South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 6, 2023

2023 Tourist Core Area Plan Amendments
Project Description
The City of South Lake Tahoe intends to amend the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) and submit a formal area plan amendment application to TRPA in the near future. The purpose of the amendements range from general improvements and a need for greater consistency with recently amended TRPA regulations, state regulations, and City goals, to increasing housing opportunities and community equity in appropriate areas. Summarized below are the more significant policy and regulatory amendments that the City intends to pursue.

LAND USE, COMMUNITY DESIGN AND HOUSING
Residential Density
In order to improve the effectiveness of Housing policies and achievement of Housing goals within the adopted TCAP, the City is pursuing increasing allowed density and setting miniminum density standards for multi-family developments in and around town centers as follows:
 A maximum density of 65 units per acre for multi-family residential development, based on the existing density standards in an area plan that permits a mixed-use project of residential and tourist units up to 65 units per acre. TRPA has determined that TAUs have a larger environmental impact with respect to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs) and carrying capacity of the Tahoe Basin. Thus the increase in density for multi-family uses would not have a significant effect on the environment or result in an increase of VMTs over baseline conditions. The current densities allowed for multi-family residential development do not allow for affordable housing projects to be eligible and competitive for grants and financing available through state and federal programs, resulting in development of low density, large market rate units. The City is also proposing to establsih a minimum density of eight units per acre for multi-family projects, consistent with the City’s General Plan. Allowing higher densities for multi-family developments and requiring a minimum density, without changing coverage and height limitations is intended to increase opportunities to develop affordable housing and drive private developments to smaller and higher density market rate units. These changes will provide more opportunity for much needed housing in areas close to amenities, allow more concentration of development within Town Centers and increase feasibility of housing, infill and environmental redevelopment projects in these areas.  To promote affordability by design, the amendments will consider establishing a maximum unit square footage for projects that utilize policy and development incentives established by the City and TRPA.
 Allowing density bonus referenced in TRPA Code of Ordinaces 31.4.1 be applicable to all properties where multi-family residential is an allowed use, including properties within Area Plans.
638
2023 TCAP Amendments: Project Description

 Required housing mitigation for any reduction in density from existing conditions.

These changes are directed by Programs 2-8 and 1-4 of the City’s General Plan Housing Element and anticipated to be under review by the state Housing and Community Development Department with expected implementation by December 2023.

Mixed-use Development
The City proposes to create incentives that encourage production of housing in areas where residential use is appropriate to the setting and where mixed-use projects could address job and housing needs. The incentives would include alternative parking requirements and streamlined permitting. This also includes increasing height from 56 feet to 65 feet in the TSCMU district so parcels would be able to accommodate 4 story mixed-use developments while maintaining a pitched roof design.

This change is directed by Program 1-1 of the City’s General Plan Housing Element and anticipated to be under review by the state Housing and Community Development Department with expected implementation by December 2023.

Housing Accommodations
Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities: To provide individuals, family members, caregivers, and/or anyone acting on behalf of the person with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing as feasible the city proposes to establish criteria for residential projects that would allow for modification of the TCAP standards. These modifications would address any needs for accommodation by persons with disabilities for additional land coverage for necessary site improvements beyond the additional land coverage allowances for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements in Chapter 30 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

Employee and Workforce Housing: To comply with the State Employee Housing Act the City will allow employee housing in the same locations as multi-family and multi-person residential projects (see “Permissible Uses” description below) and clarify employee housing does not need to be developed by the specific employer.

Residential Care Facilities: For consistency with California State Law, the City will specify that residential care facilities (group homes) of all sizes are allowed by right in all residential districts (see “Permissible Uses” description below).

These changes are directed by Programs 4-1, 4-2, 2-2 and 1-6 of the City’s General Plan Housing Element and anticipated to be under review by the state Housing and Community Development Department with expected implementation by December 2023.

Consistency with California State Law
AB-68: Allows accessory dwelling units as part of multi- and single- family residential properties. Clarify ADUs are subject to the South Lake Tahoe City Code. Define and clarify the difference between an accessory dwelling unit and TRPAs secondary units.

AB-682: Shared housing or co-living projects are eligible for density bonuses when a number of units are low or very low income. Update permitted uses and definitions to include shared housing or co-living and identify where they are allowed and when density bonus can be used. 639
2023 TCAP Amendments: Project Description

Permissible Uses
The City will reevaluate Appendix C’s Table 1, Permitted Uses By Land Use District, and Table 2, List of Primary Uses and Use Definitions, and consider the following adjustments:

 The City is proposing that where one of the following is curently allowed, all shall be allowed uses: multiple-family dwelling, multi-person dwelling, and employee housing.  Define residential care facilities (group homes) and allowed by right in all residential districts.
 Define shared housing or co-living projects in compliance with AB-682 and shall be allowed where the following uses are allowed: multiple-family dwelling, multi-person dwelling, and employee housing.
 Incooperate empolyee housing into the definitions of mutli-family dwelling and multiperson dwelling.  Identify where legal nonconforming uses exist and consider if these uses should be allowed.
 Clarify use definitions; for example, indoor sauna, spa, and hottub facilites are currently included in the use description for both Amusements & Recreation and Personal Services.
 Designate between large and small Amusement & Recreation uses. Currently the use category has no distinction for facilites of different sizes or capacities. The City is considering adding clarifying language such as what is included in Privately owned assembly and entertainment, which specifies the use is for facilites with a capacity of greater than 300 people.
 Include eating and drinking as an allowed use in TSC-MU rather than a special use.

Traffic and Circulation
Parking: The City will be proposing alternative parking standards in an effort to decrease the need for parking infrastructure and continue to allow more flexible parking standards and shared parking for mixed-use and other housing projects. This will be implemented through one or more of the following:
 Encouraging rental housing developers to unbundle parking and rent parking spaces separately from the units.
 Allowing housing developers to pay an in-lieu fee to support public transportation access to the project site in-lieu of some of the parking requirements.  Decrease in parking requirements for qualifying projects located within a distance of a transportation hub.
 Creating objective standards for variances to the established parking standards. 640
2023 TCAP Amendments: Project Description

These changes are directed by Program 1-3 of the City’s General Plan Housing Element and anticipated to be under review by the state Housing and Community Development Department with expected implementation by December 2023.

Complete Streets: Staff will review and update complete street policies and maps to match implementation feasibility including the following:
 Update “Proposed Improvements Section” with short list of projects originally identified that have been completed and a new list of Implementation Projects.  Update Figures and implementation projects for consistency with the TRPA Active Transportation Plan.
 Establish a policy for complete street connections between TCAP and Lake Tahoe.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: Staff will review and update project requirements for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure including:
 Update policies and standards to clarify requirements for sidewalk and trail maintenance/snow removal.
 Policy requiring frontage improvements consisting of sidewalk, drainage, and lighting improvements with new construction, additions of floor area, or significant remodels involving site work, unless waived by the Public Works Director.  Policy requiring off-site sidewalk connections to existing sidewalk. Establish a value of off-site (beyond frontage) improvements and/or contribution to transit that would trigger an allowed automatic reduction in parking requirement. Further reduction in parking requirement would require permanent deed restriction regarding parking management.

REVITALIZATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Commercial Floor Area and Outdoor Dining
The City would like to reduce barriers associated with establishing outdoor dining in appropriate areas. Although outdoor seating is currently not considered Commercial Floor Area (CFA), outdoor dining is. Outdoor dining and seating provide opportunities to create more active streetscapes but are distinguished from indoor seating by their less intensive use due to seasonal weather in the Tahoe Region. The City is proposing to exempt outdoor dining areas from CFA requirements similar to the current application of the regulation to outdoor seating.

Advertising for Accessory Uses
The City is proposing to amend sign regulations to allow independent signage for accessory uses. No changes to the maximum sign area or number of signs allowed for a property are proposed.
641
2023 TCAP Amendments: Project Description

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations & Sustainable Infrastructure A goal of the City of South Lake Tahoe is to remove barriers to sustainable infrastructure and achieve compliance with AB 1236 which requires ministerial permitting for EV charging stations and limits the ability to deny a permit to specific findings of adverse impact to public health or safety. Coverage has been a limiting factor where developments wish to install electric vehicle charging stations. Exempting EV charging infrastructure from counting towards coverage would allow for increased access to charging stations. Mitigation measures such as retiring coverage elsewhere in the watershed or allowing a percentage over maximum coverage for EV charging stations to be transferred to the site will be explored.

CFA Policy Clarification
Add a CFA policy clarifying that certain areas of recreation based primary commercial uses are exempt from CFA allocation. Examples include:
 The area of play in an indoor tennis court
 The area of water in an indoor swimming pool,
 The area for skating in an indoor roller- or ice-skating rink  The area dedicated to a climbing wall/climbing wall pit in a climbing gym  The play area of a miniature golf course

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Residential Standards and Review
The development and design standards generally do not differentiate between commercial and residential uses. These project types are often substantially different in form and design as they serve different purposes. Staff will be establishing different residential standards throughout the design standards, primarily by referring to the City Code Section 6.85 for Residential Development and Design Standards. These standards were adopted in compliance with California SB 35 and SB 330.

Currently, affordable housing projects require a higher level of decision maker consideration than market rate housing projects (TRPA Code Section 2.2). Proposed amendments would include new criteria for residential project review levels that treat affordable housing equal to market rate housing, exempting residential projects up to three units and residential projects that comply with objective development and design standards from discretionary and public hearing procedures.

Objective Design Standards (Commercial)
The current design standards address site design, building orientation and design, pedestrian access, bicycle parking, landscaping, lighting, signage, parking, driveway and loading spaces.

However, project aesthetic and visual quality is provided by the City’s Design Guidelines. The Guidelines currently provide a visual tool to guide project applicants on how to meet the required design standards in a manner that meets the desired aesthetic of the community. As part of Area Plan amendments staff will look to incorporate the concepts created in the Design Guidelines into objective standards to ensure that all projects meet the visual quality the City and TRPA is striving for. The objective standards may include, but would not be limited to, restricting the percent of stucco used, requiring minimum number of authorized materials, and requiring architectural features such as overhead canopies or brackets and overhangs. Staff 642
2023 TCAP Amendments: Project Description

will also be reviewing and updating established design standards if they do not sufficiently work toward addressing the Area Plan and General Plan goals and policies such as bicycle parking and pedestrian access.

Commercial Roof Pitch Requirements
Currently the Area Plan only allows for a roof slope of 5:12 to 12:12. Staff will be proposing criteria that allows for deviation from this standard when specific standards or findings can be made. Staff will also assess other aspects of height and roof standards to see what allowed flexibility can be added. The goal of this amendment would be to provide additional architectural opportunity for properties where the lots size, location, orientation, or use is restricted by the current standards.

Signage
Currently the Area Plan does not allow for the advertising of accessory uses. Staff is proposing to update the signage criteria to allow for accessory uses to have signage if they are within the allocated Base Reference Budget. The inclusion of accessory use signage will not increase the overall allowable signage in the area but will allow for business to advertise the diverse uses they offer. Additionally, throughout the signage requirements staff will be adding/modifying the text language to provide clarity where needed.

GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS
Area Plan Boundary Expansion Opportunities
Area Plans provide a unique opportunity for development. As part of the amendment process staff will be assessing parcels which boarder the area plan to see if underutilize properties may benefit from incorporation into the area plan. Areas currently being assessed for incorporation are two tourist accommodation parcels (APNs: 029-352-010 & 029-371-016) located adjacent to the TCAP. These parcels were identified for potential incorporation into the TSC-NMX district of the area plan as they could benefit from the increased density and coverage allowed in areas plans in order to facilitate additional redevelopment and housing opportunities in the vicinity of the town center.
643
2023 TCAP Amendments: Project Description

Zoning Changes
As part of the Area Plan amendment, staff will be processing a zoning amendment application to rezoning the area identified in red below from recreation to tourist center mixed use to accommodate higher density housing opportunities.

Green Incentive Program Updates
The city will be reviewing the green building incentives to ensure the current incentive are still feasible and identifying previous measures which are now required rather than optional based on California Building Code updates and city ordinances. Staff will also look to incorporate new policies and certification programs that have been implemented or seen success since the plans initial adoption.

Code Corrections and Consistency
General improvements that will be made to TCAP include correcting City Code and TRPA Code references and incorporating amendments implemented by TRPA through Ordinance 2021-01.

During the City’s public outreach and public review processes additional amendments may be identified for consideration. City staff will work closely with TRPA staff to ensure continuity and open communication throughout the process.

TSC-MU Zoning would allow:
• Residential Uses
• Tourist Accommodation
Uses
• General Retail and
Personal Service
• Professional Offices
• Resource Management
and Open Space Uses
644
May 15, 2023
City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council Members
Hilary Roverud, Planning Director
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Submitted via email
Re: Agenda Item #15: Tourist Core Area Plan: 2023 Amendments, Montreal Parcel Rezoning Dear City Council Members and Staff,
As a member of the 2012 Regional Plan Update (RPU) Bi-State Working Group, the League to Save Lake Tahoe (League) appreciates the opportunity to continue to work with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) to implement the RPU. Effective implementation of Area Plans is critical to this ongoing effort. The League thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) amendments.

The League has commented to both the City and TRPA during the Scoping period and on the CEQA documents for the standalone Montreal amendment. We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of APN:
029-441-024 on Montreal Avenue and request it be removed from the proposed TCAP amendment package.

Overview
The League does not support the proposed rezoning of APN: 029-441-024 from recreation to tourist center mixed use “to accommodate higher density housing opportunities.” This rezoning would be inconsistent with City and TRPA plans and intent. The Colony Inn parcel was intended to be permanently retired and the stream environment zone (SEZ) restored. The SEZ restoration attempt failed. Rezoning the last recreation/conservation land in the TCAP area does not align with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan or TRPA’s Regional Plan. High density workforce housing is currently allowed on the parcel under the Recreation zone. The owner of the parcel plans to build high-end short term rentals on the site if the rezoning goes through, and has attempted to achieve this rezoning through other efforts that the City did not support.

This seems to be under the guise of creating more housing, but we know that short term rentals are planned for the site. This rezoning was not included in the February 2022 Planning Commission TCAP amendment presentation and materials. This addition to the TCAP amendments appears to be a move by the land owner to go around the Planning Commission and City Council. City planning staff was going to recommend against this zoning change at the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and the applicant pulled the proposal.

We want the SEZ restored and corner parcel permanently protected. 645

SEZ Impacts and Site Suitability for Development
On March 18, 2008, the City passed a Resolution to permanently retire the Colony Inn site from future development as a condition of transferring the associated tourist accommodation units (TAUs) out of the City limits: “WHEREAS, the Colony Inn located partially Within an area identified for SEZ restoration, Once the Colony Inn is demolished, existing development will be transferred out of the SEZ and the site will be restored and permanently retired, thereby furthering the goals of the Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan and attainment of TRPA’s thresholds.” 1
The City included a Policy in the TCAP that aligns with its Resolution and approval of TAU transfers from the Colony Inn site: “Onsite land coverage reduction will occur primarily through environmental redevelopment by providing development incentives in centers that promote the relocation and transfer of land coverage. The City will endeavor, where feasible, to reduce and avoid creating new coverage in order to benefit the objectives of the TCAP and other areas of South Tahoe.”2 This language was discussed at the November 2013 TRPA Governing Board meeting, including whether or not to specifically include the Colony Inn site as a target restoration site. In the end, though a specific site was not targeted for restoration and the Colony Inn site was intended for restoration and permanent retirement as stipulated above.

The City needs to decide whether this amendment meets the intent of the General Plan and TCAP including the goals and policies contained within it. The City’s Attorney will also need to determine whether or not a new Resolution is required to allow this Area Plan amendment.

Between 2009 and 2013 the Colony Inn was demolished and the SEZ should have been restored, but the restoration failed. According to TRPA’s 2020 SEZ Baseline Report, the Colony Inn site (Colony Inn Meadows) restoration failed.3 The SEZ only ranked a “C,” indicating an unhealthy SEZ due to a ditch running through the entire project, dewatering the meadow and leading to loss of vegetation vigor.

