidelines and requirements. Prohibit discharge of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers at golf courses, schools, play fields, commercial facilities, homeowners associations’ common areas and other large users of turf.


12. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.6; New IMP: Turf

Reduction: In conjunction with water districts incentivize turf reduction in favor of naturally functioning land or native-plant, low-water landscaping. Consider LTRA funding to provide resources for turf reduction and native plant distribution. Alternatively the turf reduction program can be funded through turf user fee imposed upon water bills.


13. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.7; New IMP: Phase in

BAT requirements for OHVs.


151



14. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.7; New IMP: Roads and trails that allow OHV must be fully BMP’d, maintained and have a frequent maintenance schedule in order to prevent soil erosion and prevent soil erosion and diversions occurring at stream crossings, otherwise they will be decommissioned and restored to grade and soil function by 2015. Stabilization at all stream crossings is required to avoid impacts from OHV use.


15. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.8: Urban Areas: State and local jurisdictions

must develop, adopt and implement stormwater management plans, stormwater load reduction plans or a functional equivalent to guide the implementation of capital projects and operations and maintenance activities. These plans must identify how fine sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus will be reduced by implementing advanced pollution control measures in urban districts, along roads and highways and in areas of concentrated impervious coverage. Non-Urban Areas: Federal, state and local jurisdictions must develop, adopt and implement stormwater management plans, stormwater load reduction plans or effluent limitation plans that are consistent with required load reductions for fine sediment , nitrogen and phosphorous for non-urban areas to guide the implementation of capital projects and operations and maintenance activities. These plans must identify how f fine sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus will be reduced by implementing advanced pollution control measures, along roads and streets and in areas of all areas of human disturbance. Plans must also identify how sediment and nutrient reductions will be confirmed through field monitoring and reporting.


16. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.8; New IMP: Code will

require that SWMPs identify adequate levels of monitoring and jurisdictions must implement monitoring on an ongoing basis, whether through contributions to and/or participation in the RSWMP program or an equivalent program. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

17. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1:9; New IMP: Definition of road maintenance must be developed and include repaving, BAT-equipment-sweeping and reducing impacts from salt.


18. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1:9; New IMP: All traction

materials on any roadways in the Basin need to demonstrate 1) a high resistance to pulverization, to 20 micron or less particles, and 2) zero or extremely low phosphorous content.


19. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.10: Reduce airborne loads of fine

particulates from suspended dust from unpaved roads and construction sites. Prohibit airborne loads of fine sediments and particulates from construction sites. Reduce fine

152



sediment loads generated by stormwater runoff from unpaved roads and construction sites.


20. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.12; IMP-18: Staff

Recommendation for Amending the Code of Ordinances: Develop new language in be Best Management Requirements chapter with focus on the Project Compliance Program, Standard BMP Requirements, Special Circumstances and Maintenance of BMPs sections. Amend Water Quality Control chapter with focus on the Applicability and Discharge Limits to require that all BMPs be evaluated based on a functional criteria for BMP performance as pollutant source controls, hydrologic controls (reducing runoff volumes and velocities), treatment trains, and end-point naturally-functioning pollutant removal systems. Field monitoring is required.


21. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.12; IMP-19: The

interagency water quality advisory committee will be established within one month of adoption of the Regional Plan Update. TRPA staff will need to facilitate and develop this subcommittee and process through a coordinated inter-agency (Regulatory, Implementing and Funding Agencies) arrangement with RSWMP members and assembled with redundant members from SQWIC.


22. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.14; IMP-21: Amend the

Shorezone BMP appendix and develop nexus language to the BMP Requirements Chapter in the Applicability, BMP Compliance Program and Standard BMP requirements sections with reference to the Temporary and Permanent BMPs subsections. Develop nexus to the Grading Standards Chapter with focus on the Discharge Prohibitions and Disposal of Materials sections. Develop additional consistency language in the Special Information Reports and Plans chapter.


Water Quality: Goal-2

23. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2; New IMP: Establish a schedule to phase out underground storage tanks for sewage, fuel, or other hazardous or toxic substances where possible.


24. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2:2; New IMP: Coordinate

with local public utility districts/water companies and Lahontan Water Quality Control Board to identify underground storage tanks to be removed.


153



25. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.3: All institutional users of road salt in the Lake Tahoe region shall keep records showing the time, rate, and location of salt application. Storage of road salt shall be in accordance with the handbook of best management practices. A reduction in the use of road salt will be encouraged. Rationale: Clarifies intent of provision.

26. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.5; New IMP: Coordinate

with public land agencies to require pet owners to pack out pet waste from public recreation lands.


27. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.5; New IMP: “Mut mits”

need to be available at all trail heads and tourist destination areas. The TRPA should encourage ordinances that require people to pick up after their pets as in other cities throughout the nation. Implement signage and an education campaign informing the public of the importance of picking up after their pets.


28. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.3; IMP-27: Staff

Recommendation for Amending the Code of Ordinances: Amend the Water Quality Control Chapter with focus on the Applicability, Discharge Limits, Prohibition of Toxic or Hazardous Waste Discharge and Spill Control sections. Develop nexus to the Grading Standards Chapter with focus on the Discharge Prohibitions and Disposal of Materials sections. Develop additional consistency language in the Special Information Reports and Plans chapter with focus on the Subsurface Investigations and Reports section.



require annual reports from each facility and undertake field inspections to ensure compliance.


30. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.4: Evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness

of natural ponding along stream corridors outside of SEZ lands, without a net addition of coverage as a strategy for removing instream loads of sediment and nutrients.


31. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.4; New IMP: Stream

restoration projects must distribute stormwater over the largest area of the SEZ possible when appropriate as determined and recommended by qualified professionals. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

154



32. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; NEW IMP: Integrate project to reduce and remove AIS and prepare annual reports.


33. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Institute all necessary

control to ensure fishing equipment is free of AIS.


34. Suggested Policy: LSLT eta al; New Policy: Create and improve code language to respond to benthic invertebrates as water quality indicators.


35. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Monitor water quality in

relation to benthic invertebrates in Lake Tahoe and other lakes in the Basin. Monitor stream water quality in relation to benthic invertebrates and other native species.


155



Community Design: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.1; IMP-4: Amend Chapter 22, Height, such that Height to permit additional height with special findings within Transect Districts designated as Town Centers, Tourist Centers, and Neighborhood General. height limits conform with the 1987 Regional Plan, but without special height districts. Additional height will only be permitted in the South Stateline Development Transfer Zone (DTZ).


Community Design: Goal-3

2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 3.1.C(2): Landscaping should be used to screen parking and to alleviate large expanses of parking space. Landscaping to be used to screen parking, buildings, pools, and other site amenities rather than fences unless required by code. Any fences visible from scenic corridors should be articulated and landscaped. Landscape berms preferable treatment.


3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 3.1.E(4): When possible all efforts should be

made to co-locate telecommunication devices will be co-located on existing towers.

Rationale: More succinct langauge. Community Design: Goal-4

4. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 4.2: Overall light levels should be compatible with the land use type and desired neighborhood light levels. Emphasis should be placed on a few, well placed, low intensity, down casting lights.


5. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 4.3: Minimize stray light and unnecessary

lighting by implementing designs standards for lighting according to land use type and transect district.


6. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; New Policy: Community design take into

consideration: safe paths for walking, bike trails, and community parking lots/parking management plans.


156



Transportation: Goal-1

1. Suggested Goal: LSLT et al.; Pedestrian Transit Oriented Develoment Walkable communities: Plan for and promote land use changes and development patterns encouraging walkable, mixed-use centers and supporting transportation enhancements. Promote environmental improvements that improve the viability of transit systems.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3; IMP-1: Eliminate

Reduce parking minimums, establish parking maximums, establish parking-as-commodity programs and set minimum standards for bicycle parking facilities.


3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.6: A “park once” environment shall be

encouraged for accessing local services, and tourist areas and encouraging residents and visitors to use non-auto modes for trips within the Region.



evaluate the transportation impacts of proposed plans and projects through analyzing the impacts on VMT, daily vehicle trips, LOS and emissions per person per mile (EPPM).


5. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.9; IMP-16: Require

projects that are used as traffic and transportation-related air quality mitigation to be within a quarter-mile of the projects they are mitigating. Where significant impacts are predicted to occur at specific locations, impacts must be reduced and controlled at those specific locations in order to attain threshold standards.



6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.6; New IMP: Program signals with sensors for bicycles in bike lanes to provide priority access at intersection.



7. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.1: Encourage, and support as appropriate improvements to existing transit systems that reduce emissions per person per mile (EPPM) compared to the private automobile such as increases in frequency, preferential signal controls, expansion of service area, and/or extension of service hours.


157



8. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.3: New transit vehicles shall seek to

maximize bicycle carrying capacity using best available technology. Rationale: More succinct language.

9. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.3; New IMP: All new public transit vehicles must provide equipment or space for carrying bicycles.


10. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.6: The expansion of private and public transit

excursion services that reduce EPPM should be encouraged in the Region.


11. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.8: Public transit fleets will use best available technology to reduce emissions and support attainment and maintenance of air quality goals threshold standards.


12. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 4.10: Public and private vehicle fleets shall

utilize alternative fuels to the maximum extent feasible to reduce emissions and support attainment and maintenance of air quality goals threshold standards.



13. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.4: Work with appropriate public entities, tribal governments, and private and public interest groups in the Region to ensure coordination and consistency in transportation planning efforts within multijurisdictional transportation corridors.



14. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 7.2; New IMP: Require ski resorts to have parking management plan that reduces the number of vehicles traveling to ski resorts. Incentives or disincentives could include, but are not limited to: parking fees, carpool incentives, mass transit incentives.


15. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 7.2; New IMP: Provide

electronic signage that lets visitors know when destination parking areas, such as Emerald Bay, are full and inform travelers about other options such as the trolley.


158




16. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 8.1; IMP-12: Establish a database of all employers participating in the Trip Reduction Ordinance, and require biannual written reports from each participating employer that document participation activities, level of trip reduction success and total EPPM reduction.


17. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 8.4: Automobile rentals should be discouraged

within the Tahoe region. Traffic mitigation fees shall be assessed on vehicles rented in the region. Incentivize the use of public and private transit options over the rental of automobiles in the Tahoe Region through measures such as increasing the traffic mitigation fee charged on all rentals. Where rentals are offered, encourage require rentals of vehicles that are low- or zero-emission within the Tahoe region.



18. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 12.2: Recognize that the success or failure of many transportation systems is linked to local/regional funding sources, particularly for transit operating subsidies.


159



Vegetation: Goal-1

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Manage forests for long term resilience against climate change and disease in order to maintain their full range of ecological functions.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Encourage

and support scientific studies of new road anti- and de-icing materials and/or techniques which reduce the amount of salt introduced in roadway operations while maintaining public health and safety needs.


3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2: Promote non-forested vegetation structure

and distribution (i.e. riparian, wetland, and meadow distribution) based on natural, pre- urbanization, disturbance regimes. to maintain biological integrity and native species diversity within the region.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.9; IMP-2: Require

projects to implement measures, such as noxious-weed risk assessments and weed prevention BMPs, to prevent the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds during project activities.


5. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.11: Revegation with approved species:

revegetate disturbed sites consistent with species guidelines that are ecologically appropriate to a site approved by the agency designed to promote use of native, water-efficient, nutrient-efficient, fire-resistant, and non-invasive vegetation. The use of non-native non-invasive vegetation is only appropriate in the urban residential/commercial areas of the Tahoe Basin.


6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.7; New IMP: TRPA will work with independent qualified forestry experts to inventory the existing percent of late seral and old growth habitat, by acres, in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and develop a plan outlining how TRPA will attain and maintain the vegetation threshold standards over time. Any future removal of large trees must conform to this plan.

“Amend Code Subparagraph 71.2.A as follows: (6) In ski areas with existing TRPA-approved master plans, trees larger than 30 inches dbh in the westside forest types and 24 inches dbh in eastside forest types may be removed for facilities that are consistent with that master plan. For activities that are

160



consistent with a TRPA-approved master plan, trees larger than 30 inches dbh in the westside forest types and 24 inches dbh in eastside forest types may be removed when it is demonstrated that the removal is necessary for the activity. (8) Large trees may be removed for large public utilities projects if TRPA finds there is no other reasonable practicable alternative and the removal is consistent with the Plan developed to attain and maintain the vegetation threshold. (9) Tree Removal During Emergency Fire Suppression Activities: Trees may be removed when an emergency fire suppression need exists and the large tree(s) removed pose an actual fire threat as determined by the local, state or federal fire suppression agency involved in a fire suppression activity.


Vegetation: Goal-2

7. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2: Wetland management: manage iparian and other wetland plant communities for the beneficial uses of passive recreation, groundwater recharge, and particle and nutrient catchment, and as wildlife habitat, and for passive recreation where it does not negatively impact the other beneficial uses.


Vegetation: Goal-5

8. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.2: Alteration of natural vegetation During development activity: contain Permanent disturbance or unnecessary alteration of natural vegetation associated with development activities to the shall be restricted to the approved disturbance boundaries, or that which is necessary coverage footprint of a structure or facility. All disturbances outside the approved coverage footprint shall be restored to maintain a native vegetation cover that is consistent with the requirements to reduce soil erosion and risk of fire.


9. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.1: Urban vegetation and landscapes:

preserve vegetation in urban areas to the maximum extent feasible and to avoid sharp contrasts between urban and nonurban areas and allow for promote the perpetuation of the natural appearing landscape.


10. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.3; New IMP: Include

management and prevention of spread of cheat grass in BMP/defensible space/native vegetation guidelines.


161



11. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.3; New IMP: Collaborate with local fire districts to prevent further invasion and spread of cheat grass.


12. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.3; New IMP: Conduct

outreach and education about cheat grass.


13. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.3; New IMP: Limbing old growth trees should be considered before complete removal during defensible space work.


162



Wildlife & Fisheries: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Modify Code Language so that protections for “wildlife habitat(s)”, both terrestrial and aquatic, to specifically include all cover, feeding, breeding, and rearing habitats deemed necessary for a species survival and reproductive success.


2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; 1.2: Protect, enhance, and conserve terrestrial

species: protect, conserve and actively enhance unique or special habitat types as identified in the regional plan or by state and/or federal regulations for terrestrial species.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.3; New IMP: All projects

within the Basin (residential, commercial, conservation, forestry) must have a TRPA approved Weed Control and Management Plan in order for a project to be permitted.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.3: New IMP: TRPA will

have the authority to regulate and fine projects for non-compliance of the approved Weed Control and Management Plan.


5. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 1.3: Control invasive species in conjunction

with other lake-ward activities when appropriate.


Wildlife and Fisheries: Goal-3

6. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; New Policy: Wildlife habitat restoration projects must include, in appropriate areas, improvements to mule deer cover and foraging habitat types (ecosystem approach).


7. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; New Policy: Protect and restore wetland and riparian

habitats within SEZ urban areas.


8. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; New Policy: Limit anthropogenic disturbances (i.e. motorized recreation; dog access; mountain bikes, etc.) within prime waterfowl nesting, roosting, and feeding habitats. Examples: relocate where feasible trails and roads from sensitive wildlife habitat to

163



reduce wildlife disturbances. Within lake habitats protect and or limit nearshore zones identified as prime waterfowl habitat from motorized boat impacts (i.e. restrict access, enforce no-wake zones, establish noise reduction limits, etc.)


9. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; New Policy: Protect and restore chara beds in the

Lake Tahoe Basin.


164



Soils: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2: Implement seasonal limitations for ground disturbing activities and consider limited exceptions for ground disturbing and vegetation management activities conducted during the wet season (October 15 to May 1) based on a complete evaluation of all impacts.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: Historical

floodplains must be designated as SEZ, even where human disturbance has caused them to ‘dry up.’ Updated maps must also designate the 100 year floodplains of all drainages as SEZs so they are warranted the same protections.


Soils: Goal-2

3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.4; New IMP: Rewrite code so that when non-conforming excess coverage is redeveloped, a greater portion of coverage is reduced. The ratio would be adjusted.


4. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Focus on soil conservation and natural

soil function for new projects, by providing incentives for substantially reduced impervious coverage. Facilitate greater acquisition of land coverage and restoration of that land by the land banks.


5. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Rewrite code so that

when non-conforming excess coverage is redeveloped, a greater portion of coverage is reduced. The ratio would be adjusted.


6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Increase the mitigation

square foot fee ratio for excess coverage to facilitate the land bank to significantly reduce coverage and restore land in the Basin.


7. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Public agencies should reduce land

coverage, especially in sensitive lands, wherever possible.


8. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Incentivize reduction of publically owned coverage through acquisition of coverage by the land banks.

165




9. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Provide TMDL credit for retiring soft coverage, in association with a TRPA and Lahontan/NDEP MOU arrangement.


10. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Work to ensure that

monitoring protocols and techniques for soils monitoring is current and uniform throughout the Basin so that data can be shared and compared across the Basin.


166



Scenic: Goal-1

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1: Roadway and shoreline units improve, or at least maintain The scenic threshold ratings of each roadway and shoreline unit are improved so that scenic threshold standards are attained and maintained.


2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3: Public recreation areas and bike paths

improve, or at least maintain The scenic threshold ratings of each scenic resource for views from identified bike paths and recreation areas open to the public are attained and maintained.


Scenic: Goal-2

3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.2: Travel routes: Design development in areas identified as non-attainment to improve the travel route ratings, or at least not adversely affect, the travel route ratings of the scenic thresholds.


4. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.3: Correct scenic degradation: correct

factors or conditions that contribute to scenic degradation to improve scenic quality and attain the scenic thresholds.


5. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Preserve and restore views to the Lake

from the road, lake, scenic turnouts, recreation areas, and key view points, etc.


167



Open Space: Goal-2

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Maintain open space in its natural form rather than developed form.


2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Coordinate with public land agencies to

seek conservation easements and purchase land for public open space and wildlife corridors.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Acquire for open space

not only land outside of the urban boundary but also urban infill lots.


168



SEZ: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Develop and implement a comprehensive SEZ program that is comprised of the following four core elements: (i) a comprehensive regulatory strategy and implementation plan, (ii) a comprehensive protection and restoration plan, and (iii) a comprehensive monitoring and assessment plan, and (iv) water quality standards for SEZs.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; IMP-1: Revise and

update the regulatory SEZ definition, identification criteria, and delineation standards to allow for more accurate and repeatable SEZ identification and delineation while assuring that, at a minimum, the same amount of acreage (1100 acres of disturbed land) is restored as detailed in 1982 from previous maps. The definition must also identify, as SEZs, areas where human modifications have resulted in previously-functioning SEZs ‘drying up’.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; IMP-2: Develop and

adopt a standardized SEZ classification system, based on the EPA wetland systems, to facilitate consistent classification and more effective management.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; IMP-3: Update the

regional SEZ map using improved remote-sensing data sets to facilitate and improve SEZ tracking, monitoring, assessment, environmental review, mitigation, and restoration and land use planning. Field check final maps for consistency and science based applicability.


5. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; IMP-4: Develop and

adopt standardized methodologies for monitoring SEZ conditions at the Regional subwatershed, catchment and project scale to facilitate more effective and consistent SEZ monitoring and assessment and more informed and effective restoration, mitigation, and land use planning. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3; New IMP: Identify all

historic floodplains; identify potential coverage for removal and identify priorities for removing structures to improve floodplain function.


169



7. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.3: New IMP: Develop a system within the framework of the Lake Clarity Crediting System which provides credits to local jurisdictions for floodplain restoration.


8. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.4: SEZ preservation and management is key

to preserving the extent and physical, chemical, and biological integrity of SEZ lands, and managing them to maintain, restore, and enhance their natural and beneficial functions and values.


9. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.6: Reduce impacts of golf courses facilities

on habitat, streams, SEZs, floodplains and the Lake. Rationale: More succinct language.

10. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.8; New IMP: Water level

measurements taken from monitoring wells for the purposes of assessing soil type (i.e. evaluating depth from surface to water table) will subtract the distance associated with any fills of gravel or other pervious cover when calculating the total depth to the water table. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

11. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.8; New IMP: Water level

measurements taken from monitoring wells for the purposes of assessing soil type (i.e. evaluating depth from surface to water table) will subtract the distance associated with any fills of gravel or other pervious cover when calculating the total depth to the water table.


12. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.9; New IMP: Building

permits must require maximum protection including fencing of SEZ to assure complete SEZ protection during construction activity.


13. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.10; New IMP: The

Beneficial Use(s) and water quality objectives for wetlands must be determined, documented and restored and protected for all wetlands in the Tahoe Basin.


14. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.10; New IMP-12: Staff

will coordinate with soil scientists, hydrologists and biologists during development of regulatory definitions for SEZ and permanent disturbance.


170



15. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.11: Encourage public and private entities to

develop plans to decommission or relocate facilities from SEZ lands. Rationale: More succinct language.

16. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Public acquisition of SEZ lands, including

both parcels and portions of parcels, is encouraged for action by land banks and public entities in order to restore, retire coverage, and deed restrict SEZ lands for protection from future development and disturbance. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

17. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; New IMP: Provide, and annually

update, information on SEZ conditions, classification, and degree of functionality in order to prioritize acquisition targets. Annual updates will incorporate previously-man modified SEZs that have been restored to natural function.


171



Sustainability: Goal-1

1. Suggested Goal: LSLT et al.; Reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions within the Tahoe Region consistent with state and federal planning to reduce the scale and intensity of climate change effects on the region, the country and the world.


2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2: A coordinated program to encourage

recycling of waste products should will be developed.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.2; New IMP: TRPA will coordinate with local jurisdictions basin-wide to develop and implement a coordinated recycling program.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.9; New IMP: For existing

neighborhoods, develop programs to encourage and incentivize retrofits to existing structures to improve energy efficiency.


Sustainability: Goal-2

5. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.3; IMP-5: Require environmental documentation consultants to include a cumulative GHG emissions analysis as part of over-all project EIS. all environmental assessments and impact statements.


6. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.6: Coordinate with state and federal

agencies to develop apply state and federal carbon sequestration and other GHG emission off-set programs to the Lake Tahoe Basin.


7. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.6; IMP-8: Through

Climate Change Initiative pursue support the development of a carbon crediting program with USFS, CA/NV State Lands.


172



Dispersed Recreation: Goal-3

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; 3.1; New Policy: Historic hiking trails will be protected from higher speed activities that damage the hiking experience.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.6; New IMP: Roads and

trails that allow OHV must be maintained and have a frequent maintenance schedule in order to prevent trail erosion, water diversion and erosion occurring at stream crossings. Stabilization at all stream crossings is required to avoid impacts from OHV use.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.8; New IMP: Prohibit

new facilities for horses in the Tahoe Basin including trails and horse trailer parking.


173



Developed Recreation: Goal-5

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.1: Provide public boat launching facilities, including at private marinas, where appropriate, and when consistent with environmental constraints including prevention of aquatic invasive species introduction. Review public boat launch facilities including private marinas to assess and evaluate compliance with environmental thresholds and carrying capacities including prevention of introduction of aquatic invasive species. Develop put-in and take-out facilities for non-motorized craft at environmentally suitable locations on lakes and streams. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by promoting adaptive management concept

2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.5: Public transit operations, including shuttle-type boat service shuttles and non-motorized facilities methods, should serve major attractions. Rationale: More succinct language.

3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.6: Require ski areas, multi-season resorts and marinas to complete the master planning process for proposed expansions. Require the use of the latest science for mitigating the environmental impacts, including adaptation strategies to address climate change, for activities or installations associated with now, amended, or renewed permits specifically focusing on compliance with the threshold standards and addressing the current and forecasted impacts from climate change. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

174



Urban Recreation: Goal-6

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 6.2: Encourage existing If possible, relocate existing urban outdoor recreational facilities located in sensitive areas to relocate to other suitable sites.


175



Urban Recreation: Goal-7

2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 7.1: Community Open Gathering Space as public access amenity: Provide social gathering spaces like pocket parks, playgrounds, plazas, squares and similar sites as an amenity for public access and to activate a sense of place in urban centers. Community Gathering Spaces will fit within the coverage and other requirements and will not be comparable or interchangeable with naturally-functioning “Open Space.”


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 7.1; IMP-1: Design

standards and landscape requirements for urban recreation facilities will be included in the transect-based Community Plan and PAS zoning system. These standards will include: community open gathering space, public access and accessibility, and the support of natural values in urban areas.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 7.1; IMP-2: Provide

incentives for the provision of Require new and redevelopment projects located in community plans and other appropriate areas in rural communities to designate at least 20% of the project area for Community Gathering Space. and community open space within new projects in PTOD districts.



develop a legal definition for Community Gathering Space (CGS). CGS will be different from Open Space, and CGS area will not be comparable, interchangeable or otherwise “mixed” with Open Space. Possible definition may include: “Community Gathering Space: Land with land coverage located in urban or populated areas which provides social gathering areas. Land may be in a landscaped condition however is not naturally-functioning without land coverage and therefore not comparable or interchangeable with “Open Space”. Where required and/or included in a project in order to receive bonus units or other incentives, a deed-restriction will be placed on the project area to ensure the CGS will never be minimized.


6. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 7.2: Community Open Gathering Space for

natural values: Manage for multiple values in Commercial Areas: Where appropriate, include community open gathering space in project design to improve natural values in the commercial areas.


176



General Recreation: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Limit impacts by regulating intensity, timing, type and location of use.


2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; New Policy: Analyses of recreation impacts will

include a compilation and measurement of the indirect and cumulative impacts of all recreation uses, including VMT and energy.


177



Public Services and Facilities: Goal-1

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 1.4; IMP-1: Amend chapter 18, Permissible Uses and Chapter 30, Design to prohibit new high-voltage utility lines and telecommunication towards towers in residential neighborhoods and sensitive scenic areas. Rationale: Clarifies intent of provision.

Public Services and Facilities: Goal-3

2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.1: The discharge of municipal or industrial wastewaters to the surface and groundwaters of the Tahoe region is prohibited, those systems without wastewater connections should will be phased out (see policy WQ 1.16).


3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.5: Garbage pick-up service will be

mandatory throughout the region, and will be so structured to encourage clean-ups and recycling. A coordinated program to encourage recycling of waste products will be developed. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to will require animal proof containers.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.5; New IMP: Local jurisdictions will adopt Animal Proof Container requirements for all areas of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Requirements will be sufficiently enforced; 100% compliance will be required within two years of adoption of the new Regional Plan. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

178



Institutional Partnerships: Goal-1 1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.1; IMP-2: Amend Chapter

30, Allocations to disallow distribution of new remaining CFA from the 1987 Plan unless a regional revenue source (or other source of funding for local share of the EIP) is in place within five years of the Regional Plan adoption to contribute to funding local government's share of the EIP. Additional CFA development will not be allowed unless and until measurable progress towards threshold attainment and maintenance is achieved.


Institutional Partnerships: Goal-2

2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 2.2: Delegate plan implementation to agencies

and governments through memorandum of understanding or other forms of agreements where such agencies and governments have the resources and expertise and/or responsibility to implement provisions of the Plan. TRPA will maintain ongoing review and coordination of such agreements to ensure other entities are implementing the Plan as required.

Rationale: Clarifies intent of provision

179



Performance Review: Goal-1 1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al..; Policy 1.4: TRPA shall identify the planning and

review responsibilities of local, state and federal jurisdictions and work together towards enacting policy that achieves the environmental goals of the region including thresholds.


Performance Review: Goal-2

2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.1.1: New single-family dwelling construction shall be evaluated in accordance with IPES. This system shall rank all vacant residential parcels with respect to their relative environmental suitability for development. New residential construction shall be subject to the allocation limits set forth in goal PR-3, policy PR-3.2 of this subelement. A. IPES is an objective and scientific system based on the report entitled Individual Parcel Evaluation System (1986), which evaluates relative environmental suitability for development. IPES shall evaluate each parcel with respect to the criteria listed below. Details of IPES, including a rating system, shall be included in implementing ordinances.

1) Relative erosion hazard (soil erodability, slope length and gradient, climatic conditions, surface roughness and mass wasting). 2) Runoff potential (depth to seasonal high water table, percolation rate, permeability and depth to very slowly permeable layer). 3) Degree of difficulty to access building site (amount of excavation and soil disturbance required to provide minimum driveway and parking area and degree of difficulty for excavation due to soil properties). 4) Water influence areas (proximity to and extent of disturbance in water influence areas). 5) Condition of watershed (extent to which watersheds and intervening drainage areas conform to land coverage allowances set forth in the land capability system, hydrologic characteristics and known sediment/nutrient production). 6) Ability to revegetate (climatic conditions and the available water holding capacity, fertility, texture, drainage and permeability of the soil). 7) Need for water quality improvements in vicinity of parcel (stable roadside drainage channels, storm drainage system and stable cut and fill slopes). 8) Effectiveness of water quality projects implemented and completed in the vicinity of the parcel and area that would be affected by any runoff from the parcel. Effectiveness will be based on measured water quality data. Mere implementation of a water quality project will not be a substitute for actual measured data. B. IPES shall include an element, separate from the criteria used for rating each parcel, to encourage mitigation of existing water quality problems by individual property owners. The rating of a parcel may be increased, to a limited and finite degree, by the property owner constructing off-site water quality improvements. The extra consideration for off-site work shall result in benefits that fully offset the difference in impacts between developing the subject parcel and developing a parcel with a rating equivalent to the subject parcel's rating without applying the bonus. C. IPES shall be implemented by ordinance consistent with the following:

180



1) A team of experts shall evaluate each vacant residential parcel using a standardized approach in accordance with IPES. a) For parcels of 1/3 acre or less in size, the entire parcel shall be evaluated for purposes of establishing the IPES rating, except in cases where the parcel contains an SEZ. SEZs shall be excluded from the area evaluated. For parcels with less than 5,000 square feet outside an SEZ, the IPES rating shall be reduced by a factor equal to the ratio of land available for construction to 5,000 square feet (See Goal #1, Policy 2, SEZ Subelement). b) For parcels greater than 1/3 acre but less than 5 acres in size, the evaluation team shall select and evaluate the 1/3 acre portion of the parcel that results in the highest rating. If the selected 1/3 acre portion contains an SEZ, the procedure set forth in (a) above shall be followed. If the property owner wishes to locate the residence outside the area evaluated, a reevaluation shall be required of the 1/3 acre portion of the parcel containing the desired building site. c) For parcels of 5 acres or greater in size, the property owner shall be notified and asked to identify the desired building site. Once a building site has been identified, the evaluation team shall evaluate the best 1/3 acre portion of the parcel containing the identified building site. If this 1/3 acre contains an SEZ, the procedures set forth in (a) above shall be followed. d) Measured water quality benefits from Installation of water quality improvements in the vicinity of a parcel, subsequent to the initial rating, may increase the rating of a parcel. The amount of increase shall depend on the weight given that factor in IPES and the degree of measured water quality improvement. e) Changes in the condition of a watershed, subsequent to the initial rating, may change the rating of parcels located in that watershed. The amount of change in the rating shall depend on the weight given that factor in IPES. Such changes in the condition of a watershed may cause the initial rating to increase or decrease. f) The rating of all parcels shall be based on the assumption that when developed, all required BMPs shall be installed and maintained. g) Property owners may appeal parcel ratings to an independent body of qualified experts not involved in the original field evaluation of that particular parcel. These independent experts shall then apply the criteria established in IPES. The decision of the independent body shall be deemed the final action of the Agency unless the property owner appeals the decision to the Governing Board. The Governing Board may change the rating of a parcel only upon expressly finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the criteria established in the IPES were not applied correctly. 2) TRPA shall rate all vacant residential parcels numerically and then rank them from the most suitable to the least suitable by jurisdiction. TRPA may reconsider the rating upon request before the rankings are officially adopted except as otherwise provided in (d) and (e) above. 3) The Agency shall establish a level in the numerical ranking immediately above the most sensitive parcels, based on recommendations from a technical committee. 4) All vacant residential parcels may compete for building allocations. Those above the initial level, referred to in 3) above, and as may be adjusted in accordance with 5) below, shall comprise the top rank and, if receiving an allocation, may pursue a permit. Those below that level, if receiving an allocation, may exercise the options listed below: a) transfer the allocation in accordance with policies in Goal #3 of this Subelement. b) relinquish the allocation and wait for the level to drop to include the parcel within the top rank. c) transfer other development rights as permitted elsewhere in the Plan.

181



5) The numerical level defining the top rank for any jurisdiction shall be lowered on an annual basis by the number of allocations utilized in that jurisdiction during the previous year, provided that: a) all parcels included in the top rank are otherwise eligible for development under the applicable state water quality management plans for the Lake Tahoe Basin and other legal limitations; b) a monitoring program for that jurisdiction is in place in accordance with the Monitoring and Evaluation Subelement; c) demonstrable progress is being made on capital improvement programs for water quality within that jurisdiction (see Monitoring and Evaluation Subelement); d) there is a satisfactory rate of reduction in the inventory of vacant sensitive parcels. The IPES line shall not move down in any jurisdiction unless the number of parcels below the IPES line in that jurisdiction compared to the number that were deemed sensitive on January 1, 1986, does not exceed the following percentages. El Dorado 20 percent Placer 20 percent Douglas 33 percent Washoe 33 percent e) the level of compliance with conditions of project approvals within that jurisdiction is satisfactory; 6) Where an allocating authority does not use a random allocation system for IPES allocations after December 31, 1988, its allocations to parcels which are ranked below the line existing on January 1, 1989 may not exceed the number of allocations which would otherwise occur if chosen by a random system. 7) Allowable land coverage for parcels evaluated under IPES shall be a function of the parcel's IPES rating as set forth in Goal #3, Policy 1.C. of the Land Use Subelement. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.


3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.2: A maximum of 2,600 2000 additional residential units may be authorized to receive permits for construction under this plan, except that this limitation shall not apply to affordable housing units as described in the housing subelement. Development of additional residential units shall be allocated as follows:

A. A maximum of 1,000 additional residential units may be authorized to receive permits for construction during the first five years of the plan. The allocations assigned yearly to each jurisdiction shall be linked to the local jurisdiction’s performance on 1) measured water quality benefits, 2)permit compliance, 23) implementation of water quality improvement projects that contribute to achieving TMDL targets, and 34) Monitoring, and 5) measureable progress toward threshold.

Any unused allocations shall be assigned to the allocation pool administered by TRPA. The maximum annual allocation shall not exceed 200 units.

B. Additional residential allocations may be authorized up to the maximum permitted under this plan after the first five years. The allocations shall be linked to the local

182



jurisdiction’s performance on; 1) permit compliance, 2) implementation of water quality improvement projects that contribute to achieving TMDL targets, and 3) Monitoring. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

4. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.2; IMP-8: Residential

Allocations would continue to be allocated under the existing system and regulatory structure with the following changes:

* 10% of annual allocations would be reserved for a Resident Occupancy Program.

* Approximately between 0 to 2,000 2,600 new residential allocations would be made available based on measured progress towards threshold attainment and maintenance. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

5. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.2; IMP-9: Residential Bonus Units. Assignment of the 1,000 bonus units remaining from the 1987 Regional Plan would be available only in updated community plans assigned as receiving areas for bonus units districts designated as PTOD areas.


6. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.3: A maximum of 252 Development of the remaining tourist accommodation bonus units shall be allocated as follows from 0 to 342 based on measureable progress towards attainment of the thresholds and until at least 75 percent of the banked TAUs have been utilized from the 1987 regional plan may be permitted under this plan. Development of additional tourist accommodation units shall be allocated as follows: A. The allocations may be used for Special Projects or in conjunction with a transfer of development pursuant to Goal PR-4, Policy PR-4.2 of this subelement.


7. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.3; IMP-10: TAUs. The

number of TAUs available would be the 342 TAUs remaining from the 1987 Regional Plan. There would be no new TAUs.


8. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.4: The amount of CFA remaining from the

1987 Plan may be permitted and will be allocated as follows: No remaining CFA will be allocated until at least 70% of all vacant CFA as of 2010 has been utilized A maximum of 200,000 square feet of additional gross commercial floor area may be permitted under this plan. Development of additional commercial floor area shall be allocated as follows: The commercial floor area allocation for the Regional Plan shall focus on the implementation of projects listed in the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP), achieving TMDL load reduction targets, promotion of the transfer and rehabilitation of

183



substandard development, and creating compact mixed-use walkable town centers and communities. A. A maximum of 200,000 of additional commercial floor area may be permitted after adoption of the plan. The release of the commercial floor area shall be linked to the local jurisdiction’s performance on 1) permit compliance, 2) implementation of water quality improvement projects that contribute to achieving TMDL targets, and 3) Monitoring. The commercial floor are shall be assigned as follows; 1) 40,000 square feet shall be retained by TRPA for distribution in conjunction with a transfer of development. B. The term "additional commercial floor area" shall not include tourist accommodation area, or outdoor recreation floor area, or their accessory uses, as defined by ordinance. Additional commercial floor area shall not include area added in minor remodeling of existing commercial facilities so long as no change in use occurs, there is no added traffic as a result, the increase is no more than 500 square feet or five percent of the existing facility, whichever is less, and the appropriate coverage rules apply. The exception for minor remodeling is limited to one project for a facility in a ten year period. C. Structures housing gaming shall be considered separately under the provisions set forth in the compact.


9. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 3.4; IMP-11: CFA. The

CFA remaining in the 1987 Regional Plan (see Alternative 1) would be available plus of 200,000 additional square feet reserved for transfer of development only. CFA would be distributed with incentives as a matching reward to projects proposing transfer of commercial floor area from sensitive lands to districts designated as Town Centers and Tourist Centers appropriate community plans. * TMDL Linkage. Distribution of new CFA would be determined by evaluating the success of these implementing strategies and progress toward TMDL interim targets (see also EIP Subelement). * When sufficient progress toward TMDL interim targets is verified, irrevocable commitment projects would be required to be constructed prior to release of CFA. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.


10. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 5.2: New residential, commercial, tourist and public projects will completely offset their provide water quality impacts benefits through one of the following methods: A. Implementing off-site erosion and runoff control projects as a condition of project approval and subject to Agency concurrence as to effectiveness, or B. Contributing to a fund established by the Agency for implementing off-site erosion and runoff control projects. The amount of such contributions is established by Agency ordinance. This policy continues the water quality mitigation funds established as part of TRPA's Lake Tahoe Basin Water Quality Management Plan. The fee schedules and distribution formula shall be reviewed and revised as part of the Agency's implementing ordinances and programs. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

184



Environmental Improvement: Goal-2

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al.; Policy 2.1; New IMP: A regional revenue source such as a basin-wide entry fee, parking fee, or transfer tax) would be selected and implemented as part of the RPU. If a regional revenue source is determined to be infeasible at present, then local government would be required to develop and contribute appropriate sources, with eligibility for both regulatory incentives and EIP investments dependent upon achievement of performance standards.



2. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Policy 6.1: EIP project implementers and funding entities will report annually to TRPA on the threshold related accomplishments of program accomplishments and funding expenditures.



3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Goal 7.1: Project effectiveness, status and trend monitoring on threshold attainment and maintenance shall be incorporated into the EIP.


4. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al.; Goal 7.2: Develop an annual procedure that allows

EIP science program results and project effectiveness in attaining and/or maintaining the thresholds to inform and guide EIP capital project development and implementation.


185



Education and Outreach: Goal-1 1. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.1; New IMP: The TRPA

will create an outreach program to ensure that the public is informed about upcoming key decisions and that the public has adequate opportunity to participate in the formation of these decisions.


186



Monitoring and Evaluation: Goal-1

1. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Goal 1.1: Monitoring Program: Implementation/interagency cooperation - In cooperation with other regional agencies and institutions, TRPA will develop, implement, and maintain a regional scale status and trend monitoring and evaluation program on a scale commensurate with the standards and indicators being monitored in order to assess environmental conditions relative to established numerical threshold standards and/or desired conditions for the Lake Tahoe region. Where indicators are not monitored by partner entities, TRPA will ensure all required threshold indicator monitoring occurs.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Develop

basin wide protocols for researchers and managers that are standardized methods for ecological measurement and monitoring consistent across the Basin.


3. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 1.2: Use the Lake Tahoe management system

to guide the implementation of the regional status and trend monitoring and evaluation program - TRPA will implement and maintain program management systems for the status and trend monitoring and evaluation program in order to improve its effectiveness and ensure that new scientific information is brought forward for consideration by decision-makers. The documentation for the management system will detail the process for incorporating research and monitoring results and recommendations into regulatory and management decision making.


4. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 1.3: Funding - TRPA will actively coordinate

and seek cooperation from other land management and regulatory agencies, and research institutions, to fund and implement regional status and trend monitoring and evaluation program activities.


5. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 1.5: Reporting - Information generated through

status and trend monitoring efforts will be readily available and reported through various forms of media to agency representatives, researchers, stakeholders, and other interested public on a regular basis. Where possible, real-time information will be made available to the public online.


6. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.5; New IMP: Each year

TRPA will request an Accomplishment Report from the science community that is a synthesis of the results of research and monitoring projects that occurred in the last year. This report will summarize findings related to management needs. The report will also identify additional research needs in order to address management questions.

187




7. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.5; New IMP: Develop and maintain an internet website that provides real-time monitoring data for appropriate indicators. Where direct data is not readily available to TRPA, a link from this website will be provided for the public to access the information that is located on another website.


8. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.5; New IMP: Promote the

collection and reporting of real-time monitoring data for appropriate indicators.


9. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; Policy 1.6: Adopt numeric threshold standards & indicators - where appropriate and science-based evidence exists, TRPA will identify new or replace qualitative or vaguely articulated threshold standards and standards and/or indicators that are deemed outdated or inadequate by best available science with numeric threshold standards that best represent desired environmental values and adopt associated indicators that quantitatively measure environmental conditions and characterize divergence from threshold standard attainment. The aim is to improve the agency’s ability to objectively, consistently and comprehensively assess environmental conditions and trends.


10. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 1.8; IMP-5: TRPA staff will

work with local jurisdictions and other entities to include make available to the public economic information into reporting products.



11. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.3; IMP-8: TRPA will work with members of the scientific community in the Basin, including the Tahoe Science Consortium, to develop a definition for the scientific method. TRPA will include a this definition of the scientific method in the Code of Ordinances.


12. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.4; IMP-9: TRPA in

coordination with other agencies and the science community will continually update and maintain a list of research and monitoring needs and priorities.


188



13. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 2.4; New IMP: Each year TRPA will request an Accomplishment Report from the science community that is a synthesis of the results of research and monitoring projects that occurred in the last year. This report will summarize findings related to management needs. The report will also identify additional research needs in order to address management questions.



14. Suggested Implementation Measure: LSLT et al; Policy 3.1; New IMP: TRPA will ensure that monitoring and research data is housed in one central location and available to the public.


15. Suggested Policy: LSLT et al; New Policy: Ensure that monitoring projects that

involve hydrologic parameters take into account potential changes of these parameters by climate change.


189

Appendix E Suggestions recommended as viable for inclusion into the EIS alternatives – All Others


LAND USE 1. Suggested Implementation Measure: Brian Krolick, Lt. Governor of Nevada;

Alternative 2; New IMP: Adopting a special district transect respecting property rights recognized under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: Brian Krolick, Lt. Governor of Nevada;

Alternative 2; New IMP: Encouraging reconstruction of outdated structures housing gaming, consistent with their existing height, however, set back from Highway 50, provided the new structures result in improved scenic quality, water quality, and air quality.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: Bryon Sher, TRPA Governing Board Member; Alternative 4; New IMP: Should existing maximum height standards be maintained, with exceptions allowed only as an incentive to retire development from sensitive land which is restored to its naturally functioning and infiltrating state?


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: Heavenly Resort; Alternative 2; New IMP: Within approved Ski Area Master Plans, allow Multi-Family Residential, Tourist Accommodation and Commercial uses and appropriate densities on private base area lands, including the mechanisms necessary to develop such uses (e.g., allocating land use commodities to and designating private base area lands as receiving areas for transfer of development rights); allow additional building height up to 75 feet for residential, mixed use and hotel redevelopment projects on private base area lands; and designate CNEL standards appropriate to the use (e.g., seasonal snowmaking activities).


5. Suggested Implementation Measure: Heavenly Resort; Alternative 3; New IMP:

Eliminate the provision in Chapter 18 requiring an accessory use to be located on the same parcel as the primary use, or replace “on the same parcel” with “within the same project area.” While such a requirement is perhaps appropriate for a single residence or commercial facility on one parcel, it is overly restrictive for uses within common interest developments, residential and commercial, which are comprised of multiple parcels.


6. Suggested Implementation Measure: Heavenly Resort; Alternative 3; New IMP:

Include in the new multi-season resort definition outdoor recreation uses (e.g., outdoor amusements) and those uses that can take place outdoors (e.g., amusements and recreation services) that were previously classified as commercial uses.


190



7. Suggested Implementation Measure: Douglas County; Alternative 2; New IMP: Encourage the redevelopment and relocation of the Stateline casino core improvements within their existing height parameters while allowing for flexible setbacks to encourage the placement of buildings away from the street and the development of interesting streetscapes.


8. Suggested Implementation Measure: Douglas County; Alternative 2; New IMP:

Because the Stateline casino core has the highest density in an existing urban setting, the casino core should be identified with its own transect zoning to accommodate necessary environmental improvements.



Encourage and create incentives to transfer density into the Stateline casino core and retire density and restore sites outside of the Stateline casino core.



Exempt out "re-locatable coverage" (coverage that is temporary and does not have a permanent foundation) that is 120 square feet or less on high capability lands and that does not require a grading permit under the code.


11. Suggested Implementation Measure: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2;

Policy 1.2; IMP-2: Amend to recognize a new transect classification or special district, namely the casino core district. The new language would read: “Amend Chapter 13, Plan Area Statements and Chapter 14, Community Plans to establish and define the “11” transect based planning districts.” ALTERNATIVELY, the casino core could be classified a special district if special districts were modified to include mixed uses.



Policy 1.2; IMP-9: There should be several different classifications of PTOD with different height and density incentives. For example, the T-5 tourist center and casino core special district (CCSD) should receive greater height and density incentives than a neighborhood center because they serve larger populations.



Policy 1.2; IMP-11: The language should be amended to add the new CCSD “Amend Chapter 13, Plan Area Statements and Chapter 14, Community Plans to designate high density residential areas, Neighborhood Centers, Tourist Centers, and the Casino Core Special District as preferred areas for PTOD.”

191




14. Suggested Implementation Measure: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; Policy 1.2; IMP-13: The minimum density areas should include TAU’s as well as residential density to be sure that areas of high tourist accommodations are considered PTOD.



Policy 1.2; IMP-15: There should be a higher density higher height mixed use district for the Casino Core Special District.



Policy 1.2; New IMP: There should be an implementation measure providing incentives for existing property owners on Highway 50 in the Casino Core Special District (and possibly other districts) to animate and create a friendlier pedestrian street environment. Such incentives could include: increased height, increased density, PTOD designation, grants, and the elimination of the CFA purchase requirement for opening up a restaurant or retail use to a structure housing gaming in order to animate the street.

Other new implementation measures should include: Encouraging the redevelopment and relocation of SHGs within their existing 15 to 20 story height parameters, however, setback and relocated from the travel route to encourage improved scenic quality and thereby enhance attainment. Creating incentives to provide private land for transportation improvements including, but not limited to, bike lanes and the re-routing and narrowing of US Highway 50, and to develop pedestrian friendly streetside amenities, such as restaurant and retail frontage, by providing either an exemption from commercial floor area (CFA), acknowledging the frontage to be accessory to the primary use or, alternatively, allocating CFA thereto in consideration of the transformation of the current blank wall character to an animated pedestrian oriented streetscape. Encouraging the transfer of tourist accommodation units (TAUs) from outside the Loop Road to within the casino core and, upon restoration of the sending site, a bonus TAU to match the transferred unit on a one-to-one basis. Creating additional incentives to enhance regional stormwater treatment, reduce land coverage and increase scenic quality by allocating TAUs and CFA to incentivize environmental redevelopment. Incentivizing shared parking within the casino core. Adopting a CNEL standard that permits one of the ongoing successful activities, Harvey’s Outdoor Concert Series, to be compliant with the updated plan.

192



Eliminating the requirement to control development resources (e.g. TAUs) necessary for project implementation at the time of application and deferring this extremely expensive requirement to permit acknowledgement. Receiving site recognition of vehicle trips attributable to transferred units since the actual number of units is not increased. As you know, the current practice does not do so. Existing policy creates an additional disincentive to redevelopment since the applicant must purchase an existing trip-generating TAU and restore the sending site yet, upon transfer, the TAU’s impacts are assessed as if it were a new or additional TAU rather than existing and transferred. Permitting both on and off-site project mitigation. Creating incentives to permanently restore and retire low capability lands in exchange for development of high capability lands outside the urban boundary but in proximity to the urban core. Creating incentives for private land owners to allow road construction through their property to serve the public healthy and safety by permitting development on contiguous high capability lands. Generally embedding sufficient economic incentives in the RPU to avoid the continual decline of the built environment, the latter of which would merely accelerate the contribution of pollutants of concern to the Lake.



Policy 1.2; IMP-16: There should be different height incentives for the Tourist and Casino Core Special District.



Policy 1.2; IMP-17: Change to read, ”Amend Chapter 20, Coverage to raise the maximum allowable coverage to 70% for commercial tourist accommodation, and mixed-use facilities and to a 5-10% reduction of existing coverage in the Casino Core Special District.



Policy 1.2; IMP-23: Add a specific reference to the Casino Core Special District as follows: “…and reuse of existing commodities in the nine transect districts designated as Town Center or Tourist Center and the Casino Core Special District. An additional 400,000 square feet for land use districts designated as Town Center, Tourist Center, Neighborhood Center, and the Casino Core Special District”


193



20. Suggested Implementation Measure: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; New IMP: Eliminate the “policy” that requires “control of TAU’s” at submittal and replace with a “policy” that requires control of TAU’s at time of permit acknowledgement.


21. Suggested Implementation Measure: Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance; Alternative 2;

New IMP: The RPU should designate the casino core as a special district in which relocation and reconstruction of outdated structures housing gaming, while maintaining existing height, is encouraged provided the redevelopment achieves significant scenic, water and air quality benefits.



New IMP: RPU should incentivize the use of private lands within the Casino Core Special District for bikeways, sidewalks and landscaped improvements to promote a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere and reduce vehicle trips and VMT.



New IMP: Allocation of tourist accommodation units and commercial floor area should also be allocated to the Special District to serve as a match for like commodities transferred from sensitive lands that are restored and permanently retired.


24. Suggested Implementation Measure: Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority; Alternative 2;

New IMP: Create a Special District for the casino core to allow existing height to be maintained if the buildings are setback from US 50.