With the proposed amendments, the coverage limit would increase from 30 percent to 70 percent, with coverage transfer on applicable lands with capability 4-7. Additional development around the SEZ where headcuts and ditches are present, significantly and irreversibly impact the SEZ which expressly violates the 2008 City Resolution and the intent of SEZ restoration. Regardless of the success of the SEZ restoration efforts, the site was to be permanently retired, in line with the City’s 2008 Resolution and enforced by TRPA’s approval of the Boulder Bay Community Enhancement Program Project EIS in 2009.4 In September, October, and November of 2013, the TRPA Regional Plan Implementation Committee (RPIC) and Governing Board had lengthy discussions internally and with the City and the public. One of the results of the discussion was the City reinforcing that it “wanted to identify [Colony Inn] as a priority site 1 March 18, 2008 City of South Lake Tahoe Staff Report and Resolution. http://slt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=181&meta_id=15886 2 October 15, 2013 TCAP. Policy NCR-4.1, page 7-3. https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/3508/Final-Tourist-CoreArea-Plan?bidId= 3 December 2020 Lake Tahoe Basin SEZ Baseline Condition Assessment. Report:
https://gis.trpa.org/TahoeSEZViewer/SEZ%20baseline%20condition%20assessment_v8.pdf; StoryMap:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/815a21db82944f7f95ce94d76c73a19b&sa=D&source=d ocs&ust=1652741001866899&usg=AOvVaw2791Wlh0aSr9wKajKr5gZW 4 November 4, 2009 Boulder Bay CEP Project EIS. https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/4_01_Land_Use.pdf 646

for getting the stream environment zone restoration completed.”5 Other outcomes relevant to these proposed amendments are enshrined in the TCAP itself:
● “The Colony Inn which was located in SEZ lands by the intersection of Montreal Road and Heavenly Village Way was demolished and 64,800 square feet of land coverage was removed and banked, and the site stabilized. The existing tourist accommodation units removed from the site are proposed for transfer to the Boulder Bay Project in North Stateline. A condition of the Boulder Bay permit requires that the property be restored to a functioning SEZ prior to the units being transferred.” Page 3-4. ● “The Tourist Core Area Plan responds to the needed SEZ improvements: Restore the disturbed SEZ on the Colony Inn parcel located along Montreal Road.” Page 7-5.

In July of 2013, the League submitted comments on the TCAP in its early stages of development, including a clarifying question about the Colony Inn site. The November 2013 TRPA Governing Board meeting included responses to comments and #8 directly addresses the Colony Inn site.6 While the Boulder Bay project has been long-delayed and is currently changing with new ownership of that site, TRPA’s transfer rules may still apply and the intent to permanently retire the site is clear.

TRPA Counsel will need to provide an analysis of the SEZ Restoration Credits and requirement to permanently retire and “stabilize” the site based on TRPA Code and TCAP approvals in 2013, and the final intent captured in TCAP.

Recreation/Open Space
In the TCAP, the parcels in question are zoned as recreation. While this questionably aligns with the intent in the General Plan, Recreation districts in the TCAP are “intended to allow a variety of recreation uses such as dispersed recreation and parks. Permissible uses include day use areas and group facilities.”7 The dispersed recreation use most closely aligns with the intent of the Conservation designation in the General Plan. When the TCAP was developed, the Conservation designation arguably should have translated to the Open Space designation which “is intended to preserve land in its present use that would: 1) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; 2) protect streams environment zones, sensitive lands, water quality or water supply; 3) promote soil and habitat conservation; 4) enhance recreation opportunities; and/or 5) preserve visual quality along highways, roads, and street corridors or scenic vistas. The land is predominantly open, undeveloped, or in a lightly developed and is suitable for any of the following: natural areas, wildlife and native plant habitat; erosion control facilities, stream environment zones, stream corridors; passive parks; and/or trails for non-motorized activities.”
8 This Open Space designation also aligns with TCAP policies NCR-2.3 and R2.3,9 which would be very difficult or impossible to implement or achieve if the proposed amendments are approved.
5 October 24, 2013 Meeting Minutes from TRPA RPIC meeting. Page 19. https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/January-29-2014-Governing-Board-Packet.pdf 6 November 20, 2013 Response to Comments on the TCAP. Response #8, Page 4. https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/6_FINAL_Attachment-E_Responses-to-Comments.pdf 7 October 15, 2013 TCAP. Page 5-6.
8 Ibid.
9 TCAP Policy NCR-2.3: Encourage the use and access to designated open space for passive recreation uses when they conform to resource restrictions
TCAP Policy R-2.3: Encourage landscaped, small passive parks in and around the Tourist Core 647

TRPA’s Regional Plan (RPU) was updated in 2012, between the adoption of the City’s General Plan and the TCAP. The IS/MND, in section 1.8, selected a few TRPA- specific and -referenced goals and policies that this project may support but the ones it may conflict with are not included which does not allow a fair assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to ROS2.9, ROS-2.10, ROS-2.11, Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3, Soils Goal 1 Policy 7, Open Space Goal 1, and Stream Environment Standard SC-2.

To comply with the City’s and TRPA’s land use designations and goals and policies related to open space and recreation, the “corner parcel” at 3828 Montreal Road (APN 029-441-003) needs to be permanently retired as Recreation or Open Space through a deed restriction on the parcel. This would include the access easement associated with the Colony Inn to the Van Sickle access road.

Summary and Recommendations
The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the land use designations or the majority of the relevant goals and policies in the RPU, TCAP, or General Plan. This proposed rezoning should be removed from the proposed TCAP amendments.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions.

Sincerely,
Darcie Goodman Collins, PhD
CEO League to Save Lake Tahoe
648
From: Nick Speal
To: PublicComment; Scott Robbins; John Friedrich; Cody Bass; Tamara Wallace; Cristi Creegan Subject: Public Comment Agenda Items 14 and 15: Area Plan Amendments Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 12:52:33 PM
Attachments: 2022.05.19 LTSLT Comments on TCAP Montreal Amendments IS-MND.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Councilmembers,
My name is Nick Speal and I am a member of the Planning Commission, but I am commenting today on behalf of myself alone without representing the commission as a whole.

I am pleased that the City is undertaking these Area Plan updates and very supportive of the initiative as a whole, especially in the following broad ways:

Taking steps to relieve the regulatory burden to affordable-by-design housing development
Activating our town centers and encouraging sustainable transportation Taking on this project in a simple expedited way with common-sense reform without much bureaucratic expense
Consolidating discrepancies where we have different regulations for very similar uses.

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding how the process works, but I am disappointed to not see any changes to the proposed Area Plan updates in response to our multi-hour Planning Commission meeting. It makes me question the utility of putting so much effort into the process. Please take a look through the separate PC Meeting Feedback document and direct staff to make the changes that the Planning Commission recommended, or perhaps the subset of them you most agree with.

For clarity, I have included here the highest priority changes that I personally would like to see to these proposals before they move forward to the TRPA.

General Changes to Both Area Plans
Allow Higher Density
I would like to see an increase or an elimination of the maximum density requirements within area plans or at least for certain districts within them. Density is already functionally constrained with maximum coverage rules and maximum height rules, and developers should be free to choose the units per acre within that footprint at their discretion. It's not fair that 5 studio apartments counts as 5 times the density of 1 five-bedroom house, and it's no wonder that our rules incentivize the construction of the latter. Zach Thomas described to the planning commission that 60 units per acre is the minimum density at which affordable housing projects are financially viable, and so I would recommend a higher maximum density limit that allows for more flexibility.

Eliminate Parking Minimums
I support the elimination of minimum parking requirements city-wide, but especially within these Area Plans. This does not mean that zero parking will be built if people want it, but it 649
just allows people who don't want to use a car to not be forced to pay for it. Rather than requiring an in-lieu fee or extra mitigation measures for developers that choose to not build parking, we should just allow this by-right. Luxury developments will still include parking.

But affordable-by-design developments might not, and it is counter-productive for the city to extract fees from them.

The Planning Commission notes on parking do not align with my memory of the meeting. I do not recall support for parking in-lieu fees. I do not recall consensus that increased transportation options are required to reduce the parking demand ratio. I do not recall support for the parking hub concept in our town center. I personally disagree with all three, and that could be coloring my memory.

Don't circumvent Commercial Floor Area and Coverage regulations I oppose the two proposed incentives to exempt developers from environmental regulations to encourage the kinds of developments that we want to see. Outdoor dining should not be exempt from CFA requirements and EV chargers should not be exempt from coverage limits.

If the City wants to incentivize these, it can donate the commodities, but I don't think we should be bypassing these systems intended to protect the environment.

Expand Area Plans to the Full Walkshed
I propose expanding both Area Plans to cover areas within walking distance to bus stops. We shouldn't necessarily expand areas zoned for tourist accommodation and commercial uses but we should increase the density, coverage, and height limits for residential development within a 15 minute walk of the bus stops in these areas, rather than picking and choosing individual parcels.

Protect residential housing uses
I don't have a solution but I'd like to hear a discussion about how to ensure that this new development we are encouraging will be used for full-time housing. I worry that the multifamily developments will be converted into single family condos that can then be used as second homes or vacation rentals, which Measure T allows within these commercial areas.

Tourist Core Area Plan Specifics
Reject the rezoning of the Colony Inn Parcel
"Staff will be incorporating a previously applied for zoning amendment application to rezone a parcel (APN: 029-441-024) from recreation to tourist center mixed use to accommodate higher density housing opportunities."
NO!! This seems to be under the guise of creating more housing, but we know what is proposed there. See attached letter from the League To Save Lake Tahoe last year. This was not included in the February 2022 Planning Commission TCAP amendment presentation and materials that I can find anywhere. This is a sneaky move by the developer to go around the Planning Commission and City Council. City planning staff was going to recommend against this zoning change at the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and the applicant pulled the proposal. I would like to see the SEZ restored and the corner parcel permanently protected.

Improve Waterfront Access
There might be an opportunity to improve public access to the waterfront by Beach Retreat as 650
a part of this amendment, which I would support, but I don't know how it could be done.

Thank you for your consideration,
Nick Speal
651
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 18
Agenda Item: City of South Lake Tahoe Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Results Executive Summary: In September 2022, consistent with the City Council's adopted 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, staff initiated the study to evaluate whether to pursue annexation of some or all of unincorporated El Dorado County in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Fiscal Impact Analysis (Attachment 02) looks at five annexation scenarios and compares the projected fiscal impact of each scenario. The City engaged with DTA, a public finance consulting firm, to evaluate the fiscal impact by analyzing property tax and sales tax revenues that potentially could be generated in each scenario and the cost to provide public safety and public works services in each scenario. Based on this analysis, only the Heavenly / California Base Lodge and Cleanup scenarios are fiscally prudent. It should be noted that the sales tax revenue projections are generated based on a model and are conservative assumptions.

The City Council is asked to provide direction regarding which, if any, of the five annexation scenarios to pursue.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion providing direction as to which, if any, of the five annexation scenarios to pursue. Options are: (1) Heavenly / California Base Lodge; (2) Cleanup parcels within City limits; (3) Golden Bear / Black Bart / Cold Creek / Montgomery Estates; (4) Meyers; (5) Tahoe Basin.

CEQA Determination: This action is statutorily exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) because it involves feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded.

Responsible Staff member(s): Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager and Heather L. Stroud, City Attorney Responsible Staff Member: Joseph Irvin, City Manager (530) 542-6043 Heather Stroud, City Attorney (530) 542-6046
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Attachments:
01_-_Staff_Report___Annexation_Scenarios.pdf
02 - Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Memo 6-1-23.pdf
03 - LAFCOs, General Plans, and City Annexations Guide.pdf 652
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: City of South Lake Tahoe Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Results Location: Various portions of unincorporated El Dorado County in the Lake Tahoe Basin Responsible Staff Member: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager (530) 542-6043 Heather L. Stroud, City Attorney (530) 542-6046

Background: In September of 2022, consistent with the City Council's adopted 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, staff initiated the study to evaluate whether to pursue annexation of some or all of unincorporated El Dorado County in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Fiscal Impact Analysis Memo (Attachment 02) looks at five annexation scenarios and compares the projected fiscal impact of each scenario. DTA, a public finance consulting firm hired by the City evaluated the fiscal impact by analyzing property tax and sales tax revenues that could be potentially generated in each scenario and the cost to provide public safety and public works services in each scenario. It should be noted that the sales tax revenue projections are generated based on a model and are conservative assumptions.

Issue and Discussion: The annexation scenarios include the analysis of the following scenarios which are further described in (Attachment 2):
• Heavenly Annexation Scenario: Encompasses the California base lodge area of the Heavenly Resorts (the “Heavenly Parcels”);
• Cleanup Annexation Scenario: Includes the Heavenly Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the Tahoe Valley Campground and Upper Truckee Marsh (the “Cleanup Parcels”);
• Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek, and Montgomery Estates (“GB-BB-CC-ME”) Annexation Scenario: Encompasses the Cleanup Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the residential neighborhoods commonly known as Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek, and Montgomery Estates (the “GB-BB-CC-ME Parcels”);
• Meyers Annexation Scenario: Includes the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the residential neighborhood commonly known as Meyers (the “Meyers Parcels”); and
• Basin Annexation Scenario: Includes the Meyers Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the territory commonly referred to as the Tahoe Basin (the “Basin Parcels”).
653
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 3
Revenue Projection Analysis Methodology:

The property tax revenues projected are specifically based on the City’s estimated share of the general 1% ad valorem property tax levy. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the City General Fund will receive 50% of the 1% ad valorem property tax levy allocable to the County General Fund, net of the projected Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”) property tax shifts, upon the annexation of each Annexation Scenario to the City. Notably, the 1% ad valorem property tax revenues for each Annexation Scenario are estimated based on the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021-22 basic 1% [Proposition (“Prop”) 13] property tax from Tax Rate Areas (“TRAs”) encompassing such Annexation Scenario and the FY 2022-23 taxable valuation of corresponding TRAs, per the County Auditor’s Office.

Additionally DTA utilized the Retail Market Power® Retail Stores Opportunity Gap analysis (the “Retail Report”), produced by EA, to identify retail supply characteristics of trade areas representing the Annexation Parcels to conservatively estimate sales tax revenues.

Expenditure Projection Analysis Methodology:

DTA utilized the Per Capita/Multiplier Approach to estimate the costs of providing public safety and public work to each Annexation Scenario, which involves calculating the average costs per Capita/Persons Served utilizing the fiscal year (“FY”) 2022-2023 City Budget and applying these cost factors to the estimated numbers of Persons Served within each Annexation Scenario. DTA has determined that utilizing a Persons Served population comprised of all residents and 50% of the employees working at locations within a given service area is common fiscal practice in generally quantifying the impacts of new service area if more specific local data or facilities usage data is not readily available. This ratio assumes that an employee would spend only 8 active hours in the city per day versus a resident who is active for 16 hours a day. This would yield an estimated Persons Served population of 30,171 based on 22,800 City residents and 50% of 14,741 employees working within the city.

The foregoing Persons Served population estimate requires an additional adjustment to account for the fact that the city is already providing road maintenance and snow plowing services to the Heavenly Parcels and Cleanup Parcels due to the immediate proximity and geography.

Furthermore, under current cooperative arrangements between the City Fire Department, County Fire Protection District, and Lake Valley Fire Department, the City Fire Department is the first responder to the Heavenly Parcels and Cleanup Parcels. Hence, DTA revised the estimated Persons Served population from 30,171 to 31,187 to account for 125 residents and 50% of 1,781 employees working within those areas.

Council Direction:

The City Council is asked to provide direction as to next steps to the City Manager regarding annexation scenarios analyzed as part of the annexation study. Based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis provided by DTA, only the Heavenly and Cleanup annexation scenarios are fiscally prudent. Should Council direct the City Manager to proceed with one or more annexation scenarios, the next step would be to prepare a Plan of Service for the proposed annexation area(s). This work was included in DTA’s initial proposal so their contract could be amended to include this work. Staff would also begin coordinating with the El Dorado County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), the affected property owner(s), El Dorado County, and any affected special districts on one or more annexation applications (see Attachment (03) for a description of the LAFCO annexation process). 654
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 3 of 3
Financial Implications: None associated with this item at this time. It is important to note that the Heavenly Parcels and Cleanup Parcels annexation scenarios based on the revenue and expenditure assumptions will not negatively impact the city’s budget should the City decide to move forward with initiating the annexation process to incorporate these areas.

Environmental Considerations: This action is statutorily exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) because it involves feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded.

Policy Implications: The annexation study is consistent with Priority 5 “High Performing Government and Core Services” of the City’s 2023-2028 Strategic Plan to specifically analyze the desirability and feasibility of annexation of certain unincorporated areas of El Dorado County into the City.
655
Newport Beach | San Jose | San Francisco | Riverside | Dallas | Houston | Raleigh | Tampa www.FinanceDTA.com

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
June 1, 2023
To: Joseph Irvin and Heather Stroud, City of South Lake Tahoe From: Kuda Wekwete, Jerry Wen, and Graeme Fraser, DTA
Subject: Potential Fiscal Impacts to the City of South Lake Tahoe Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios
DTA is pleased to present this Executive Summary of a Fiscal Impact Analysis (the “FIA”) to assist the City of South Lake Tahoe (the “City”) in its evaluation of various Annexation Scenarios (the “Annexation Scenarios”) of land within the Unincorporated County of El Dorado (the “County”) that are being contemplated by the City. The intent of this memorandum is to compare the projected fiscal impact of each Annexation Scenario to the City by evaluating property tax and sales tax revenues that could be potentially generated by such Annexation Scenario and the costs to provide public safety and public work services therein.

A Description of Annexation Scenarios
The following Annexation Scenarios, comprised of various sets of parcels in the unincorporated County (the “Annexation Parcels”) as illustrated in Figure 1, are currently being contemplated by the City:

Heavenly Annexation Scenario: Encompasses the California base lodge area of the Heavenly Resorts (the “Heavenly Parcels”);
Cleanup Annexation Scenario: Includes the Heavenly Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the Tahoe Valley Campground and Upper Truckee Marsh (the “Cleanup Parcels”);
Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek, and Montgomery Estates (“GB-BB-CC-ME”) Annexation Scenario: Encompasses the Cleanup Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the residential neighborhoods commonly known as Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek, and Montgomery Estates (the “GB-BB-CC-ME Parcels”);
Meyers Annexation Scenario: Includes the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the residential neighborhood commonly known as Meyers (the “Meyers Parcels”); and
Basin Annexation Scenario: Includes the Meyers Annexation Scenario and the additional annexation area generally comprising the territory commonly referred to as the Tahoe Basin (the “Basin Parcels”).

656
2 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios Figure 1: Map for the Annexation Parcels
Current parcel characteristics and demographic data for the Annexation Parcels are listed in Table 1. Note, the City provides the estimated residential population for each Annexation Parcel. In addition, DTA utilizes the 2023 Employment Profiles by NAICS Codes reports, produced by Environics Analytics (“EA”), to identify the number of employees working within each Annexation Parcel.

657
3 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios Table 1: Parcel Characteristics and Demographic Data for Annexation Parcels Annexation
Parcels
Gross
Acres
Number of
Parcels
Residential
Population Employees
Heavenly 126.77 3 0 1,771
Cleanup 378.05 87 125 10
GB-BB-CC-ME 638.67 1,768 1,641 151
Meyers 3,083.01 4,445 3,166 337
Basin 19,657.32 8,355 3,856 1,487
B Property Tax Analytic Methodology and Assumptions
Property tax revenues are specifically based on the City’s estimated share of the general 1% ad valorem property tax levy. For the purpose of this analysis and at the direction of the City staff, it is assumed that the City General Fund will receive 50% of the 1% ad valorem property tax levy allocable to the County General Fund, net of the projected Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”) property tax shifts, upon the annexation of each Annexation Scenario to the City. Notably, the 1% ad valorem property tax revenues for each Annexation Scenario are estimated based on the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021-22 basic 1% [Proposition (“Prop”) 13] property tax from Tax Rate Areas (“TRAs”) encompassing such Annexation Scenario and the FY 2022-23 taxable valuation of corresponding TRAs, per the County Auditor’s Office.

The passage of Prop 1A in California in 2004 enacted a constitutional amendment that introduced a new methodology to calculate Property Taxes in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (“VLFs”). Per California Revenue and Taxation Code §97.70, the amount of Property Taxes in Lieu of VLFs now grows in proportion to the growth rate of gross assessed valuation in a city or county. Property Taxes in Lieu of VLF revenues are projected to grow with the change in the Citywide gross assessed valuation of taxable property from the prior FY.

Property Taxes in Lieu of VLF revenues constitute an addition to other property tax apportionments and were calculated for the purposes of this analysis at $0.41 per $1,000 increase in assessed valuation on a Citywide basis. Table 2 presents the details regarding the Property Taxes in Lieu of VLF assumptions utilized in the Tax Revenue Analysis.

Table 2: Property Taxes in Lieu of VLF Assumptions
Description Assumptions
City – Total Assessed Value (FY 2022-23) $6,116,335,132 City – VLF Property Tax Revenues (FY 2022-23) $2,515,000 VLF Property Tax In-Lieu per $1,000 Assessed Value $0.41 C Direct Sales Tax Analytic Methodology and Assumptions DTA utilizes the Retail Market Power® Retail Stores Opportunity Gap analysis (the “Retail Report”), produced by EA, to identify retail supply characteristics of trade areas representing the Annexation Parcels. As illustrated in Table 3, EA derives the estimated supply of retail goods currently available within such trade area, which serves as the basis for the taxable retail sales receipts for each Annexation Scenario.
658
4 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios Table 3: Projected Taxable Sales Receipts
Annexation
Scenario
Projected Taxable Sales Receipts
Heavenly
Parcels
Cleanup
Parcels
GB-BBCC-ME
Parcels
Meyers
Parcels
Basin
Parcels Total
Heavenly $2,995,287 N/A N/A N/A N/A $2,995,287
Cleanup $2,995,287 $169,328 N/A N/A N/A $3,164,615
GB-BB-CC-ME $2,995,287 $169,328 $0 N/A N/A $3,164,615
Meyers $2,995,287 $169,328 $0 $9,019,923 N/A $12,184,538 Basin $2,995,287 $169,328 $0 $9,019,923 $17,071,429 $29,255,967 Notably, there are certain limitations to the Retail Report when a trade area being analyzed is comprised of a small area such as the Heavenly Parcels. Although The California Bar, a limited-service restaurant/bar, a retail shop, and ski rental shop are the only taxable sales generator on the Heavenly Parcels, it is anticipated that the annual sales of such store type would exceed the current estimated taxable sales receipts of $3.2 million. For illustrative and comparative purposes, the average 2022 sales revenue for a Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant is $2.8 million. Given the higher price points in The California Bar and a substantial number of visitors to the Heavenly Parcels, it is safe to assume that the annual sales revenue of The California Bar alone will be greater than 14% of the revenue of a typical Chipotle Mexican Grill store. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sales tax projection for the Heavenly Parcels is conservatively based on the taxable sales receipts of $3.2 million.

The City currently receives 2.50% of taxable sales receipts, which include a 1.00% sales tax established by Municipal Code §3.10.050, Measure Q sales tax, a 0.50% voter-approved sales tax, and Measure S sales tax, a 1.00% voter-approved sales tax. For the purpose of this analysis and at the direction of the City staff, it is assumed that the City will receive 100% of applicable sales taxes upon the annexation of each Annexation Scenario to the City.

D Public Safety and Public Work Cost Analytic Methodology and Assumptions DTA utilizes the Per Capita/Multiplier Approach to estimate the costs of providing public safety and public work to each Annexation Scenario, which involves calculating the average costs per Capita/Persons Served utilizing the fiscal year (“FY”) 2022-2023 City Budget and applying these cost factors to the estimated numbers of Persons Served within each Annexation Scenario. DTA has determined that utilizing a Persons Served population comprised of all residents and 50% of the employees working at locations within a given service area is common fiscal practice in generally quantifying the impacts of new service area if more specific local data or facilities usage data is not readily available. This ratio assumes that an employee would spend only 8 active hours in the City per day versus a resident who is active for 16 hours a day. This would yield an estimated Persons Served population of 30,171 based on 22,800 City residents1
and 50% of 14,741 employees working
within the City2
.
1 Source: California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2022. 2 Source: EA, EmploymentProfiles by NAICS Codes 2023 for the City of South Lake Tahoe. 659
5 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios The foregoing Persons Served population estimate requires an additional adjustment to account for the fact that the City is already providing road maintenance and snow plowing services to the Heavenly Parcels and Cleanup Parcels due to the immediate proximity and geography. Furthermore, under current cooperative arrangements between the City Fire Department, County Fire Protection District, and Lake Valley Fire Department, the City Fire Department is the first responder to the Heavenly Parcels and Cleanup Parcels. Hence, DTA revised the estimated Persons Served population from 30,171 to 31,187 to account for 125 residents and 50% of 1,781 employees working within those areas. Table 4 presents calculation of the gross marginal increase in public safety and public work expenditures on a per Person Served basis.

Table 4: General Fund Public Safety and Public Work Expenditures (Multiplier Method) Service Category
FY 2022-2023 City
General Fund
Expenditures
Persons Served
Population
Gross Marginal
Cost Increase per
Person Served
Police $13,223,803 30,171 $438.30
Fire $9,986,351 31,187 $320.21
Public Work $4,478,081 31,187 $143.59
Notably, DTA did not include the substantial number of annual City visitors in determining the Persons Served population, even though such methodology would yield more accurate, i.e., lower, cost parameters to account for the service demands generated by the visitors. There are several reasons for this approach. First, as detailed later in Sections E and F, the City is already providing the majority of the public safety and public works services to the Heavenly Parcels and Cleanup Parcels, which are the only areas with a significant number of visitors and would necessitate an incremental increase to the City’s current public safety and public works expenditures once the City becomes the official provider of those services after the annexation. Second, since the GB-BB-CC-ME Parcels, Meyers Parcels, and Basin Parcels are comprised primarily of residential neighborhoods and the supporting retail and commercial land uses, DTA conservatively estimated the City’s marginal cost to provide the public safety and public works services to those areas as if the City were comprised primarily of residents and employees, with de minimis visitors.

The City’s public safety and public work expenditures are not expected to increase on a oneto-one basis with the annexation of each Annexation Scenario. To project these numbers without any adjustment would result in inaccurate conclusions. To accurately reflect the estimated ratio of fixed costs to variable costs, DTA applied a series of discount rates to those expenditures with considerations of circumstances applicable to each Annexation Scenario.
660
6 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios E Proposed Heavenly Annexation Scenario
As illustrated in Figure 2 and presented in Attachment 1, the proposed Heavenly Annexation Scenario is comprised of one TRA and encompasses approximately 126.77 gross acres of land within the unincorporated County, all of which are owned by private entities.

Figure 2: Map for the Heavenly Annexation Scenario
As listed in Table 5, the Heavenly Annexation Scenario is anticipated to generate $144,092 in the estimated tax revenues upon its annexation to the City. A detailed explanation of these calculations is presented in Attachment 1.

Table 5: Projected Tax Revenues for the Heavenly Annexation Scenario Estimated Property Tax Revenues Total Estimated
Sales Tax
Revenues
Total Estimated
Tax Revenues 1% Ad Valorem
Property Tax
Property Taxes in
Lieu of VLF
$49,684 $19,526 $74,882 $144,092
As detailed in Section D, the Heavenly Annexation Scenario is anticipated to incur de minimis incremental increase in the City’s fire and public work expenditures upon its annexation, as the City is already providing those services to the Heavenly Parcels. The County Sheriff currently handles service calls to the Heavenly Parcels, with the City Police providing supplementary support. Although the City Police Department would become the primary agency for calls to the Heavenly Parcels upon its annexation, the County Sheriff is expected to reciprocate the supplementary support that it currently receives for the Heavenly Parcels. Hence, the City Police is not anticipated to need additional officers or staff to provide service to the Heavenly Parcels. To reflect the minimum expected increase in the ratio of variable costs to fixed costs, DTA applied a 75% discount to the gross City police cost multiplier of $438.30. As illustrated in Table 6, the Heavenly Annexation Scenario 661
7 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios is anticipated to incur $97,083 in the estimated public safety and public work expenditures upon its annexation to the City.

Table 6: Projected Incremental Service Expenditures for the Heavenly Annexation Scenario Annexation
Parcels
Residential
Population Employees
Persons
Served
Population1
Marginal Cost Increase per Person
Served
Total Estimated
Incremental
Service
Police Fire Expenditures
Public
Work Total
Heavenly 0 1,771 886 $109.58 $0.00 $0.00 $109.58 $97,083 Total 0 1,771 886 N/A N/A N/A N/A $97,083
Note:

1. Comprises all residents and 50% of the employees.

Based on the estimated tax revenues listed in Table 5 and the estimated public safety and public work expenditures presented in Table 6, the Heavenly Annexation Scenario is projected to generate $47,009 in annual fiscal surplus based on these selected fiscal revenues and expenditures.

F Proposed Cleanup Annexation Scenario
As illustrated in Figure 3 and presented in Attachment 2, the proposed Cleanup Annexation Scenario is comprised of two TRAs and encompasses approximately 504.82 gross acres of land within the unincorporated County, with 214.17 acres of land owned by private entities and 290.65 acres of land owned by public agencies and/or tax-exempt entities.

Figure 3: Map for the Cleanup Annexation Scenario
662
8 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios As listed in Table 7, the Cleanup Annexation Scenario is anticipated to generate $156,786 in the estimated tax revenues upon its annexation to the City. A detailed explanation of these calculations is presented in Attachment 2.

Table 7: Projected Tax Revenues for the Cleanup Annexation Scenario Estimated Property Tax Revenues Total Estimated
Sales Tax
Revenues
Total Estimated
Tax Revenues 1% Ad Valorem
Property Tax
Property Taxes in
Lieu of VLF
$55,800 $21,871 $79,115 $156,786
As detailed in Section D, the Cleanup Annexation Scenario is anticipated to incur de minimis incremental increase in the City’s fire and public work expenditures upon its annexation, as the City is already providing those services to the Heavenly Parcels and Cleanup Parcels.

Since the Cleanup Parcels are primarily comprised of the Tahoe Valley Campground and Upper Truckee Marsh, the City Police does not expect to receive frequent service calls to those areas. Hence, DTA applied a 50% discount to the gross City police cost multiplier of $438.30. As illustrated in Table 8, the Cleanup Annexation Scenario is anticipated to incur $125,573 in the estimated public safety and public work expenditures upon its annexation to the City.

Table 8: Projected Incremental Service Expenditures for the Cleanup Annexation Scenario Annexation
Parcels
Residential
Population Employees
Persons
Served
Population1
Marginal Cost Increase per
Person Served
Total Estimated
Incremental
Service
Police Fire Expenditures
Public
Work Total
Heavenly 0 1,771 886 $109.58 $0.00 $0.00 $109.58 $97,083 Cleanup 125 10 130 $219.15 $0.00 $0.00 $219.15 $28,490
Total 125 1,781 1,016 N/A N/A N/A N/A $125,573
Note:

1. Comprises all residents and 50% of the employees.

Based on the estimated tax revenues listed in Table 7 and the estimated public safety and public work expenditures presented in Table 8, the Cleanup Annexation Scenario is projected to generate $31,213 in annual fiscal surplus based on these selected fiscal revenues and expenditures.
663
9 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios G Proposed Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek, and Montgomery Estates Annexation Scenario
As illustrated in Figure 4 and presented in Attachment 3, the proposed GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario is comprised of two TRAs and encompasses approximately 1,143.49 gross acres of land within the unincorporated County, with 650.97 acres of land owned by private entities and 492.52 acres of land owned by public agencies and/or tax-exempt entities.

Figure 4: Map for the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario
As listed in Table 9, the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario is anticipated to generate $1,064,030 in the estimated tax revenues upon its annexation to the City. A detailed explanation of these calculations is presented in Attachment 3.

Table 9: Projected Tax Revenues for the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario Estimated Property Tax Revenues Total Estimated
Sales Tax
Revenues
Total Estimated
Tax Revenues 1% Ad Valorem
Property Tax
Property Taxes in
Lieu of VLF
$707,091 $277,824 $79,115 $1,064,030
Given the close proximity of the GB-BB-CC-ME Parcels to the City, it is estimated that the marginal increase in the public safety and public work expenditures to serve those parcels will be approximately 75%. Therefore, a 25% discount is applied to the gross City public safety and public work cost multiplier of $902.10.
664
10 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios As presented in Table 10, the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario is anticipated to incur $1,287,252 in the estimated public safety and public work expenditures upon its annexation to the City.