25. Suggested Implementation Measure: Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority; Alternative 2;

New IMP: Allocate TAUs and CFA to the Special District or permit land use commodities to be transferred to the Special District from sensitive lands that are restored and permanently retired from future development.


26. Suggested Implementation Measure: Placer County; Alternative 3; New IMP:

Maintain consistency with existing and proposed Placer County land use regulations including: adding to one of the proposed alternatives a modification to the definition of "domestic animal raising" to allow for the keeping of chicken hens.


194



27. Suggested Implementation Measure: South Shore Chamber of Commerce; Alternative 2; New IMP: Incentives should include Creating a Special District for the South Stateline Casino Core which allows existing height to be maintained in relocating casino buildings, provided the relocation results in improved scenic quality.


28. Suggested Implementation Measure: South Shore Chamber of Commerce;

Alternative 2; New IMP: Encouraging the use of private lands for bike lanes, pedestrian facilities and streetscapes through the casino core to create a more pedestrian friendly experience and also assist in the attainment of air quality thresholds.


29. Suggested Implementation Measure: South Shore Chamber of Commerce;

Alternative 2; New IMP: Allocating TAUs and CFA to the Special District and/or permitting the transfer of such land use commodities to the Special District upon the restoration and retirement of sensitive sending parcels.


195



HOUSING

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: Placer County; Alternative 2; New IMP: A Housing Obligation Policy provision should be addressed in Alternative 2 and 4 to allow developers to bank or credit constructed affordable housing units that can later be sold to other developers in order to satisfy a housing obligation.


2. Suggested Policy: St. Joseph Community Land Trust; Alternative 2; Policy 1.1:

Provide building incentives such as increased density (including mixed affordable and market rate apartments and condominiums), bonus units and coverage allowances within the urban core areas for the development of low and moderate income housing units, provided that the housing is of good quality and contains amenities appropriately scaled to the development.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: St. Joseph Community Land Trust;

Alternative 2; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Allow residential bonus unit substitutions for existing single family residences within the urban boundary when these units are permanently deed restricted to affordable or moderate income housing. Allow banking of existing residential units of use for transfer from homes converted to affordable or moderate income housing



Alternative 2; Policy 1.1; New IMP: Develop minimum standards of quality and a menu of accessory facilities (such as laundry, children’s play areas, residential storage, maintenance rooms, community rooms, etc.) for developments of various scales.


5. Suggested Policy: St. Joseph Community Land Trust; Alternative 2; New Policy:

Establish funding sources for affordable and moderate income housing that are only available for projects in the region,



Alternative 2; New IMP: Work with HUD to establish a bi-state HOME Consortium with funding specifically dedicated to the region.



Alternative 2; New IMP: Encourage local jurisdictions to contribute to a regional affordable and moderate income housing trust fund with funds derived from transient

196



occupancy taxes from vacation rentals, recording fees for sales of luxury homes, donations, etc.



Alternative 2; Policy 2.1; IMP-5: The code will specify that developers may meet mitigation requirements through on-site units, off-site deed restrictions, or an in lieu fee that will go into a fund set aside for the development of units within the same county provided the mitigation units are of good quality and the in-lieu fee is sufficiently adequate to replace the unit being removed.


9. Suggested Policy: St. Joseph Community Land Trust; Alternative 2; New Policy:

Annually monitor affordable and moderate income housing in the region for compliance with TRPA deed restrictions and permit conditions of approval.



Alternative 2; New IMP: TRPA shall contract with a third party to annually monitor affordable and moderate income housing to ensure that these units are being used and maintained for their intended purpose. The third party shall report violations to TRPA for enforcement action.


197



WATER QUALITY

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: NDEP; Alternative 2; New IMP: Allowing funds to be spent only on effectiveness monitoring: while allowing expenditures on effectiveness monitoring is good, local jurisdictions should be permitted to fund monitoring programs that provide information on whether your actions are having an effect on the system. RSWMP is currently under development but due to funding constraints, it is likely that the effectiveness monitoring component will be dropped and that it will become a status and trends monitoring program for the TMDL urban stormwater source category.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: NDEP; Alternative 2; New IMP: Allowing only

25% of the funding for a one-time EIP program related administration and O&M: this is the largest issue that I see. The TMDL and Crediting Program are really poised to prompt jurisdictions to establish Tahoe specific stormwater programs. However, funding is a huge limitation. Allowing jurisdictions to spend monies on staffs would facilitate this. Keeping the 1:1 match requirement is a good stipulation to retain, however clarification needs to be provided that “local” mean from the jurisdiction – not federal or state monies. Moreover, reporting costs are likely to balloon once the Crediting Program goes online, and jurisdictions will need a variety of mechanisms to finance these increased costs. The same goes for O&M; and there are already a variety of funding opportunities for capital costs, however they cannot be used for O&M. The same argument applies to the purchase of sweepers. There are (limited) funding opportunities out there for these types of equipment, but one barrier to this is that jurisdictions cannot come up with funding to operate & maintain them. Therefore, funding should be allowed to fund O&M for them.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: Ron Gregg; Alternative 2; New IMP: Wildlife

Element of the regional plan. Implemented a bear aversion plan some 25 years ago. Some of the things included are: 1) Everyone is required to have a bear proof garbage container. No waiting until the property is sold. 2) The rangers shoot the bears who come to close with rubber bullets to scare them away. 3) The rangers fire very loud blanks to also scare the bears away. 4) And maybe the most important, violators of any bear aversion policy, like feeding the bears, leaving pet food out or not having a bear proof garbage container, are fined heavily.


198



COMMUNITY DESIGN

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; Policy CD-1.1; IMP-4: Revise proposed CD.IMP-4 to include the proposed Casino Core Special District as follows: Amend Chapter 22, Height to permit additional height within Transect Districts designated as Town Centers, Tourist Centers, Casino Core Special District, and Neighborhood General.


2. Suggested Policy: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; Policy CD-3.1.B.(1):

The policy should be amended to account for the proposed Casino Core Special District with heights that vary from approximately 150 -200 feet by adding, “Casino Core Special District” following “…tourist accommodation facilities” in the policy.


3. Suggested Policy: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; Policy CD-3.1.B.(2): The policy needs to be amended by adding at the end “…except in the Casino Core Special District.”


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: Placer County; Alternative 3; New IMP:

Maintain consistency with existing and proposed Placer County land use regulations including: allowance for a Wayfinding Signage program for the Lake Tahoe Basin.


199



TRANSPORATION

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; Policy T-2.4; IMP-5: Add Casino Core Special District to districts proposed for increased transit frequency.



Policy T-7.2; New IMP: Incentivizing shared parking within the casino core.

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept. 3. Suggested Implementation Measure: Placer County; Alternative 2; New IMP: The

measure to require Class I bike trails on both sides of a street in a redevelopment area is not only cost prohibitive to sustainable development, it is not physically feasible in most redevelopment communities in North Lake Tahoe.


4. Suggested Implementation Measure: Shelly Aldean, TRPA Governing Board

Member; Alternative 2; Policy T-1.1: Why are we only encouraging mixed use developments around transit stops in redevelopment areas? As a matter of policy I think we should be encouraging this type of development in a number of different geographical locations since developments with convenience shopping reduces the need for people to travel


5. Suggested Implementation Measure: Steven Merrill, Former TRPA Governing

Board Member; Alternative 2; New IMP: Congestion - I continue to be believe we need a standard for traffic congestion beyond VMT and LOS that addresses the specific issue of excessive delay time at certain “hot spots” in the Basin. The “hot spots” are intersections where the delay times are Level F but to such a degree that they are congested for reasons that are in addition to the volume of traffic. VMT’s effect air and water quality issues much more than localized congestion, so reducing VMT’s in these areas or applying normal mitigations will not significantly reduce congestion and delay times. Also, these intersections have a level of service lower than “F” and applying conventional mitigations will not reduce congestion. The new Regional Plan needs a section that identifies these intersections or traffic corridors and requires the development of plans tailored to each situation that will reduce the delay times. My suggestion is the plan designates a new LOS standard (for simplicity call it LOS “Fminus“) defined in terms of the delay time per vehicle plus number of vehicles so effected for a period of time and number of days in the year. Once the hot spots are identified and the degree of delay quantified, the Regional Plan would target levels of improvement with timelines. Improving such hot spots will involve much more than standard mitigations such as mix of check out times, timing of lights, etc,. Instead, they will require significant redesign of the intersections and roadways and consideration of

200



alternative transportation methods. Establishing this standard and requiring improvements will force communities and the Basin to put resources to these problems


201



WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: Caltrout; Alternatives 2; Policy 1.3: Consider changing language from “existing,” to native. This could imply protecting a warm water fishery. Also, giving stronger weight to protecting and restoring native non-game fish species coming from a food web approach would be desired.


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: Caltrout; Alternative 2; Policy 3.3: Consider developing a standard way to evaluate and score project elements for their enhancement or degradation to native aquatic species. Also, including the use of limiting factors for native aquatic species when determining the benefits from proposed projects from sources like CalTrout’s Meadow Restoration Fish Scoring Matrix would be encouraged. When possible, also consider changing sustainable and/or non-degradation to enhanced or restored.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: Caltrout; Alternative 2; Policy 3.6; Consider

measurable standards for self-sustaining populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout. Also, integrate planned recovery sites into standards for prioritizing habitat and project review.


202



PUBLIC SERVICE AND FACILITIES

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: Placer County; Alternative 3; Policy 1.4; IMP-1: Maintain consistency with existing and proposed Placer County land use regulations including: permitting requirements for cellular communication facilities in residential and along scenic roadway areas. Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept.

203



INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

1. Suggested New Policy: Jennifer Montgomery, Former TRPA Governing Board Member; Alternative 2 & 4; New Policy: “Deconstruction Approach” to restoration potential: Add a Policy to both Alternatives 2 and 4 encouraging entities of the Basin to secure funding sources (federal or otherwise) to pay for strategic purchases of economically and environmentally under-performing properties. The funds would also potentially pay for demolition of existing structures and subsequent site remediation and environmental restoration. This could create passive recreation opportunities, areas for stormwater management projects, and other beneficial environmental uses


204



PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULING

1. Suggested Implementation Measure: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; New IMP: Eliminate the policy” that requires “control of TAU’s” at submittal and replace with a policy” that requires control of TAU’s at time of permit acknowledgement.”