Table 10: Projected Incremental Service Expenditures for the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario
Annexation
Parcels
Residential
Population Employees
Persons
Served
Population1
Marginal Cost Increase per Person
Served
Total Estimated
Incremental
Service
Police Fire Expenditures
Public
Work Total
Heavenly 0 1,771 886 $109.58 $0.00 $0.00 $109.58 $97,083 Cleanup 125 10 130 $219.15 $0.00 $0.00 $219.15 $28,490
GB-BB-CC-ME 1,641 151 1,717 $328.73 $240.16 $107.69 $676.58 $1,161,679 Total 1,766 1,932 2,733 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,287,252
Note:

1. Comprises all residents and 50% of the employees.

Based on the estimated tax revenues listed in Table 9 and the estimated public safety and public work expenditures presented in Table 10 the GB-BB-CC-ME Annexation Scenario is projected to incur $223,222 in annual fiscal deficit based on these selected fiscal revenues and expenditures.
665
11 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios H Proposed Meyers Annexation Scenario
As illustrated in Figure 5 and presented in Attachment 4, the proposed Meyers Annexation Scenario is comprised of four TRAs and encompasses approximately 4,226.50 gross acres of land within the unincorporated County, with 1,653.45 acres of land owned by private entities and 2,573.05 acres of land owned by public agencies and/or tax-exempt entities.

Figure 5: Map for the Meyers Annexation Scenario
As listed in Table 11, the Meyers Annexation Scenario is anticipated to generate $2,931,715 in the estimated tax revenues upon its annexation to the City. A detailed explanation of these calculations is presented in Attachment 4.

Table 11: Projected Tax Revenues for the Meyers Annexation Scenario Estimated Property Tax Revenues Total Estimated
Sales Tax
Revenues
Total Estimated
Tax Revenues 1% Ad Valorem
Property Tax
Property Taxes in
Lieu of VLF
$1,886,003 $741,098 $304,613 $2,931,715
Given the distance of the Meyers Parcels from the City limits, DTA conservatively applied no discount to the gross City public safety and public work cost multiplier of $902.10. 666
12 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios As presented in Table 12, the Meyers Annexation Scenario is anticipated to incur $4,295,756 in the estimated public safety expenditures and public work upon its annexation to the City.

Table 12: Projected Incremental Service Expenditures for the Meyers Annexation Scenario Annexation
Parcels
Residential
Population Employees
Persons
Served
Population1
Marginal Cost Increase per Person
Served
Total Estimated
Incremental
Service
Police Fire Expenditures
Public
Work Total
Heavenly 0 1,771 886 $109.58 $0.00 $0.00 $109.58 $97,083 Cleanup 125 10 130 $219.15 $0.00 $0.00 $219.15 $28,490
GB-BB-CC-ME 1,641 151 1,717 $328.73 $240.16 $107.69 $676.58 $1,161,679 Meyers 3,166 337 3,335 $438.30 $320.21 $143.59 $902.10 $3,008,504 Total 4,932 2,269 6,068 N/A N/A N/A N/A $4,295,756
Note:

1. Comprises all residents and 50% of the employees.

Based on the estimated tax revenues listed in Table 11 and the estimated public safety and public work expenditures presented in Table 12, the Meyers Annexation Scenario is projected to incur $1,364,041 in annual fiscal deficit based on these selected fiscal revenues and expenditures.
667
13 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios I Proposed Basin Annexation Scenario
As illustrated in Figure 6 and presented in Attachment 5, the proposed Basin Annexation Scenario is comprised of 17 TRAs and encompasses approximately 23,883.82 gross acres of land within the unincorporated County, with 5,099.81 acres of land owned by private entities and 18,784.01 acres of land owned by public agencies and/or tax-exempt entities.

Figure 6: Map for the Basin Annexation Scenario
As listed in Table 13, the Basin Annexation Scenario is anticipated to generate $7,713,368 in the estimated tax revenues upon its annexation to the City. A detailed explanation of these calculations is presented in Attachment 5.

Table 13: Projected Tax Revenues for the Basin Annexation Scenario Estimated Property Tax Revenues Total Estimated
Sales Tax
Revenues
Total Estimated
Tax Revenues 1% Ad Valorem
Property Tax
Property Taxes in
Lieu of VLF
$5,120,120 $1,861,848 $731,399 $7,713,368
668
14 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios Given the distance of the Basin Parcels from the City limits, DTA conservatively applied no discount to the gross City public safety and public work cost multiplier of $902.10.

As presented in Table 14, the Basin Annexation Scenario is anticipated to incur $8,445,416 in the estimated public safety and public work expenditures upon its annexation to the City.

Table 14: Projected Incremental Service Expenditures for the Basin Annexation Scenario Annexation
Parcels
Residential
Population Employees
Persons
Served
Population1
Marginal Cost Increase per Person
Served
Total Estimated
Incremental
Service
Police Fire Expenditures
Public
Work Total
Heavenly 0 1,771 886 $109.58 $0.00 $0.00 $109.58 $97,083 Cleanup 125 10 130 $219.15 $0.00 $0.00 $219.15 $28,490
GB-BB-CC-ME 1,641 151 1,717 $328.73 $240.16 $107.69 $676.58 $1,161,679 Meyers 3,166 337 3,335 $438.30 $320.21 $143.59 $902.10 $3,008,504 Basin 3,856 1,487 4,600 $438.30 $320.21 $143.59 $902.10 $4,149,660 Total 8,788 3,756 10,668 N/A N/A N/A N/A $8,445,416
Note:

1. Comprises all residents and 50% of the employees.

Based on the estimated tax revenues listed in Table 13 and the estimated public safety and public work expenditures presented in Table 14, the Basin Annexation Scenario is projected to incur $732,048 in annual fiscal deficit based on these selected fiscal revenues and expenditures.

J Fiscal Impact Comparison Summary for Annexation Scenarios The projected fiscal impact for each Annexation Scenario upon its annexation to the City is summarized in Table 15 and illustrated in Figure 7.

Table 15: Comparison of Projected Annual Fiscal Impact for Annexation Scenarios Annexation
Scenario
Gross
Acres
Persons
Served
Population
Estimated
Annual Tax
Revenues
Estimated
Annual
Service
Expenditures
Projected
Annual Fiscal
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Heavenly 126.77 886 $144,092 $97,083 $47,009
Cleanup 504.82 1,016 $156,786 $125,573 $31,213
GB-BB-CC-ME 1,143.49 2,733 $1,064,030 $1,287,252 ($223,222) Meyers 4,226.50 6,068 $2,931,715 $4,295,756 ($1,364,041) Basin 23,883.82 10,668 $7,713,368 $8,445,416 ($732,048) 669
15 City of South Lake Tahoe June 1, 2023
Potential Fiscal Impact to the City Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios Figure 7: Comparison of Projected Annual Fiscal Impact for Annexation Scenarios If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary, please feel free to contact Kuda Wekwete or Jerry Wen at (800) 969-4DTA.

Enclosures:

1. Attachment 1 – Proposed Heavenly Annexation Scenario

2. Attachment 2 – Proposed Cleanup Annexation Scenario

3. Attachment 3 – Proposed Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek, and Montgomery Estates Annexation Scenario

4. Attachment 4 – Proposed Meyers Annexation Scenario

5. Attachment 5 – Proposed Basin Annexation Scenario
670
ATTACHMENT 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Potential Property Tax and Sales Tax Revenues Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios

PROPOSED HEAVENLY

ANNEXATION

SCENARIO

671
TRAs (Primary, Secondary)
75, 36
Annexation Alternative Boundary
City Boundary
El Dorado County Boundary
Heavenly
Alternative
0 140 280 420 560
Feet
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\CityManager\Annexation\Annexation.aprx | Annexation Alternatives TRAs | 5/4/2023 672
Taxable
TaxExempt
[1]
Total Taxable Tax-Exempt
[1] Total Gross [3]
ERAF Shift
[4] Net County City [5] Basic 1% Allocation
In Lieu
of VLFs Total
075-036 126.77 0.00 126.77 3 0 3 $47,485,310 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $49,684 $19,526 $69,210 Total 126.77 0.00 126.77 3 0 3 $47,485,310 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $49,684 $19,526 $69,210 Notes:
[1] Excludes parcels that do not have TRA information.
[2] Source: El Dorado County Auditor-Controller.
[3] Based on applicable FY 2021-22 basic 1% property tax allocation factors earmarked for the El Dorado County General Fund. [4] Based on the FY 2021-22 Countywide factor.
[5] Assumes the City would receive 50% of County's current allocation after annexation. [6] Based on the projected FY 2022-23 Property Tax in lieu of VLF and citywide assessed valuation.

Preliminary Annexation Property Tax Revenue Analysis
Heavenly Alternative Annexation Scenario
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Tax Rate Area
Acres Parcel Count
Net Taxable
Value [2]
FY 2022-23 1% PT Allocation Factors
Property Tax In
Lieu of VLF
Increase per $1,000
Assessed Value [6]
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
www.FinanceDTA.com
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660
673
ATTACHMENT 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Potential Property Tax and Sales Tax Revenues Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios

PROPOSED CLEANUP

ANNEXATION

SCENARIO

674
TRAs (Primary, Secondary)
75, 25
75, 36
Annexation Alternative Boundary
City Boundary
El Dorado County Boundary
Clean Up
Alternative
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Miles
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\CityManager\Annexation\Annexation.aprx | Annexation Alternatives TRAs | 5/4/2023 675
Taxable
TaxExempt
[1]
Total Taxable
TaxExempt
[1]
Total Gross
[3]
ERAF Shift
[4] Net County City [5] Basic 1% Allocation
In Lieu
of VLFs Total
075-025 8.80 253.46 262.26 9 12 21 $1,086,905 33.23% 28.92% 23.62% 11.81% $0.41 $1,284 $447 $1,731 075-036 205.37 37.19 242.56 9 60 69 $52,102,859 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $54,516 $21,424 $75,940 Total 214.17 290.65 504.82 18 72 90 $53,189,764 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $55,800 $21,871 $77,671 Notes:
[1] Excludes parcels that do not have TRA information.
[2] Source: El Dorado County Auditor-Controller.
[3] Based on applicable FY 2021-22 basic 1% property tax allocation factors earmarked for the El Dorado County General Fund. [4] Based on the FY 2021-22 Countywide factor.
[5] Assumes the City would receive 50% of County's current allocation after annexation. [6] Based on the projected FY 2022-23 Property Tax in lieu of VLF and citywide assessed valuation.

Acres Parcel Count
Tax Rate Area
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Preliminary Annexation Property Tax Revenue Analysis
Clean Up Alternative Annexation Scenario
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Net Taxable
Value [2]
FY 2022-23 1% PT Allocation Factors
Property Tax In
Lieu of VLF
Increase per $1,000
Assessed Value [6]
www.FinanceDTA.com
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660
676
ATTACHMENT 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Potential Property Tax and Sales Tax Revenues Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios

PROPOSED GOLDEN

BEAR, BLACK BART,

COLD CREEK, AND

MONTGOMERY

ESTATES ANNEXATION

SCENARIO

677
TRAs (Primary, Secondary)
75, 25
75, 36
Annexation Alternative Boundary
City Boundary
El Dorado County Boundary
Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek,
and Montgomery Estates
Alternative 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Miles
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\CityManager\Annexation\Annexation.aprx | Annexation Alternatives TRAs | 5/4/2023 678
Taxable
TaxExempt
[1]
Total Taxable
TaxExempt
[1]
Total Gross [3] ERAF Shift
[4]
Net
County City [5] Basic 1% Allocation
In Lieu of
VLFs Total
075-025 8.80 263.55 272.35 9 13 22 $1,086,905 33.23% 28.92% 23.62% 11.81% $0.41 $1,284 $447 $1,731 075-036 642.17 228.97 871.14 1,452 384 1,836 $674,565,668 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $705,807 $277,377 $983,184 Total 650.97 492.52 1,143.49 1,461 397 1,858 $675,652,573 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $707,091 $277,824 $984,915 Notes:
[1] Excludes parcels that do not have TRA information.
[2] Source: El Dorado County Auditor-Controller.
[3] Based on applicable FY 2021-22 basic 1% property tax allocation factors earmarked for the El Dorado County General Fund. [4] Based on the FY 2021-22 Countywide factor.
[5] Assumes the City would receive 50% of County's current allocation after annexation. [6] Based on the projected FY 2022-23 Property Tax in lieu of VLF and citywide assessed valuation.

Preliminary Annexation Property Tax Revenue Analysis
Golden Bear, Black Bart, Cold Creek and Montgomery Estates Alternative Annexation Scenario Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Tax Rate Area
Acres Parcel Count
Net Taxable
Value [2]
FY 2022-23 1% PT Allocation Factors Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Increase per
$1,000 Assessed Value
[6]
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
www.FinanceDTA.com
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660
679
ATTACHMENT 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Potential Property Tax and Sales Tax Revenues Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios

PROPOSED MEYERS

ANNEXATION

SCENARIO

680
TRAs (Primary, Secondary)
75, 25
75, 29
75, 36
75, 41
Annexation Alternative Boundary
City Boundary
El Dorado County Boundary
Meyers
Alternative
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Miles
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\CityManager\Annexation\Annexation.aprx | Annexation Alternatives TRAs | 5/4/2023 681
Taxable Tax-Exempt [1] Total Taxable Tax-Exempt [1] Total Gross [3] ERAF Shift [4]
Net
County City [5] Basic 1% Allocation
In Lieu of
VLFs Total
075-025 8.80 942.17 950.97 9 20 29 $1,086,905 33.23% 28.92% 23.62% 11.81% $0.41 $1,284 $447 $1,731 075-029 0.00 183.14 183.14 0 2 2 $0 33.23% 28.92% 23.62% 11.81% $0.41 $0 $0 $0 075-036 904.85 905.48 1,810.33 1,871 747 2,618 $842,182,416 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $881,186 $346,300 $1,227,487 075-041 739.80 542.26 1,282.06 2,671 983 3,654 $959,038,938 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $1,003,533 $394,351 $1,397,884 Total 1,653.45 2,573.05 4,226.50 4,551 1,752 6,303 $1,802,308,259 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,886,003 $741,098 $2,627,102 Notes:
[1] Excludes parcels that do not have TRA information.
[2] Source: El Dorado County Auditor-Controller.
[3] Based on applicable FY 2021-22 basic 1% property tax allocation factors earmarked for the El Dorado County General Fund. [3] Based on applicable FY 2021-22 basic 1% property tax allocation factors earmarked for the El Dorado County General Fund. [4] Based on the FY 2021-22 Countywide factor.
[5] Assumes the City would receive 50% of County's current allocation after annexation. [6] Based on the projected FY 2022-23 Property Tax in lieu of VLF and citywide assessed valuation.

Preliminary Annexation Property Tax Revenue Analysis
Meyers Alternative Annexation Scenario
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Tax Rate Area
Acres Parcel Count
Net Taxable
Value [2]
FY 2022-23 1% PT Allocation Factors Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Increase per
$1,000 Assessed
Value [6]
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
www.FinanceDTA.com
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660
682
ATTACHMENT 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Potential Property Tax and Sales Tax Revenues Resulting from the Proposed Land Annexation Scenarios

PROPOSED BASIN

ANNEXATION

SCENARIO
683
TRAs (Primary, Secondary)
69, 3
69, 7
69, 13
69, 14
69, 15
69, 16
69, 17
75, 6
75, 7
75, 22
75, 25
75, 27
75, 29
75, 36
75, 41
75, 46
75, 50
Annexation Alternative Boundary
City Boundary
El Dorado County Boundary
Basin
Alternative
0 1 2 3 4
Miles
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\CityManager\Annexation\Annexation.aprx | Annexation Alternatives TRAs | 5/4/2023 684
Taxable Tax-Exempt
[1] Total Taxable Tax-Exempt [1] Total Gross [3] ERAF Shift [4] Net County City [5] Basic 1% Allocation [3] In Lieu of
VLFs [4] Total
069-003 14.19 0.89 15.08 58 4 62 $26,216,933 29.32% 28.92% 20.84% 10.42% $0.41 $27,316 $10,780 $38,096 069-007 555.69 1,414.81 1,970.50 763 488 1,251 $841,454,672 37.73% 28.92% 26.82% 13.41% $0.41 $1,128,325 $346,001 $1,474,326 069-013 0.00 1,953.35 1,953.35 0 19 19 $0 41.05% 28.92% 29.18% 14.59% $0.41 $0 $0 $0 069-014 272.30 6.94 279.24 7 4 11 $293,955 44.86% 28.92% 31.89% 15.94% $0.41 $469 $121 $590 069-015 262.15 52.83 314.98 1,321 179 1,500 $505,304,682 35.96% 28.92% 25.56% 12.78% $0.41 $645,866 $207,778 $853,644 069-016 0.00 80.15 80.15 0 1 1 $0 48.21% 28.92% 34.27% 17.13% $0.41 $0 $0 $0 069-017 36.32 0.00 36.32 7 0 7 $9,641,028 32.91% 28.92% 23.39% 11.70% $0.41 $11,277 $3,964 $15,242 075-006 240.73 1,321.12 1,561.85 279 152 431 $147,853,498 32.33% 28.92% 22.98% 11.49% $0.41 $169,915 $60,796 $230,711 075-007 2.00 266.59 268.59 10 15 25 $274,502 38.58% 28.92% 27.43% 13.71% $0.41 $376 $113 $489 075-022 0.00 493.12 493.12 0 21 21 $0 42.36% 28.92% 30.11% 15.05% $0.41 $0 $0 $0 075-025 290.93 2,948.21 3,239.14 32 64 96 $2,903,852 33.23% 28.92% 23.62% 11.81% $0.41 $3,430 $1,194 $4,624 075-027 0.00 34.53 34.53 0 1 1 $0 35.52% 28.92% 25.25% 12.62% $0.41 $0 $0 $0 075-029 0.00 183.14 183.14 0 2 2 $0 33.23% 28.92% 23.62% 11.81% $0.41 $0 $0 $0 075-036 2,143.66 8,739.17 10,882.83 3,293 1,822 5,115 $1,411,636,487 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $1,477,013 $580,456 $2,057,470 075-041 1,152.32 1,282.76 2,435.08 4,213 1,785 5,998 $1,510,493,104 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $1,580,572 $621,106 $2,201,678 075-046 125.88 2.76 128.64 68 6 74 $66,472,390 29.44% 28.92% 20.93% 10.46% $0.41 $69,556 $27,333 $96,889 075-050 3.64 3.64 7.28 22 22 44 $5,363,003 31.50% 28.92% 22.39% 11.20% $0.41 $6,005 $2,205 $8,210 Total 5,099.81 18,784.01 23,883.82 10,073 4,585 14,658 $4,527,908,106 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $5,120,120 $1,861,848 $6,981,969 Notes:
[1] Excludes parcels that do not have TRA information.
[2] Source: El Dorado County Auditor-Controller.
[3] Based on applicable FY 2021-22 basic 1% property tax allocation factors earmarked for the El Dorado County General Fund. [4] Based on the FY 2021-22 Countywide factor.
[5] Assumes the City would receive 50% of County's current allocation after annexation. [6] Based on the projected FY 2022-23 Property Tax in lieu of VLF and citywide assessed valuation.

Preliminary Annexation Property Tax Revenue Analysis
Basin Alternative Annexation Scenario
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
Tax Rate Area
Acres Parcel Count
Net Taxable Value
[2]
FY 2022-23 1% PT Allocation Factors Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Increase per
$1,000 Assessed
Value [6]
Estimated Property Tax Revenues
www.FinanceDTA.com
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 19
Agenda Item: Heavenly Neighborhood Traffic and Parking Management Plan Executive Summary: On May 15, 2023, the City organized a community meeting for the residents of Heavenly Neighborhood to receive comments from regarding traffic congestion and parking issues along the residential streets during the winter season. The meeting was held at Heavenly's Cal Base Lodge, and Heavenly/Vail Resort management hosted the meeting and participated in the event. Approximately 50 residents and interested parties attended the meeting. Various issues, including on-street parking, traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, as well as the 2013 parking Agreement between City and Heavenly/Vail Resort were discussed. Staff has compiled residents' comments, as well as other written or emailed correspondence, and will provide a debriefing on the meeting and will present various shortand long-term options to the City Council.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to provide direction to the Director of Public Works on potential short-, mid-, and long-term traffic, parking, and transit options to address congestion and parking issues in the residential neighborhoods near Heavenly.

CEQA Determination: The short-term solutions are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities). However, some of the mid- and long-term projects may require environmental impact analysis.

Responsible Staff Members: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works, Lindsey Baker, Assistant City Manager and David Stevenson, Chief of Police
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works (530) 542-6031 Lindsey Baker, Assistant to City Manager (530) 307-1445 David Stevenson, Chief of Police (530) 452-6120
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report Heavenly Neighborhood Parking-Traffic Management Plan.docx 02 - Existing Heavenly Parking Agreement.pdf
03 - Comments_from_Neighorhood_Meeting.pdf
04-Heavenly_Neighborhood_Parking_and_Traffic_Issues.docx 05-Heavenly_Agreement_Proposed_Agreement_Discussion_Items (002).docx 06 -Proposed_Heavenly_Parking_Plan.pdf
07-Proposed_Heavenly_Snow_Managment_Plan.pdf
08- Heavenly_Village_Parking_Options.docx
09 - Heavenly_Parking_Traffic_Management.pptx
714
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2022 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: Heavenly Neighborhood Parking and Traffic Management Plan Location: Heavenly Valley Neighborhood
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works - (530) 542-6031 Background: During the winter of 2022-23, City staff received several complaints and concerns from the residents of the Heavenly Valley neighborhood regarding traffic congestion, overflow parking, illegal parking, and general nuisance in the area during winter periods.

Meanwhile, the staff is re-evaluating the Heavenly/Vail Resort agreement approved on September 5, 2013 (See Attachment 02). This agreement stipulates that Heavenly/Vail Resort can use certain roadways as overflow parking (See Attachment 02 – Exhibit A). There are additional requirements for snow plowing, sanding, payment of $20,000 annually for using City streets as overflow parking, and payment for sanding recovery by City forces.

Issue and Discussion: To address the resident’s concerns, staff organized a community meeting on May 15, 2023, at 5:30 P.M. to receive input from the residents. The meeting was held at Cal Lodge, and Heavenly/Vail Resort staff were also in attendance and welcomed the community members. City staff also took notes and listened to the comments at the meeting. In addition, the meeting was broadcast live via Facebook.

Approximately 50 residents attended the meeting, which included a general discussion about parking overflow impacts on residential streets, traffic congestion, safety issues, nuisance issues, etc. A summary of the comments is attached as Attachment 03. During the meeting, staff presented a documented summary of complaints and potential countermeasures attached as Attachment 04. Some of these countermeasures ideas have been discussed with Heavenly/Vail Resort for negotiation in revising the current agreement. The discussion items for revision to the existing agreement are listed in Attachment 05. In addition, proposed On-Street Parking areas and Snow/Sanding Operations are included in Attachments 06 and 07.

Based on the comments that staff has received, the following are potential short, mid, and longterm solutions and remedies to reduce parking overflow impacts, reduce traffic congestion, improve safety, and reduce environmental impacts.

Potential Short-Term Solutions – To be completed before November 2023:
 Establishing seasonal No Parking/Towing Zones in all residential streets subject to an overflow impact. The average zone of parking impact is estimated to be about half-mile from the Heavenly Lodge, which the public is willing to walk (See Attachment 08). No Parking will be effective between November 1 to May 1 only. 715
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2022 Page 2 of 3
 Increase the size and height of the No Parking Signs and add a Tow-Away Underplate.  Increase the No Parking violation fine to $200 from the existing $75.  Increase the No Parking in front of Fire Hydrant fine to $200 from the existing $105.  Implement a Chain Control Area at the bottom of Ski Run Blvd  Improve coordination with Heavenly/Vail Resort during winter weather events.

Potential Mid-Term Solutions – To be completed within one to two years:
 Implement a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) along certain roadways with single-family homes. With the RPPP, homeowners can obtain a permit for guests to park on the street. Others will be cited for violation. However, RPPP requires a citywide ordinance for implementation and will have administrative costs and enforcement resources. The City is evaluating an RPPP for other neighborhoods.  Encourage Heavenly to implement improved transit service between Heavenly Lodge and parking lots in the City, administered by Heavenly/Vail Resorts. This would require an agreement between Heavenly/Vail Resorts and other entities, such as Lake Tahoe Community College.
 Improve transit service by continuing to work with the SSTMA, TRPA, and, TTD in identifying alternative mobility options and funding sources.  Installation of Overhead Changeable Message Signs and replacement of existing nonworking signs (See Attachment 06).

Potential Long-Term Solutions – To be completed between 2 to 5 years:

Long-term projects are conceptual only and require more detailed evaluation, direction from City Council, and inclusion in City’s Captial Improvement Program. Currently, there is no funding for these projects, and cost-sharing with Heavenly and other parties may be required to fund these projects.
 A new Parking Garage with some type of transit connection to Heavenly Lodge  Construction of Pedestrian/Bike Path on Ski Run/Needle Peak/ Wildwood to separate the vehicle from pedestrians to improve safety.

Financial Implications: The financial impacts of these ideas have not been determined yet.

Based on Council direction, a more detailed estimate will be presented for approval at a future Council Meeting. Some of the proposed upgrades/solutions can be jointly funded by the City and Heavenly/Vail Resorts, which can be a part of the revised agreement.

Environmental Considerations: The short-term solutions are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(Existing Facilities). However, some of the mid- and long-term projects may require environmental impact analysis.
716
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2022 Page 3 of 3
Policy Implications: This project advances the City Council Strategic Priorities and Goals related to traffic safety and neighborhood preservation. 717
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE — HEAVENLY PARKING AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT executed this day of October, 2013 ( " Effective Date "), is entered into by Heavenly Valley, Limited Partnership, a Nevada Limited Partnership, d /b /a Heavenly® Mountain Resort ( "Heavenly ") and the City of South Lake Tahoe, California hereinafter ( " City ").

1. Purposes
A. Heavenly desires to utilize portions of existing City streets where adequate area exists for limited on- street parking during peak visitor days in the vicinity of the California Main Lodge.

B. The City desires to lease these areas to Heavenly.

C. Both parties desire to have the area streets plowed and de -icer and abrasive materials applied as quickly as possible during the winter season for the benefit of the travelling public, residents and the local economy.

D. Heavenly can make its snow removal and deicer equipment and properly trained staff available to assist the City with expedited snow removal and deicer application in specific areas and during certain times when City resources are deployed elsewhere.

E. Both parties will derive mutual benefits from these activities.

F. Both parties recognize and affirm that the existing agreement between the parties for the on- street parking should be updated to reflect more current conditions.

G. The parties desire to continue the relationship and arrangement which they have successfully implemented over many years.

The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:

2. Locations of On- Street Parking
Heavenly agrees to pay to the City by January 31 of each year for the current ski season, the sum of $ 20, 000.00 for the exclusive use of the following sites for on- street parking:

A. Angle parking spaces on the east side of Ski Run Boulevard and parallel parking on the west side of Ski Run Blvd p between David Lane and Needle Peak Road, see attached d Exhibit A.
co
B. Angle parking spaces on both sides of Ski Run Boulevard 2.0 between Needle Peak and Regina Road, see attached
Exhibit A. d
C. Parallel parking spaces on Saddle Road between Wildwood LU Avenue and Ski Run Boulevard, see attached Exhibit A. L, J F U_
q 171 3 cc ,
718
0 D. Parallel parking spaces on the north side of Needle Peak Road between Wildwood Avenue and Keller Road, see
attached Exhibit A.

E. Parallel parking spaces on the north side of Regina Road between Wildwood Avenue and Keller Road, see attached
Exhibit A.

F. Parallel parking spaces on the east and north sides of Keller Road between Saddle Road and the Saddle Road return
loop, see attached Exhibit A.

Exhibit A shows the locations of on- street parking spaces that Heavenly will use and the sequence in which they will generally be used in order from A through F.

Snow Removal and Application of Deicer and Abrasives on City Streets
In order to assist the City with timely snow removal and application of deicer and abrasives on the streets that are covered by this agreement, Heavenly may remove snow at its discretion using its own equipment and apply deicer and abrasives using its own equipment as it deems necessary to achieve the stated purposes of this agreement. Heavenly shall use its best efforts to communicate the intent to remove snow and to apply deicer and abrasive a minimum of 12 hours in advance to the City Street Superintendant or their designee, unless it believes that a public safety situation requires immediate action. In those instances, Heavenly will notify the City Street Superintendant or designee within a maximum of 12 hours following such an action.

Exhibit B shows the location of snow removal and deicer /abrasive application and the priority in which snow will be removed ( Priorities 1 and 2).

A. Location of applications.
i. Lower Ski Run Boulevard between Needle Peak
Road and Pioneer Trail.
ii. Upper Ski Run Boulevard between Needle Peak
Road and Saddle Road.
iii. Needle Peak Road between Ski Run Boulevard and
Wildwood Avenue.
iv. Wildwood Avenue between Needle Peak Road and
Saddle Road.

V. Saddle Road between Ski Run Boulevard and
Wildwood Avenue.
vi. Regina Road between Needle Peak Road and Keller
Road.
vii. Keller Road above Saddle Road.
719
B. Heavenly will pay to the City the Y2 ( one -half) of the actual costs of recovery of abrasives that either Heavenly or the City has put down during the winter season ( generally
between November 1 and April 15), incurred by the City on the streets identified above based within 30 days from
Heavenly' s receipt of the undisputed invoice clearly itemizing such costs.

C. By
15th
day of each month between November and April,
Heavenly will report monthly to the City in a mutually
agreeable format, the amount and location of deicer and abrasives that it has put down.

D. Heavenly shall reimburse the City for the cost of any road repair work required as a result of damage caused by
Heavenly' s negligent use of its snow removal or deicer equipment within 30 days from Heavenly' s receipt of the undisputed invoice from City showing repairs performed and monies due.

In the event of dispute over the nature of the charges or the reasonableness of the cost of the repair work invoiced, the dispute shall be submitted to the City Council of South Lake Tahoe for resolution. The decision of the City Council shall be final and binding on all parties.

4. Insurance Requirements
As and for the duration of this agreement, Heavenly shall assume the following duties:

A. Heavenly will carry and maintain, at its sole cost, the following insurance policies with insurance companies reasonably satisfactory to City.
i) Commercial General Liability insurance in an occurrence form in an amount of no less than $ 1, 000, 000 per occurrence covering liability arising out of premises operations, personal and advertising injury, products - completed operations, contractual liability and independent contractors.
ii) If the Services require the use of an auto, Heavenly must carry Commercial Auto Liability insurance with a limit of insurance no less than $ 1, 000, 000 combined single limit each accident for bodily injury and property damage.
iii) Workers' Compensation insurance as required by applicable law.

B. Heavenly will provide City with ( i) a copy of the carrier notice of cancellation within five days after the notice is received; and ( ii) 720
certificates of insurance evidencing the policies listed above prior to any provision of the Services. If any portion of the Services is subcontracted, Heavenly will require the subcontractor to provide the insurance listed above.

5. Hold Harmless
Heavenly hereby agrees to, and shall, hold City, its elective and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees, harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage which may result or arise from Heavenly' s, its agents, employee, officers, or contractors negligence under this agreement. City does not, and shall not, waive any rights it may have against Heavenly, by reason of the aforesaid hold harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City of any policy of insurance described above.

6. Duration of Agreement
This agreement shall continue from year to year from the Effective Date, unless terminated as provided herein. This agreement may be terminated at any time upon one party hereto giving the other party hereto one hundred eighty ( 180) days written notice or upon the mutual agreement of both parties hereto.

7. Notices
Any notices required under the provisions of this agreement to be affected between the parties of this agreement shall be effective within forty -eight 48) hours after deposit, postage prepaid, in the mail of the United States, addressed as follows:

If to Heavenly:

Heavenly Mountain Resort
Post Office Box 2180
Stateline, NV 89449
Attention: Vice President of Planning & Governmental Affairs If to Vail Resorts Corporate:

Vail Resorts Management Company
390 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 1000
Broomfield, Co 80021
Attention: Legal Department
If to the City of South Lake Tahoe:
the City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Airport Drive, Suite 300
Attention: City Attorney
4 721
In witness whereof, the parties have set their hands the day and year first above written.

Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership
d /b /a Heavenly Mountain Resort
By its General Partner, VR Heavenly I, Inc.

By
Pete
a&
Sonn
A
ag, Vi President and General Manager
The City of South Lake Tahoe
By-. t 7 o c 3
Tom Davis, Mayor
Thomas T. Watson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
lerk
5 722

EXHIBIT A
Map of On Street Parking
See Attached)
723
tier ;
1 -. ,. , *• ' \
rA9
1,
V''
q:. , "•,
3 ;
y
t
t.
t:•
F `$_ ' -
I
L .

1..
it
t4

1.,

1. x
l
for
n
1 Legend Overflow
Parking
C -
stf _
rct
C,
cJ.
c
fs"
is
r,.,
r
r _.