2. Suggested Implementation Measure: The Edgewood Companies; Alternative 2; Policy 3.4; IMP-4: The strategy should be amended to add the Casino Core Special District as follows: “…Special Projects CFA. An additional 200,000 square feet of CFA would be available for special projects located within districts designated as Town Centers and Tourist Centers and the Casino Core Special District.”

There should be an implementation measure providing incentives for existing property owners on Highway 50 in the Casino Core Special District (and possibly other districts) to animate and create a friendlier pedestrian street environment. Such incentives could include: increased height, increased density, PTOD designation, grants, and the elimination of the CFA purchase requirement for opening up a restaurant or retail use to a structure housing gaming in order to animate the street.


3. Suggested Implementation Measure: Shelly Aldean, TRPA Governing Board

Member; Alternative 2; Policy 2.11: Since we are basically readopting the IPES language from the existing plan, it could be inferred by the wording in this section that we are going to re‐evaluate each vacant residential parcel in the basin. Since I don’t believe this is our intention, I would suggest that we reword this section accordingly.

Rationale: Clarifies intent of policy

4. Suggested Implementation Measure: Steven Merrill, Former TRPA Governing

Board Member; Alternative 2; New IMP: Performance bonding of projects for completion, monitoring and maintenance of environmental improvements and mitigation measures. TRPA has been negligent in this regard and partially due to lack of resources, which this would help address. Without such monitoring and maintenance, required mitigations and environmental improvements do not work which is unacceptable

Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding a new concept. Suggested New Policy: Mara Bresnick, TRPA Governing Board Member; Alternative 2 & 4; New Policy: Add a policy to both Alternatives 2 and 4 requiring bonding or other financial security to assure site restoration for failed and partially completed projects and the completion of all environmental mitigations required by project approval Rationale: Broadens the range of alternatives by adding regulatory restrictions.

205



MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION 1. Suggested New Policy: Mara Bresnick, TRPA Governing Board Member;

Alternative 2 & 4; New Policy: Encouraging entities of the Basin to secure funding sources to pay for long-term monitoring and evaluation


206

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: January 19, 2011


From: TRPA Staff

Subject: Discussion and Direction to Staff on Regional Plan Update Schedule, Scope, and Process

Requested Action: Governing Board direction on the future schedule, scope, and process for completion of the Regional Plan Update (RPU). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Governing Board review the information in this memorandum and direct staff to manage the future schedule, scope, and process for completion of the RPU (as described in the Discussion section below). Requested Motion: To approve the staff recommendation, the Board must make the following motion:

• A motion to direct staff to manage the RPU schedule, scope, and process (as described in the Discussion section below) so that the Plan can be completed in an efficient, competent, legally-defensible manner that reflects the highest priorities of TRPA and the Tahoe Basin.

For the motion to pass, an affirmative vote of any eight (8) Board members is required. Background: The RPU was begun in 2002 and has proceeded in various stages, including the Pathway Forum (a public process that solicited significant scientific input on the TRPA Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities) and the Place-Based Planning process (which solicited the input of over 2,500 individuals from 2005 to 2008). In 2009, then-new Executive Director Joanne Marchetta formed the RPU Team. The team’s task was: 1) to take the documentation and input generated between 2002 and 2008 and synthesize it into four distinct alternatives to be studied with an Environmental Impact Statement, and 2) deliver a completed RPU. At the September 23, 2009 Governing Board meeting, staff presented the “Plan for the Plan,” which the Board unanimously approved. The main concepts were to:

• Divide the RPU into sets of related topics called “Milestones.” o Each Milestone would culminate in a meeting with the Board and the

Advisory Planning Commission (APC). This would allow the Plan to be digested in reasonably-sized pieces, rather than as one great whole.

• Precede each Milestone meeting with a comprehensive stakeholder process to o pre-vet the issues, o resolve minor differences off-line, rather than at public meetings, o identify the major issues to be resolved by the Board, and

AGENDA ITEM VII.C. 207

o document everything for the sake of transparency, but present the issues in plain English.

• Divide the process into four distinct parts: o Phase One Milestones – high-level conceptual direction to staff o Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) o Phase Two Milestones – specific direction to staff on implementation of

Phase One concepts o Review and approval of the Final EIS and adoption hearings for the RPU

At the October, 2009, Board meeting, staff presented a schedule with a target month for RPU completion of December 2011. In August 2010, this schedule was amended with a new target date of February 2012 to accommodate changes to the EIS schedule. The Phase One Milestones were completed in July 2010. At the next Board meeting, the Board discussed allowing additional input to the EIS alternatives before moving on to Phase Two and tackling implementation issues. There was a vote of the Board directing staff to continue to accept input until October 13, 2010. By mid-October, staff had received about 350 pages of suggestions from 26 Board members and stakeholders. Analysis of this input took until January of 2011. Because of this effort and the fact that the EIS alternatives have not been formalized, the target RPU completion date of February 2012 is no longer accurate. Discussion: The EIS alternatives that are currently being contemplated are based on an open-ended scope. They were not developed with the cost of analyzing all of them in mind or a defined set of priorities for Regional Plan amendment (i.e., what amendments would best accelerate environmental gain). The last year of the RPU process and some of the scheduling challenges outlined above provided a different picture of the time and resources needed to move issues through analysis and Board decision. Also the federal court’s vacating of the TRPA’s Shorezone Ordinances in September of 2010 served to encourage the application of additional legal and analytical rigor to enhance the legal defensibility of the RPU. The RPU’s target completion date has been pushed back, the cost of the work is expected to increase to support the additional analytical and legal rigor needed, and there are budget concerns and constraints to contemplate. Therefore, the RPU schedule, scope, and process must be managed so that the Plan can be completed in an efficient, competent, legally-defensible manner that reflects the highest priorities of TRPA and the Tahoe Basin. Besides time, available funding, and legal defensibility, another major reason to manage the scope of the RPU is Strategic Plan conformity. Per the TRPA Strategic Plan (approved by the Board in July 2010), one of the four main pillars of the Agency is to accelerate environmental gain on the ground. Focusing on the portions of the RPU that will deliver the most environmental gain conforms to the Strategic Plan.


The guiding principle for amending the scope of the RPU would be to focus on the parts of the Plan that:

1) Protect the Tahoe Basin from emergent threats: The parts of the RPU that deal with invasive species and catastrophic threat need to be updated.

2) Respond to statutory requirements: California statute (i.e., AB 32, SB 375, and SB 575) requires that the TRPA Regional Plan serve as the Sustainable Community Strategy for Tahoe. The parts of the RPU that deal with Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality, and Sustainability need to be updated.

3) Support the implementation of the Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The TMDL represents the application of Federal Law – and the best science available. Implementing the TMDL will improve lake clarity. To do that will require changes to the land use pattern and the transportation system around the lake (most of the TMDL “pollutants of concern” come from the urban upland areas and the roads that serve them). The parts of the RPU that deal with Transportation, Land Use, and Water Quality need to be updated.

The current, broad scope of the RPU represents the valuable input and combined effort of the Board, the APC, partners, stakeholders, and staff over several years. However, managing the scope of the RPU for success will require a focus on the most important, emergent issues facing the Tahoe Basin today. To maintain the current scope would necessarily delay the response to emergent issues – like aquatic invasive species and TMDL implementation. This contradiction can be reconciled by reserving the issues that do not need immediate attention for future work (after RPU adoption). Focusing on the emergent issues of Water Quality, Land Use, Transportation, Invasive Species and Catastrophic Threats, Air Quality, and Sustainability would allow for the completion of the RPU in a way that would be:

• Possible, given the current budget • More timely • More considerate of a community that is waiting for the update of the Regional

Plan • Legally defensible • In conformity with the Strategic Plan • More effective at getting the most important strategies for Threshold gain

implemented This is why staff is recommending that the RPU schedule, scope, and process be managed using the above described approach, so that the plan can be completed in an efficient, competent, legally-defensible manner that reflects the highest priorities of TRPA and the Tahoe Basin. Contact Information: If you have any questions, please contact Harmon Zuckerman, Director, Regional Plan Update, at [email protected] or (775) 589-5236.



210

MEMORANDUM Date: January 19, 2011 To: TRPA Governing Board From: Joanne S. Marchetta, Executive Director Subject: Executive Director Report and Agency Work Program Priorities for January 2011 The Agency Work Program Priorities are as follows:

A. Regional Plan Update (RPU) B. Forest Fuels Management C. Aquatic Invasive Species Eradication Program D. EIP Implementation E. Shorezone Program Implementation F. Community Enhancement Program

Highlights of these programs follow: A. Regional Plan Update Item VII.B of this month’s Governing Board will provide an opportunity for discussion of additional input to the Regional Plan Update EIS Alternatives. In addition, Item VII.C of the agenda will provide for a discussion and direction to staff on the Regional Plan Update scope and schedule. B. Forest Fuels Management The Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT) is creating its 2011 work plan and the Tahoe Basin Fire Protection Districts and Departments are in the planning phase for this year’s fuel reduction projects. These projects continue to be focused in the wildland urban interface (the area immediately surrounding a community) as well as inside communities to protect them from catastrophic wildfire. 2010 was another successful year and the TFFT year-end report will be out soon. The past few years have seen significant progress made toward protecting communities from catastrophic wildfire and 2011 will continue building on this success. Both the Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (MAC) and the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT) held year-end meetings last year. Funding is the hot topic during these difficult financial times as the Fire Protection District/Department funds will be mostly spent by the end of 2012. Thanks to SNPLMA/White Pine Bill funds, the Lake Tahoe fuels reduction program has been very successful. However, the continued success of the program will depend on new funding sources, such as the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.