Fr
r -,
r_. -
w._
i;
n :- , .
r '
1 E _
r;'
Xs6',
i _ .,
fC:,
s.^
hY ", _ `
C'
k
724

EXHIBIT B
Snow Removal and Sanding Plan
See Attached)
725
O
00 9GF
o
00' `
s
AND

SANDING
PLAN
IOR
Nn
09169SNOW
dwn
o
y
o
000
F
0 Q
LEG x
I
Ff
726
P a g e | 1
Attachment 03
Heavenly Neighborhood Community Meeting
May 10, 2023 - 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM
Heavenly Valley Cal Base
Summary of Comments and Suggestions
Verbal Comments1:
 Hiring additional CSOs to assist with enforcement.
 Proposing all areas have “No Parking” zones (Nov – May).  Requesting parking permits in surrounding neighborhoods.  Concerned about gridlock and safety issues.
o Emergency vehicles were unable to access homes/roads. o Residents are concerned about access to their homes.
 Ski Run Blvd can become dangerous during winter conditions. o Cars were sliding.
 Recommend building a parking garage.
 Vehicles parking in private driveways.
o Difficulty in getting tow trucks to remove cars.
o The city was unable to assist in some situations, or no enforcement was available.
 A local shuttle service is recommended.
 Traffic overflow off Pioneer.
 Cars were speeding.
 Cars buried in snow during winter.
o Unsafe for plow drivers.
 More plowing is needed.
o Wildwood concern.
 Saddle Road pavement is in bad condition.
o Needs repaving now.
 Tourists park in front of fire hydrants.
 One-way lanes for shuttles.
o Reversible lanes.
o Shuttles, Microtransit.
 Parking Zones.
o Defined and marketed to tourists.
 Traffic analysis is recommended.
 Chain control may cause backup on Ski Run.
 Bring back the Red Line bus shuttle.
1 Comments summarized for brevity.
727
P a g e | 2
 Parking has been a concern for several years.
 Emergency vehicles cannot access roads at times or have difficulties maneuvering.  Pedestrian safety concerns when cars slide.
 Vehicle overflow in the surrounding neighborhood.
 Paid parking will cause more parking overflow in neighborhoods.  Trash on Ski Run.
o Littering all over the road.
o Need bathrooms in the area.
 Ski Run/Keller is not recommended for parking.
o What is the number of parking spots for the proposed agreement? (388)  No parking in neighborhoods.
 More signage is needed when parking is full.
 Regina is not plowed consistently.
 Need more enforcement.
 Ramifications for Vail if contract/plan doesn’t work.  I could not get to Carson City due to gridlock on the roads.

Written Comments from the Meeting2:
 If each parking area doesn’t open each morning, the wandering begins, circling neighborhoods, etc.
 Vail should provide enough parking for their customers.  Can we also look at public transit from Placerville/Sacramento running Thursday – Monday AM and PM? (Lots of people would take a bus rather than drive).  Vail should be responsible for the damage to the roads and the extra cost for the enforcement of parking.
 Regina concerns.
 No Parking on Saddle Road, Woods Ave., and June Way for skiers. Pave Saddle first.

Do not tell skiers.
 Some free parking spots in the neighborhood will make people circle, increasing traffic and safety concerns.
 “Steep Grade” sign on Regina @ Keller and @ Wildwood.  “No Parking” signs on Woods Avenue.
 “No Parking” signs on June Way and Woods Avenue
 Urinating and defecating in yards and in between cars.  Please put “No Parking Anytime Except by Permits for Residents” signs up Saddle Road and around the entire Loop. Otherwise, skiers will park all over our neighborhood during ski season. No one wants to pay for parking. It’s free in front of our house and in our driveway. Skiers already do that, and the city will do nothing to stop it at this time. It will be so much worse when Heavenly puts in paid parking. Please help! 2 Comments slightly modified for clarity or accuracy.
728
P a g e | 3
 We need “No Parking Any Time Except by Permit” around Saddle Loop, Sherman and Keller that is enforced year-round. We are the most impacted by summer and winter traffic and crime.
 Fire trucks need to back into snowbanks to make it up Regina.  Woods Avenue overflow parking. Parking in front of mailboxes. Not enough room for emergency vehicles.
 [Heavenly has an estimated] $300K from overflow parking [on a ] busy day, [with revenue from] pass[es], rentals, food, and lessons.
 Saddle Loop is impacted by Heavenly, Party Rock, the K to K Trail, and Van Sickle BiState Park. And now it has become a favorite for snow players. Could we get people to park at Heavenly and walk or ride? Saddle Loop was on many days down to one lane this year, but this is not the rule. On many occasions, skiers parked in our driveway so we couldn’t leave. Cars Park all the way up Keller to and beyond the Sherman intersection so that people in the neighborhood can’t exit. Summer parties kicked out of Heavenly, found their way to our neighborhood water tank, partied on top of it, and shot a hole in it. Heavenly bans snow play. There are signs at their entrance stating so.

Unfortunately, they find their way to Saddle Loop and snow play and leave debris in their wake.
 Blocking intersections, fire hydrants, and one hour to drive up or down Ski Run at times.  Since Heavenly doesn’t pay City taxes, locals should park free. 729
Heavenly Neighborhood Parking and Traffic Issues
Issues Poten? al Countermeasures
 Double Parking on Regina.
 Parking concerns on Keller.
 Parking concerns along Needle
Peak.
 Parking in No Parking Zones.
 Traffic Bypass traffic along
Verndon.
 Skidding and Traffic Hazards
during major snowfall/ice
build-up.
 Traffic conges?on and parking
issues when on-street parking
is full.
 Pedestrian Safety Issues.
 Spillover parking from
Heavenly Lodge Parking Area.
 Reduce on-Street Parking in
the area.
 Prohibit On-Street Parking
between November 1 to May 1
in residen?al areas, while
allowing some visitors to park
for the residents.
 More parking enforcement.
 Ins?tute chain control measure
at the bo? om of the Ski Run
(will apply to all vehicles).
 Increase the visibility and size
of No Parking Signs. Add Tow
Signs.
 Higher Parking Fines and
Towing.
 Provide accurate traveler
informa?on at decision points
to inform visitor when parking
lot and on-street parking is full.
 Heavenly to explore transit
op?ons.
 City to explore other means to
bring visitors to Heavenly
Lodge via new Gondola System
730
Proposed Term Sheet for Heavenly Agreement
Major Discussion Items
Dra?

1. Eliminate On-Street Parking on Needle Peak Rod between Wildwood Ave and Keller Ave

2. Eliminate On-Street Parking on Regina Road between Wildwood Ave and Keller Avenue

3. Re-evaluate the Parking Fee value to be commensurate with other On-Street Parking costs, such as Bellamy Court

4. Heavenly to be responsible for Snow Opera?ons and Sanding for the areas of parking and Needle Peak Road

5. Add Overhead Changeable Message Signs (CMS) at decision points to inform the public about road and parking condi?ons. E.g., on Ski Run before Pioneer and Pioneer before Ski Run

6. Heavenly to par?cipate with the cost of Ski Run Pavement Rehabilita?on

7. Heavenly to par?cipate with the cost of new CMS and replacement of exis?ng CMS on Keller Road

8. Include a Chain Control area at the bo? om of the Ski Run. Heavenly to assign personnel for administra?on

9. Heavenly to assign personnel for all parking areas during weekends and holidays

10. Heavenly to organize a bi-weekly mee?ngs with City staff (PWD and PD) to review the weather forecast and plan for parking and traffic management 731
Woodbine Rd
Pickett Ave
Primrose Rd
David Ln
Long Val el y Ave
Fern Rd
Rocky Po ni t Rd
Bowers Ave
Freel St
Lake Rd
Spruce Ave
Oak Ave
Cape Horn Rd
Glen Rd
Marlette Cir
Steven Ln
Takela Dr
Aspenwald Rd
Herbert Ave
Midway Rd
G el nwood Way
Jun pi er Ave
Woodland Rd
Wildwood Ave
Walkup Rd
Ham Ln
BettyRae Ln
Rancho Cir
Bobby Grey Cir
Shepherds Dr
Pine Grove Ave
Vanda Lee Way
Gilmore Lake Rd
Jobs Peak Dr
Sonora Ave
Heavenly Valley Rd
Bridle Rd
Dot St
Deer Park Ave
Paradise Ave
Needle Peak Rd
Saddle Rd
Blackwood Rd
June Way
Pine Hill Rd
OverlookCt
Azure Ave
Moss Rd
Echo Rd
Lucinda Ct
Ledge Ct
HeavensTrail
Warr Rd
Lost Sheep Ln
Cellador Rd
Lloyd Ave
Champla ni Dr
E vl a Ct
Cra gi Ave
Brian Ln
Ferndale Ave
Cloverdale Ave
Price Rd
Nebelhorn
Ct
Frontier Ct
Ash Ave
Fir Ave
Deer Ln
Rancho Way
Bijou St
Keller Rd
Bill Ave
Dick Lake Rd
Donner Ln
Figueroa Ln
Fawn Way
Woods Ave
Stewart Way
Osgood Ave
Alder Ave
Heather Lake Rd
Mt Rose Rd
Pinecrest Ave
Forest Ave
Peninsula Rd
Larch Ave
Aspen Ave
Birch Ave
Mono Ln
Willow Ave
Markofer Way
Lester St
Crest Rd
Terry Ln
Shirley Ave
Bal Bi oj u Rd
Knoll Ln
Red Lake Rd
Bonita Rd
Pentagon Rd
Ruby Ln
Macked ei Way
Sherman Way
Pine Rd
Susie Lake Rd
Verdon Ln Aloha Rd
TerraceDr
Hobart Rd
Regina Rd
Angora Lake Rd
Timber Ln
Keller Rd
Herbert Ave
Fairway Ave
Treehaven Dr
Chonokis Rd
Wildwood Ave
Montreal Rd
Johnson Blvd
Tamarack Ave
Glenwood Way
Fairway Dr
Blackwood Rd
Ski Run Blvd
Needle Peak Rd
Wi dl wood Ave
Pioneer Trl
Saddle Rd
50 Saddle Rd
Needle Peak Rd
Keller Rd
Ski Run Blvd
Ski Run Blvd
50 Heavenly Cal Base Parking Plan
Exhibit A
Cal Base
Lower Lot
Upper Lot
Tram
Exisiting Changable Message Signs
New Changable Message Signs
Angle Parking
Parallel Parking
Chain Control
Road
City Boundary
Add Overhead
Mounted CMS
Map Extent
Lake Tahoe
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\PublicWorks\GeneralPublicWorksProjects\GeneralPublicWorksProjects.aprx | Heavenly Cal Base Parking Plan | 4/5/2023 Replace Existing CMS
Replace Existing CMS
Chain Control
Add Overhead Area
Mounted CMS
732
Woodbine Rd
David Ln
Saddle Rd
Wildwood Ave
Herbert Ave
Champlain Dr
Woodland Rd
Sterling Ct
Bridle Rd
Needle Peak Rd
June Way
Pine Hill Rd
RockwoodRd
OverlookCt
eather Lake Rd
Timber L
Lucinda Ct n
Ledge Ct
E vl a Ct
Price Rd
Nebelhorn Ct
Aloha Rd
Frontier Ct
Keller Rd
Hobart Rd
Donner Ln
Woods Ave
Peninsula Rd
Crest Rd
Knoll Ln
Bonita Rd
Ruby Ln
Mackedie Way
She mr an Way
Verdon Ln
Terrace Dr
Regina Rd
Blackwood Rd
Keller Rd
Ski Run Blvd
Needle Peak Rd
Wi dl w
o
o
d
Av
e
Pioneer Trl
Saddle Rd Saddle Rd Saddle Rd
Regina Rd
Saddle Rd
Keller Rd
Heavenly Cal Base Snow Removal & Sanding Plan
Exhibit B
Cal Base
Lower Lot
Upper Lot
Tram
Snow Removal and Sanding Area
Road
City Boundary
Map Extent
Lake Tahoe
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\PublicWorks\GeneralPublicWorksProjects\GeneralPublicWorksProjects.aprx | Heavenly Cal Base Snow Removal and Sanding Plan | 4/5/2023733 P a g e | 1

HEAVENLY AREA PROPOSED PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Roadway Segment
Exis? ng Condi? ons Proposed Short-Term
Modifica?on
Proposed Mid-Term
Modifica?on
North or West
Side
South or East
Side
North or
West Side
South or
East Side
North or West
Side
South or East
Side
Bridle Road Keller to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking
(Residen?al
Side)
Parking
Allowed
(Open
Area)
Residen?al
Parking
Permit on One
Side
Parking
Allowed
(Open Area)
Bonita Road Bridle to Bridle (loop) Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking
(Narrow
Street)
No Parking
(Narrow
Street)
Residen?al Parking Permit on
One Side
Donner Lane Wildwood to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking
(Residen?al
Side)
Parking
Allowed
(Open
Area)
Residen?al
Parking
Permit on One
Side (Narrow
Street)
Parking
Allowed
(Open Area)
Keller Road
Saddle Rd to Sherman
Way
Parking Allowed
(In certain
loca?ons Parking
is prohibited due
to safety issues)
No Parking
Any?me No Change No Change
Sherman Way to
Saddle Rd Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side (Narrow Street) Saddle to Regina
No Parking
Any?me, with
Parking allowed
at Heavenly
Valley
Townhouses
No Parking
Any?me
No Change
(Exis?ng allowable Parking
is on the flat area and
approximately 300 feet).

No Change
734
P a g e | 2

HEAVENLY AREA PROPOSED PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Regina to Markoffer Parking Allowed Parking Allowed
No Parking Any?me
(Steep Grades and Safety
Issues. Few residen?al
homes with driveways on
Keller)
No Change
Knoll Lane Needle Peak to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side (Narrow Street)
Logroad Pl. Needle Peak to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me (Narrow Street)
Residen?al Parking Permit on
One Side
Lucinda Ct. Wildwood Ave to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side (Narrow Street)
June Way Saddle to Saddle
No Parking Any?me on one side
and allowed Parking on the other
side
No Parking Any?me on
both sides (Narrow Street)
Residen?al Parking Permit on
One Side (Narrow Street)
MacKedie Way Ski Run to Saddle No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change No Change
Needle Peak
Keller to Wildwood Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side
Wildwood to Ski Run
No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change
(Need more Signs)
No Change
Ski Run to Road
Closure Gate (Road
closed between Nov
to April)
No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change
(Need more Signs)
No Change
Overlook Cir. Wildwood to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side
Saddle Road Saddle Rd to Keller No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change No Change
735
P a g e | 3

HEAVENLY AREA PROPOSED PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Keller to Wildwood No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change No Change
Wildwood to Ski Run Parking Allowed No Parking
Any?me No Change No Change
Ski Run to End No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change No Change
Sherman Way Keller to End Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me on both side
No Parking Any?me on both
side
Timberlake Pl. Needle Peak to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me (Narrow Street)
Residen?al Parking Permit on
One Side
Overlook Cir. Wildwood to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side
Regina Ave Wildwood to Keller Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side (Narrow Street)
Ski Run
Pioneer to Needle
Peak Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Change No Change Needle Peak to
Regina Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Change No Change Regina to Saddle
No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change
(Need more Signs)
No Change
Terrace Drive Wildwood Ave to
Wildwood Ave Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side (Narrow Street) Wildwood Ave
Saddle to Needle
Peak
No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change No Change
Needle Peak to
Wildwood Road
No Parking
Any?me
No Parking
Any?me No Change
(Need more Signs) No Change
Wildwood Road to
Overlook Ct. Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side 736
P a g e | 4

HEAVENLY AREA PROPOSED PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Wildwood Rd. Wildwood Ave to End Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side (Narrow Street)
Woods Ave June to June Parking Allowed Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side (Narrow Street)
Verdon Lane Needle Peak to
Wildwood
No Parking
Any?me Parking Allowed No Parking Any?me Residen?al Parking Permit on One Side 737
Heavenly Valley Parking and
Traffic Management Plan
Council Presentation – July 6, 2023
738
Community
Input
739
Heavenly Village Parking and Traffic Issue and Potential Solutions Issues Potential Countermeasures
 Double Parking on Regina.
 Parking concerns on Keller.
 Parking concerns along Needle Peak.
 Parking in No Parking Zones.
 Traffic Bypass traffic along Verndon.
 Skidding and Traffic Hazards during major snowfall/ice build-up.
 Traffic congestion and parking issues when on-street
parking is full.
 Pedestrian Safety Issues.
 Spillover parking from Heavenly Lodge Parking Area.
 Reduce on-Street Parking in the area.
 Prohibit On-Street Parking between November 1 to May 1 in residential areas, while allowing some visitors to park for the residents.
 More parking enforcement.
 Institute chain control measure at the bottom of the Ski Run (will apply to all vehicles).
 Increase the visibility and size of No Parking Signs. Add Tow Signs.
 Higher Parking Fines and Towing.
 Provide accurate traveler information at decision points to inform visitor when parking lot and on-street parking is full.  Heavenly to explore transit options.
 City to explore other means to bring visitors to Heavenly Lodge via new Gondola System
740
Heavenly Agreement – Major Discussion Topics

1. Eliminate On-Street Parking on Needle Peak Rod between Wildwood Ave and Keller Ave

2. Eliminate On-Street Parking on Regina Road between Wildwood Ave and Keller Avenue

3. Re-evaluate the Parking Fee value to be commensurate with other On-Street Parking costs, such as Bellamy Court

4. Heavenly to be responsible for Snow Operations and Sanding for the areas of parking and Needle Peak Road

5. Add Overhead Changeable Message Signs (CMS) at decision points to inform the public about road and parking conditions. E.g., on Ski Run before Pioneer and Pioneer before Ski Run

6. Heavenly to participate with the cost of Ski Run Pavement Rehabilitation

7. Heavenly to participate with the cost of new CMS and replacement of existing CMS on Keller Road

8. Include a Chain Control area at the bottom of the Ski Run. Heavenly to assign personnel for administration

9. Heavenly to assign personnel for all parking areas during weekends and holidays

10. Heavenly to organize a bi-weekly meeting with City staff (PWD and PD) to review the weather forecast and plan for parking and traffic management

1. Eliminate On-Street Parking on Needle Peak Rod between Wildwood Ave and Keller Ave

2. Eliminate On-Street Parking on Regina Road between Wildwood Ave and Keller Avenue

3. Re-evaluate the Parking Fee value to be commensurate with other On-Street Parking costs, such as Bellamy Court

4. Heavenly to be responsible for Snow Operations and Sanding for the areas of parking and Needle Peak Road

5. Add Overhead Changeable Message Signs (CMS) at decision points to inform the public about road and parking conditions. E.g., on Ski Run before Pioneer and Pioneer before Ski Run

6. Heavenly to participate with the cost of Ski Run Pavement Rehabilitation

7. Heavenly to participate with the cost of new CMS and replacement of existing CMS on Keller Road

8. Include a Chain Control area at the bottom of the Ski Run. Heavenly to assign personnel for administration

9. Heavenly to assign personnel for all parking areas during weekends and holidays

10. Heavenly to organize a bi-weekly meeting with City staff (PWD and PD) to review the weather forecast and plan for parking and traffic management
741
742
Potential Short-Term Solutions – To be completed before November 2023
 Establishing seasonal No Parking/Towing Zones in all residential streets subject to an overflow impact. The average zone of parking impact is estimated to be about half-mile from the Heavenly Lodge, which the public is willing to walk. No Parking will be effective between November 1 to May 1 only.
 Increase the size and height of the No Parking Signs and add a Tow-Away Underplate.  Increase the No Parking violation fine to $200 from the existing $75.  Increase the No Parking in front of Fire Hydrant fine to $200 from the existing $105.  Implement a Chain Control Area at the bottom of the Ski Run  Improve coordination with Heavenly/Vail Resort during winter weather events.  Establishing seasonal No Parking/Towing Zones in all residential streets subject to an overflow impact. The average zone of parking impact is estimated to be about half-mile from the Heavenly Lodge, which the public is willing to walk. No Parking will be effective between November 1 to May 1 only.
 Increase the size and height of the No Parking Signs and add a Tow-Away Underplate.  Increase the No Parking violation fine to $200 from the existing $75.  Increase the No Parking in front of Fire Hydrant fine to $200 from the existing $105.  Implement a Chain Control Area at the bottom of the Ski Run  Improve coordination with Heavenly/Vail Resort during winter weather events. 743
Potential Mid-Term Solutions – To be completed
within one to two years
o Implement a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) along certain roadways with single-family homes. With the RPPP, homeowners can obtain a permit for guests to park on the street. Others will be cited for violation. However, RPPP requires a citywide ordinance for implementation and will have administrative costs and enforcement resources. The City is evaluating an RPPP for other neighborhoods.
o Encourage Heavenly to implement improved transit service between Heavenly Lodge and parking lots in the City, administered by Heavenly/Vail Resorts. This would require an agreement between Heavenly/Vail Resorts and other entities, such as Lake Tahoe Community College. o Improved transit service through the City/TTD initiative and funding with the current efforts to improve citywide transit service.
o Installation of Overhead Changeable Message Signs and replacement of existing non-working signs.
o Implement a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) along certain roadways with single-family homes. With the RPPP, homeowners can obtain a permit for guests to park on the street. Others will be cited for violation. However, RPPP requires a citywide ordinance for implementation and will have administrative costs and enforcement resources. The City is evaluating an RPPP for other neighborhoods.
o Encourage Heavenly to implement improved transit service between Heavenly Lodge and parking lots in the City, administered by Heavenly/Vail Resorts. This would require an agreement between Heavenly/Vail Resorts and other entities, such as Lake Tahoe Community College. o Improved transit service through the City/TTD initiative and funding with the current efforts to improve citywide transit service.
o Installation of Overhead Changeable Message Signs and replacement of existing non-working signs.
744
Potential Long-Term Solutions – To be completed
between 2 to 5 years
Long-term projects are conceptual only and require more detailed evaluation, direction from City Council, and inclusion in City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Currently, there is no funding for these projects, and cost-sharing with Heavenly and other parties may be required to fund these projects.  A new Parking Garage with some type of transit connection to Heavenly Lodge  Construction of Pedestrian/Bike Path on Ski Run/Needle Peak/ Wildwood to separate the vehicle from pedestrians to improve safety.

Long-term projects are conceptual only and require more detailed evaluation, direction from City Council, and inclusion in City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Currently, there is no funding for these projects, and cost-sharing with Heavenly and other parties may be required to fund these projects.  A new Parking Garage with some type of transit connection to Heavenly Lodge  Construction of Pedestrian/Bike Path on Ski Run/Needle Peak/ Wildwood to separate the vehicle from pedestrians to improve safety. 745
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 20
Agenda Item: Regan Beach Parking and Noise Enforcement
Executive Summary: City staff has received several requests to evaluate traffic issues in the Lakeview Avenue neighborhoods during the last 2-years. On September 6, 2022, staff presented to the Council regarding potential countermeasures to address these concerns. On September 6, 2022, the City Council approved a Resolution to fund the recommended traffic safety upgrades. One of the recommended options included changing the Regan Beach hours of operations, installing roadway spikes at the exit gates to prevent vehicles from entering the parking areas after closing hours, when the entry gate is closed, installing No Parking and Tow-Away signs for after-hours and noise ordinance signs. To implement the No Parking Zone and Noise ordinance, the Council should approve the designation to authorize the Police Department to enforce the proposed regulation.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution establishing a "No Parking Zone" at the Regan Beach Parking Lot between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM and authorizing the Police Department to enforce the No Parking Zone and City's Noise Ordinance between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

CEQA Determination: This project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

Responsible Staff Members: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works and David Stevenson, Chief of Police
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works (530) 542-6031 David Stevenson, Chief of Police (530) 452-6120
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_Regan_Beach_Enforcement.docx
02 - Res 2022-114 _Al Tahoe-Highland_Woods_Traffic_Calming_Project.pdf 03- Regan_Beach_Proposed_Signs.pdf
04-No_Parking_Zone.pdf
05-Regan_Beach_Lot_Views.pdf
06-Resolution_for_Regan_Beach_No_Parking_and_Noise_Enforcement.docx 07 - Regan_Beach_Enforcement.pptx
746
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: Parking and Noise Enforcement at Regan Beach
Location: Lakeview Avenue and Highland Woods Neighborhoods Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works - (530) 542-6031 David Stevenson, Chief of Police – (530) 542-6120
Background: City staff has received several requests to evaluate traffic issues in the Lakeview Avenue neighborhoods during the last 2-years. On September 6, 2022, staff presented to the Council regarding potential countermeasures to address these concerns. On September 6, 2022, the City Council approved a Resolution to fund the recommended traffic safety upgrades (See Attachment 02). One of the recommended options included changing the Regan Beach Hours of Operations, installing roadway spikes at the exit gates to prevent vehicles from entering the parking areas after closing hours, when the entry gate is closed, installing No Parking and TowAway signs for after-hours and noise ordinance signs.

Issue and Discussion: Currently, the Regan Beach Hours of Operation are as follows:
 April: 7:00 AM – 9:00 PM
 May to September: 9:30 AM to 9:30 PM
 October to March: Closed for the Winter
Parks and Recreation or Police Department staff physically close the entrance gate after the closing hour.

Based on discussion with the community, residents, and internal staff, the following are the proposed new hours of operation (See Attachment 03):
 April to September: 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM
 October to March: 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM and are subject to change based on weather conditions.

In addition to modifying the hours of operation for consistency and clarity, the residents requested a means to stop traffic entering the parking area after the closing hours from the exit direction. As a result, the City has purchased and installed a spike assembly and appropriate signs to discourage vehicles from entering the lot after hours.

The residents also requested enforcement of parking and noise regulations during evening hours to reduce nuisance and noise. As a result, staff proposed no after-hours parking in the Regan Beach area between 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM, between Sacramento Avenue and Fresno Avenue on the Beachside (See Attachment 04).
747
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Finally, the residents have requested enforcement of the Noise Ordinance after the beach closure to address loud music and noise close to residential areas after hours (See Attachment 03 for the proposed signs and Attachment 04 for views of the parking lot).

To implement the No Parking Zone and Noise ordinance, the Council must approve this designation to allow the Police Department to enforce the proposed regulation.

Financial Implications: The City Council approved $150,000 to implement proposed measures, including the No Parking and Noise Ordinance signs. Police enforcement is a normal function of the Police Department and will be implemented with the current Community Services Officers personnel.

Environmental Considerations: This project is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

Policy Implications: This project advances the City Council Strategic Priorities and Goals related to traffic safety and neighborhood preservation. 748
Resolution 2022-114 September 6, 2022 Page 1 of 1
Resolution 2022-114
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
September 6, 2022
Appropriating $ 150,000 from General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves and Authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary purchase orders for implementation of the Traffic Calming Projects in Highland Woods and Lakeview Neighborhoods

BACKGROUND
A. City staff has received several requests to evaluate traffic calming projects in the Highland Woods and Lakeview Avenue neighborhoods during the last 2-years.

B. City staff has met and discussed several Traffic Calming ideas with the neighborhoods to address neighborhood concerns.

C. In cooperation with the residents, staff has developed several solutions, which can address neighborhood concerns and mitigate the speeding and nuisance issues.

D. City staff can implement the proposed solutions, in-house, through procurement of the equipment and materials necessary for the project.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Authorizes and directs the City Manager to sign the necessary Purchase Orders in accordance with the City’s Procurement policy for the equipment and materials necessary for the proposed traffic calming solutions for the Highland Woods and Lakeview Avenue neighborhoods.

2. Appropriates $ 150,000 from General Fund Undesignated Excess into Misc. Traffic Safety Account 301-50043- 36300 for the purchase of equipment and materials for the Project.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on September 6, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes: Bass, Creegan, Friedrich, Middlebrook and Wallace
Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.

Sue Blankenship ( Sep 7, 2022 13: 31 PDT)
Devin Middlebrook ( Sep 7, 2022 16: 16 PDT)
Sep 7, 2022
749
Res 2022-114 Al Tahoe-Highland woods Traffic
Calming Project
Final Audit Report 2022- 09-07
Created: 2022- 09-07
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAN7l5NV1ZdN5qb8v3cuG0CPonDnMJhMwk Res 2022-114 Al Tahoe-Highland woods Traffic Calming Proje ct" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2022- 09- 07 - 8:09:29 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 09- 07 - 8:10:05 PM GMT
Email viewed by Sue Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2022- 09- 07 - 8:31:35 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 09-07 - 8:31:48 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2022- 09- 07 - 8:31:50 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2022- 09- 07 - 11:16:28 PM GMT- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Devin Middlebrook 2022- 09- 07 - 11:16:39 PM GMT- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Document e-signed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 09-07 - 11:16:40 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Agreement completed.
2022- 09- 07 - 11:16:40 PM GMT
750

REGAN BEACH
- Hours of Operation -
Apr–Sep: 7 AM – 9 PM
Oct-Mar: 7 AM – 6:30 PM *
*Hours Subject to Change
Based on Winter Conditions
G (Special)
30”
30”
10 PM to 6 AM
SLT POLICE DEPT. (530) 542-6100
NO
R38 (CA) Modified
24”
24”

NOISE ORDINANCE

STRICTLY

ENFORCED

VIOLATORS WILL BE CITED
SLTCC 4.70.150, 4.70.160 &

4.70.170
SLT POLICE DEPT. (530) 542-6100

PARKING
TOW‐AWAY
24”
24”
R (Special)
751
Attachment 04
No Parking Zone – 10:00 PM to 6:00
752
AƩachment 05
Regan Beach No Parking DesignaƟon from Lakeview at Sacramento Avenue to Fresno Ave View from Sacramento Avenue
Internal Parking Lot View
753
Internal Parking Lot View
Exit View at Fresno Avenue
754
Resolution 2023-XXX September 6, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 6, 2023
Establishing a “No Parking and Tow Away” Zone between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM in the Regan Beach Parking Lot between Sacramento Avenue to Fresno Avenue

BACKGROUND
A. City staff has received several requests to evaluate traffic calming projects in the Highland Lakeview Avenue neighborhoods during the last 2-years.

B. City staff has discussed several Traffic Calming ideas with the neighborhoods to address neighborhood concerns.

C. In cooperation with the residents, staff has developed several solutions to address neighborhood concerns and mitigate the speeding and nuisance issues.

D. The residents requested a night-time No Parking Zone in the Regan Beach Parking Area and enforcement of the No Parking and City’s Noise Ordinance between 10 PM and 6 AM.

E. Under California Vehicle Code section 22519, a local authority may adopt a resolution to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the parking, stopping, or standing of vehicles on any off-street parking facility which it owns or operates, such as the Regan Beach Parking Lot.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Establishes a No Parking and Tow Away Zone between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM at the Regan Beach Parking Lot between Sacramento Avenue to Fresno Avenue.

2. Authorizes the Police Department to enforce the after-hours No Parking and Noise Regulation between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM at the Regan Beach Parking Lot.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on June 6, 2023, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
755
Resolution 2023-XXX September 6, 2023 Page 2 of 2
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
756
Regan Beach Enforcement
Council Presentation – July 6, 2023
757
Regan Beach – Proposed Hours of Operations
758
Proposed
No Parking
and Noise
Ordinance
Signs
759
Internal View of Parking Lot 1
760
Internal View of Parking Lot 2
761
Proposed No Parking Zone
762
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 21
Agenda Item: Policy Regarding Disposition of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Development Commodities Owned by the City of South Lake Tahoe
Executive Summary: On September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-067, to establish a clear policy for the disposition of City-Owned commodities, and provide for a consistent and equitable disposition process, promote the achievement of the City's affordable housing and community development goals, and provided certainty for the development community. On May 3, 2022, the City Council revised the policy to restrict the use of these commodities for short-term rental products and created an incentive to provide free residential units of use for the construction of accessory dwelling units and multi-family housing.

At a March 28, 2023, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to revise the disposition policy to align with the City's housing priorities and bring the revised policy back to the City Council for discussion and consideration.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution adopting Policy Regarding Disposition of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Development Commodities Owned by the City of South Lake Tahoe (Replaces Resolution 2022-051)
Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved By:

Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report
02-Development Rights Tracking.docx
03-Res 2019-067 Adopt Policy Regarding TRPA Commodities.pdf 04-Res 2022-051 Policy Regarding TRPA Commodities Revision.pdf 05-Resolution-Policy Regarding Development Rights Disposition.docx 763
Council Agenda Report- June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: Policies Regarding Disposition of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Development Commodities Owned by the City of South Lake Tahoe Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Background: The City maintains an inventory of potential residential units of use, single and multi-family residential units of use, tourist accommodation units, commercial floor area, and land coverage, which have been accumulated from various sources (e.g., Environmental Improvement Projects, implementing of Community Plans and Area Plans, City purchase of land with attached development right). See Attachment 02 for an inventory of development rights owned by the City.

These development rights are an integral component the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) growth management system to manage future development in the Tahoe Basin. TRPA growth management regulations established various development rights, which are land use units that are required before development occurs. The following development rights are defined in the TRPA Code:

Commercial Floor Area (CFA): The gross square footage of floor area within the outer wall of a commercial building, not including stairwells and airshafts. It may also include the square footage of other facilities relating to such building, including but not limited to decks that are designated for commercial use under a permit.