AGENDA ITEM NO. X.A.1. 211

Enhancements to the Tahoe Basin Defensible Space Database continue. This tool is in full use by all the Tahoe Basin Fire agencies. Despite not being fully funded, great strides continue to be made in the functionality of this database and TRPA is playing a significant role in the maintenance of this database. TRPA continues to work with the US Forest Service on the Angora Fire Restoration Project, Spooner Fuels Reduction Project and Carnelian Bay Fuels Reduction Project. Check out the “Get Defensive” campaign at www.tahoefiresafe.com and the Living With Fire program at www.livingwithfire.info. Also, know that Lake Tahoe Wildfire Awareness Week is coming this May, 2011! C. Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Eradication Program The following are highlights of work that has been performed by TRPA staff and agency partners since the last update in December related to aquatic invasive species (AIS). AIS inspections continue during the winter season at Cave Rock, Lake Forest and several private facilities. To address the need for additional decontamination capacity, TRPA staff, using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funding, purchased a high capacity boat wash unit. This unit will provide decontamination at the Meyers inspection station by appointment throughout the winter season to test this unit’s function and ability to operate in inclement weather. TRPA and Tahoe RCD staff are working with our public and private partners in the watercraft inspection program to plan for this year’s program. A complete briefing on the 2011 watercraft inspection program is scheduled for March Governing Board. TRPA staff is working with our partners in the Lake Tahoe AIS Program to finalize our year-end report. The draft of this report, as well as the potential project list for 2011 control, prevention, and monitoring projects is scheduled to be presented to the Lake Tahoe AIS Coordination Committee later this month. The complete 2011 AIS Program work plan will be developed in February. D. EIP Project Permit Processing and EIP Update The completion of Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) projects helps TRPA meet its environmental thresholds. Over 50 of these projects are currently active, in various states of progress from planning to construction. Many of these projects are being guided by Technical Advisory Committees consisting of staff from implementing, funding and regulatory agencies. A small sample of projects and activities currently underway include:

• Douglas County proposes to construct the South Demonstration Project, a separated shared-use path located on the west side of U.S. 50 between the casino core and Roundhill Pines Beach. The Joint TRPA and NEPA Draft Environmental Assessment for the project is available for public comment and will conclude on Monday, February 14, 2011.

• Several major stream channel restoration projects in different stages, from pre-project review to construction nearly finished. The Upper Truckee River (UTR) Restoration and Golf Course Reconfiguration project EIR/EIS/EIS public comment period closed on November 15. Several other UTR restoration projects are under review between Lake


http://www.tahoefiresafe.com/

http://www.livingwithfire.info/

Tahoe and the Golf Course reach. Projects on other streams include Angora Creek, Rosewood Creek, Third Creek, Incline Creek, Blackwood Creek and Ward Creek.

• Caltrans is moving forward on improving highways in the Tahoe Region including: Highway 50 from Trout Creek to Ski Run Boulevard, Highway 89 from Tahoma to the Tahoe City Y, Highway 50 from the airport to the Y, Highway 89 from the Y to Cascade Road, and Highway 50 from Echo Summit to Johnson Pass Road. Caltrans is near completion on the Riverside project on Highway 89 from Tahoe City to Alpine Meadows Road, and Highway 267. Projects currently under construction and winterized for the season include Highway 28 from Tahoe City to Kings Beach, and Highway 89 from Meyers to Luther Pass.

• The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is continuing its water quality improvement project on Highway 207 (Kingsbury Grade). In 2011 NDOT plans to begin construction on 2 more water quality improvement projects: Highway 50 from Cave Rock to Spooner Summit and State Route 28 at the intersection of Highway 431 to the state line at Crystal Bay.

• A portion of the South Tahoe Greenway Shared Use Trail Project from Sierra Tract to Van Sickle State Park is under staff review. TRPA has permitted the California Tahoe Conservancy drainage and stream environment zone restoration project on Ward Creek near Stanford Rock.

• Placer County tentatively scheduled construction of the Brockway Erosion Control Project, the Tahoe City Residential Water Quality Improvement Project, and the Lake Forest Erosion Control Project next summer.

• Washoe County is working on the Central Incline Erosion Control Project in Incline Village.

• Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID) has completed construction to replace culverts enhancing fish passage and water quality at Incline and Third Creeks under Incline Way, and plan to replace a culvert with a bridge on Lakeshore Boulevard at Incline Creek.

• El Dorado County continues to plan and build environmental improvement projects including the Christmas Valley Erosion Control Project, a new bridge over Angora Creek at Lake Tahoe Boulevard, the Sawmill 2 Bike Path and Erosion Control Project, Montgomery Estates Erosion Control Project, and the Rubicon V Erosion Control Project.

• Douglas County is constructing the Lake Village Water Quality Improvement Project and in the planning phase of the Warrior Way Erosion Control Project.

• The City of South Lake Tahoe is continuing work on the Sierra Tract Erosion Control Project, and the Al Tahoe Erosion Control Project. The City is also in the planning phase of the Bijou Erosion Control Project.

• The USDA Forest Service is constructing the Nevada Beach BMP and Accessibility retrofit project to improve water quality and ADA access. The USFS is continuing work on Blackwood Creek, Reach One, Channel and Floodplain restoration, and the High Meadows/Cold Creek Stream Restoration.

The Stormwater Management Team, formerly known as the Erosion Control Team, accomplishments include:

• Submitted grant funding applications totaling $260,000 for a NV 319(h) program and CA Proposition 50 supplemental funding.

• Hosted Pollutant Load Reduction Model (PLRM) trainings for multiple public water quality improvement project review agencies and TRPA staff. Funds to pay for the


project are from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection ARRA (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act) program.

• Significant properties recently retrofitted with BMPs include The Villas HOA near Tahoe City, Emerald Bay Post Office at the “Y”, and the Village Center in Incline Village at Southwood and Mays (nominated for Best in Basin).

BMP Certificates Issued Jan – Dec 2010

NV Single-Family 229 Multi-Family 49 Commercial 22 Lakefront 28 CA Single-Family 413 Multi-Family 151 Commercial 19 Lakefront 143 Total Certificates for 2010 1054 Total NV Certificates 328 Total CA Certificates 726 Total Single-Family Certificates (both states) 642 Total Multi-Family Certificates (both states) 200 Total Commercial Certificates (both states) 41 Total Lakefront Certificates (both states) 171

• The TRPA Stormwater Management Program and partners consisting of the Nevada

Tahoe Conservation District, the Tahoe Resource Conservation District, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service continue to work closely with private property owners to implement BMPs.

• The Draft BMP Handbook is currently under peer and internal review and is scheduled to be released in April.

E. Shorezone Program Implementation On September 16, 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California vacated the Shorezone Ordinances adopted on October 22, 2008. In response to this order the Governing Board, at its September 22, 2010 meeting, voted to implement a 90-day freeze on shorezone actions while the Agency assessed the situation. At the December Governing Board Meeting, the Board voted to:

1. Appeal the District Court decision vacating the 2008 Shorezone Ordinance amendments,

2. Explore an interim program for existing buoys, and 3. Continue the freeze on boating facilities for 6 months; allow the freeze to expire as to all

other shorezone permitting activities on December 21 (with administrative extension until Jan 17)


TRPA staff is exploring the feasibility of developing an interim mooring permitting and registration program for 2011. There have been several staff meetings to discuss the development of this program and the following programmatic requirements have been identified:

1. Be consistent with the appeal and any associated negotiations, 2. Have no impacts or have simple mitigation requirements, 3. Be widely supported, 4. Be consistent with pre-2008 Code format, 5. Be implementable by the Summer of 2011, and 6. Meet staffing and budget limitations

Staff has revised the TRPA Code of Ordinances, Plan Area Statements, and Community Plans to be consistent with pre-2008 shorezone regulations. These documents are now posted on the TRPA website. After the December Governing Board meeting, staff sent out a letter (1,100+) to all mooring registrants explaining the situation. Other shorezone (non-mooring) applicants (approximately 40) will receive notification specific to their application. TRPA held a stakeholder meeting on January 13 to help orient stakeholders to the revised regulations, application processes, and details of the freeze on boating facilities. TRPA is holding a meeting with our shorezone partner agencies on January 20 to have a similar discussion of the program. On January 18, staff began accepting shorezone applications for everything except boating facilities, to be reviewed under the pre-2008 Code of Ordinances. The freeze on boating facility applications will continue until June 21, 2011 but does allow maintenance, repair, and modifications to those structures. The 2010 boating season monitoring results have been collected and are now being analyzed. The results will become available in future reports. As reported to the stakeholders, the buoy enforcement/removal program is on hold pending resolution of the shorezone issues. Post-October 2008 applicants with pending applications or permits will not be subject to enforcement while TRPA pursues a resolution to the shorezone issues. However, there are still enforcement actions pending for other shorezone activities and TRPA fully reserves the right to pursue new violations. F. Community Enhancement Program

1. Boulder Bay

• Project Type - Mixed Use (Tourist, Residential, Commercial) • Lead Planner - David Landry, Senior Planner • Consultant - Hauge Brueck • Application Submitted March 18, 2008 • Environmental Gains Include

1. Areawide stormwater quality improvements (EIP project) 2. Completion of mini-park (EIP project) 3. Undergrounding of utility lines along Highway 28


AGENDA ITEM NO. X.A.1.

Current Status –The Boulder Bay representatives previously requested a temporary postponement of APC and Governing Board consideration of the Final EIS and proposed project in response to requests to allow maximum opportunity for public input and to hold further discussions with stakeholders. The final EIS and proposed project are now scheduled for APC and Governing Board action in March.

2. Homewood Mountain Resort

• Project Type - Mixed Use (Tourist, Residential, Commercial) • Lead Planner - David Landry, Senior Planner • Consultant - Hauge Brueck • Application Submitted - April 16, 2008 • Environmental Gains Include

1. Areawide water quality improvements 2. Enhancement of existing pedestrian circulation patterns 3. Create linkage with bike trail 4. LEED certification

Current Status – Staff comments on the Administrative Draft EIS have been provided to TRPA’s EIS consultant. The EIS consultant is in the process of completing the Draft EIS in preparation for circulation of the document for public review and comment in February.

3. BB, LLC

• Project Type - Mixed Use (Tourist, Residential, Commercial) • Lead Planner - Theresa Avance, Principal Planner • Consultant - AECOM • Application Submitted - December 4, 2008 • Environmental Gains Include

1. Areawide water quality improvements 2. Scenic improvements 3. Creation of public plaza 4. Enhancement of existing pedestrian circulation patterns 5. LEED certification

Current Status - Staff is waiting for the applicant’s consultant to prepare a suitable range of alternatives for EIS analysis.

Other projects: Ferrari Family Resort, Pastore Ryan, Former Mikasa Gateway, and South “Y” Center projects were granted a one-year extension of the reservation of commodities at the February 2010 Governing Board Meeting. Given that this extension expires in February, staff will be placing consideration of an additional extension on the Governing Board’s February meeting agenda for action.

216

217