Tourist Accommodation Unit (TAU): A unit, with one or more bedrooms and with or without cooking facilities, primarily designed to be rented by the day or week and occupied on a temporary basis.

Residential Unit of Use (RUU): Existing residential unit constructed prior to TRPA or thereafter with a TRPA permit. Must contain cooking facilities, bathing and toilet facilities, and living and sleeping areas. May be associated with a single-family house containing one residential unit or a multi-residential development containing more than one unit per parcel. RUUs are formed by combining a potential residential unit of use (PRU) and a residential allocation. 764
Council Agenda Report- June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 4
Potential Residential Units of Use (PRU): Attached to certain parcels in the basin, it’s the ability to develop a vacant lot for a new residential dwelling. A potential residential unit of use together with a residential allocation becomes an existing residential unit of use upon construction. (Previously known as Residential Development Rights)
Issue and Discussion: Prior to the adoption of a disposition policy, the sale of development rights was considered on a case-by-case basis by the City Council. In some instances, the development rights were awarded for free; in other cases, a fee was charged.

In order to establish a clear City policy for the disposition of these assets, the City Council on September 3, 2019, adopted Resolution 2019-067 (See Attachment 03), which provided for a consistent and equitable disposition process, promoted the achievement of the City's affordable housing and community development goals, and provided certainty for the development community. The adopted resolutions 1) established an annual determination for the fair market value of the development rights and specified that the City Council would establish a price point for each category by applying a factor of one-third to be the recommended rate, 2) provides for the earmarking of sales revenue in the City's new Workforce Housing Fund (to be used for targeted affordable housing initiatives), 3) provides for the sale of development rights for deed-restricted housing projects at no cost, 4) provides for the sale of development rights for multi-family residential projects and mixed-use projects within an established Town Center at no cost, 5) provides for the sale of development rights for commercial or industrial projects that redevelop distressed properties at no cost, and 6) delegates authority to complete transactions to the City Manager.

On May 3, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-051 (see Attachment 04) amending the previous resolution to set aside 20 City banked tourist accommodation units to be converted to residential units of use and provided at no cost to construct new accessory dwelling units. The resolution also set aside 20 tourist accommodation units to be converted and used to build new multi-family projects. The resolution requires deed restrictions be placed on the properties prohibiting their use as a vacation home rental. For multi-family projects, deed-restricting the occupancy of units to tenants employed at least 30 hours per week at a place of business in the Tahoe Basin. Language was also adopted, restricting the conversion of commercial floor area to other development rights.

As of the writing of this staff report, the City has received $394,989.95 in revenue from the sale of commodities that is set aside for the Housing program. The table below lists all transactions completed to date.

CITY-OWNED DEVELOPMETN RIGHTS TRANSACTIONS
Location Project Type
Development
Right Cost Comments
1195 Ski Run Blvd
Recreation - Ski Run
Park Coverage $0.00 City Council granted at no cost
2877 Lake Tahoe
Blvd
Commercial
Remodel Coverage $23,349.00 Coverage for LTSLT Office Remodel 765
Council Agenda Report- June 6, 2023 Page 3 of 4
1772 D Street Commercial Coverage $316,540.00
Coverage for New
Commercial/Industrial Buildings
1772 D Street Commercial CFA $9,384.69
CFA for New Commercial/Industrial
Building
980 Link Rd Commercial CFA $8,096.76 CFA for New Commercial Building Tahoe Valley MFD
Project
Multi-Family
Residential CFA $14,000.00
CFA Converted for 14 Unit market
Rate Multi-Family Project
1181 Emerald Bay
Rd Commercial Addition CFA $5,705.00
CFA for Outdoor Dining at the Lake
House Restaurant
933 Poplar
Tourist
Accommodation CFA $5,414.50
CFA for Maggi's Restaurant
(Desolation Hotel)
1056 Ski Run Blvd
Single Family
Residential 1 ERUU $7,500.00
ERUU to Convert Commercial
Building to a Residential Unit
2494 Conestoga
Multi-Family
Residential 1 ERUU $5,000.00 ERUU for a New Duplex
3067 Bellevue
Ave ADU 1 ERUU $0.00 TAU to ERUU Conversion
1061 William Ave ADU 1 ERUU $0.00 TAU to ERUU Conversion 1051 William Ave ADU 1 ERUU $0.00 TAU to ERUU Conversion 1320 Bonanza
Ave ADU 1 ERUU $0.00 TAU to ERUU Conversion
1109 Tata Ave ADU 1 ERUU $0.00 TAU to ERUU Conversion
2 College Drive
Multi-Family
Residential (Student
Housing) 14 ERUU $0.00 TAU to ERUU Conversion
1029 Tata Ln
Multi-Family
Residential (SPV) 1 ERUU $0.00 ERUU for Manager's Unit
On March 28, 2023, during a presentation of the Development Rights Annual Report, the City Council had a discussion on the existing disposition policy (Resolution 2022-051) regarding how the discounted rate was established, the potential use of TAUs for new tourist accommodation 766
Council Agenda Report- June 6, 2023 Page 4 of 4
projects, and directed staff to bring back the resolution to City Council for discussion and consideration with changes to the TAU policy to reflect the City’s Housing priority.

The disposition policies have been revised as follows:

1. The limitation on the number of TAUs to be converted is deleted.

2. A provision limiting the conversion of TAUs only to Residential Units of Use

3. Allowing converted TAUs to be used for deed-restricted units only if TRPA Bonus Units are unavailable.

4. Removes the requirement that multi-family projects constructed with converted TAUs are limited to tenants employed at least 30 hours per week at a place of business in the Tahoe Basin.

City staff recommends lifting the tenancy restriction to remove this barrier to the development of multi-family rental housing. Note that the policy already includes a requirement that, where the City has provided commodities, a deed restriction be placed on the property prohibiting use as a Vacation Home Rental.

Financial Implications: Revenue generated from the sale of development rights and/or land coverage is used to support City Council Housing priorities. The revenue generated from direct sales of the development rights/land coverage is earmarked to support the City's Workforce Housing Fund (to be used for targeted housing initiatives). Satisfaction with all conditions of an approved sale, including project completion, is required before the funds are available for use.

The Development Services Department has resources to implement the program, including coordinating the sale of development rights with the City Manager's office and the Finance Department, preparing TRPA transfer applications, and tracking the sale and transfer of development rights and land coverage.

Environmental Considerations: Implementing a policy for the sale of development rights and land coverage is not approval of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15352 and 15378. Any proposed project that uses development rights or land coverage purchased from the City would be required to go through a project-level environmental analysis pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

Policy Implication: The City Council policies for the distribution of development commodities is consistent with the following General Plan Land Use Element policy. Note that the target number of residential units has been updated in the recently adopted Housing Element.

Policy LU
1.10: Future Residential Development Rights (RDR) Commodities. The City shall pursue the maximum amount of available residential unit allocations from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in order to use them as an incentive for revitalization, including workforce housing, up to an additional 940 market rate units and 222 affordable units. (Note: please see the Housing Element for additional policies related to market rate and affordable housing, incentives, and locations).
767
ATTACHMENT 02

CITY VERIFIED & BANKED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

STATELINE HYDROLOGIC AREA
Low Capability Hard Coverage 68,143 SF
Low Capability Hard Coverage (ROW) 4,170 SF
High Capability Hard Coverage 69,024 SF
High Capability Hard Coverage (ROW) 40,220 SF
Soft Coverage 7,706 SF
Soft Coverage (ROW) 4,134 SF

SOUTH UPPER TRUCKEE HYRDROLOGIC AREA
Low Capability Hard Coverage 92,956 SF
Low Capability Hard Coverage (ROW) 1,927 SF
High Capability Hard Coverage 24,849 SF
High Capability Hard Coverage (ROW) 37,367 SF
High Capability Potential Coverage1 150,000 SF
Soft Coverage 0 SF
Soft Coverage (ROW) 2,625 SF

OTHER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Airport 1b Hard Coverage 63,472 SF
SEZ Restoration Credit2 42,260 SF
Potential Residential Unit of Use (PRUU)3 65
Existing Residential Unit of Use (ERUU) 8.5
Tourist Accommodation Unit (TAU) City 140
Tourist Accommodation Unit (TAU)
Successor Agency 18
CFA Banked 20,390 SF
Sewer Units 67

COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA POOLS
South Y Industrial Community Plan 0 SF
Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan 6,150 SF
Tahoe Valley Area Plan 944 SF
Tourist Core Area Plan 0 SF
EIP 1 Pool 2,664 SF
EIP 2 Pool 8,000 SF
Community Plan Recharge 5,106 SF

1. Transfer of 150,000 SF of Class 5 potential coverage to the City currently pending TRPA approval

2. 25,000 SF of SEZ restoration credit reserved for the California Tahoe Conservancy. Transfer to CTC Pending TRPA approval.

3. 65 Potential Residential Units of Use transfer from CTC to City pending TRPA approval.
768
Resolution 2019-067 September 17, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Resolution 2019-067
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council
September 17, 2019
Policy Regarding Disposition of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Development Commodities Owned by City of South Lake Tahoe

BACKGROUND
A. The Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA) is the land use authority and has established a development rights system to manage future development and a system to regulate the amount of land coverage in the Tahoe basin.

B. The TRPA development rights are land use units that must be acquired before a property can be developed. Development rights include potential residential units of use ( PRUs), single and multi-family residential units of use (RUUs), tourist accommodation units (TAUs), and commercial floor area (CFA).

C. Permanent land coverage is also regulated by the TRPA to protect the Lake Tahoe watershed. Parcels are limited to a specified amount of land coverage and, in some cases, may be transferred to maximize the allowable amount on a given parcel.

D. The City of South Lake Tahoe is subject to applying the development rights and land coverage systems to our review and approval of land use entitlement applications that are subject to the TRPA/City Memorandum of Understanding.

E. The City has TRPA development rights and land coverage which have accumulated from various sources (e.g., Environmental Improvement Projects, implementation of Community Plans and Area Plans, City purchase of land with attached development rights, the retirement of rights, and TRPA allocation of development).

F. The City has been approached by project developers/applicants interested in securing development rights and land coverage from the City.

G. The City has independently sold or provided various TRPA development rights and land coverage to project developers/applicants based on the merits of the individual project.

H. Through the sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage the City has also provided an environmental and economic incentive to projects which otherwise would not have been economically feasible.

I. The City believes it is appropriate, and transparent, to establish a policy that addresses the future distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage maintained by the City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 19396AFD-064F-4828-8D37-0F894DFA7B63 769
Resolution 2019-067 September 17, 2019 Page 2 of 5
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Acknowledges and reserves the right to retain all necessary TRPA development rights and land coverage to support City-sponsored municipal projects; and

2. Hereby authorizes the distribution and sale of City maintained TRPA development rights and land coverage subject to the provisions of this policy; and

3. The City Council adopts the following policy for the distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage :

A. Distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be directed toward the development of residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial properties in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

B. Distribution and sale of City-owned TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan, TRPA Code of Ordinances, City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and Municipal Code, and all other applicable community or area plan policies.
i. When a developer/applicant requests City maintained TRPA development rights and/or land coverage for a project to be located within the City, the proposed project shall be evaluated to ensure the project is consistent with the following criteria;
a. The subject property must be in the City of South Lake Tahoe; and b. The developer/applicant must have a planning application on file with the Development Services Department, prior to a project developer/applicant requesting development rights and/or land coverage; and
c. The proposed project provides an environmental and/or economic benefit for the community.

C. The distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage shall be to the affected parcel(s), not the developer/applicant; and i. Any change to an approved project (e.g., elevations, building siting, interior configuration) may result in the revocation of prior reservation and/or allocated development rights and/or land coverage. The developer/ applicant will return to the City the allocated development rights and/or land coverage. The City shall reimburse the developer/applicant the price of sale, less the City’s administrative processing fee.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 19396AFD-064F-4828-8D37-0F894DFA7B63 770
Resolution 2019-067 September 17, 2019 Page 3 of 5
D. The distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost for the following projects:
i. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to single or multi-family residential projects, which are deed restricted to accommodate low, very-low, and moderate-income families, as defined by the Department of Housing and Community Development HCD) annual State Income Limits, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 50093.
ii. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to a developer/applicant of a multi-family residential project or a mixed-use project, if the project is located with the boundaries of an identified Town Center.
a. In order to qualify for city-owned development rights and land coverage at no cost under this provision, the developer/applicant shall provide evidence that all residential units in said project are deed-restricted for occupancy by a tenant employed at least 30 hours per week at a place of business located in the Tahoe Basin.
b. A mixed-use project can be the horizontal or vertical mix of uses residential, commercial and industrial) within the same building structure.
iii. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to commercial/industrial projects, when the property is deemed to be distressed and/or blighted, and the value of the proposed improvements and/or new construction are greater than fifty-one percent of the El Dorado County assessed value.

E. Should an approved residential, commercial, mixed-use, or industrial project later choose to subdivide the land (pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act), all previously required deed restrictions will remain in force or the developer shall reimburse the City the full market rate for said development rights/land coverage at the time of subdivision.

4. The City Council adopts the following implementation strategy for the distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage:

A. The Development Services Department will have an appraisal prepared by a California licenses appraiser, analyzing the sale of each development right potential residential units of use (PRUs), single and multi-family residential units of use (RUUs), tourist accommodation units (TAUs), commercial floor area (CFA); and land coverage), for the preceding calendar year.
i. The appraiser shall prepare the above-described report for presentation to the City Council on or before February 1 of each calendar year.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 19396AFD-064F-4828-8D37-0F894DFA7B63 771
Resolution 2019-067 September 17, 2019 Page 4 of 5
a. The report shall describe the methodology used in determining the value of each development right category, including commercial floor area, and
b. The report shall contain recommendations for each development right category, including land coverage; and
c. The report shall also include a recommended tiers rate structure to address variances based on the scale of the project.
ii. The City Council reserves the right to annually set the price point for each development right type and/or land coverage; and
a. The established cost per category, shall be based upon one-third of the recommended appraisal rate. The City Council may adjust the development rights and land coverage rates based upon the first prepared appraisal, and every four years thereafter.
iii. A developer/applicant shall have one-year from the date of the approved development right/land coverage request to submit and obtain a building permit, issued through the City. If this milestone is unachievable the applicant may apply for an extension or relinquish the City granted development rights and land coverage.
iv. One, one-year extension for the retention of approved development rights/ land coverage may be granted by the City Manager, based on the project continuing to meet the distribution policy and proceeding in a diligent manner, or relinquish the City granted development rights and land coverage.
v. The sale and transfer of development rights/land coverage shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. vi. If any of the associated City Planning, Building and/or TRPA permits expire, the allocated development rights/land coverage shall be returned to the City. The City shall also reimburse the developer/applicant for the cost of those development rights/land coverage, less the City’s administrative processing fee.
vii. Should the project parcel(s) change ownership the development rights may be transferred to a new owner so long as the project is constructed as approved. Any change to an approved project (e.g., elevations, building siting, interior configuration) may result in the revocation of prior reservation and/or allocated development rights and/or land coverage. viii. When approved development rights/land coverage is banked on a sending parcel, the developer/applicant shall obtain TRPA Transfer of DocuSign Envelope ID: 19396AFD-064F-4828-8D37-0F894DFA7B63 772
Resolution 2019-067 September 17, 2019 Page 5 of 5
Development Rights approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
ix. The proceeds from the sale of city-owned development rights/land coverage shall be dedicated to the City’s Workforce Housing Fund to support the City’s affordable housing initiatives.

B. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Manager the authority to approve or deny, and to complete the distribution and sale of the development rights/land coverage inside the City of South Lake Tahoe consistent with the criteria outlined in this policy.

C. The City Council reserves the sole right to distribute and sell development rights/land coverage to private developers and other public agencies outside the City of South Lake Tahoe, and all such distribution and sales shall be at the full market rate at that time.

D. The City Council hereby directs the implementation of an annual review process of this policy to be completed prior to February 1, of each calendar year.

E. These policies supersede all other distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage policies adopted by the City Council through Resolution No. 2017-73; and
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on September 17, 2019 by the following vote:

Yes: Collin, Laine, Middlebrook and Wallace

Absent: Bass
Brooke Laine, Mayor Date
Attest:

Sue Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 19396AFD-064F-4828-8D37-0F894DFA7B63 9/ 27/ 2019
773

Resolution 2022-051
Adopted by the City of South LakeTahoe
City Council
May 3, 2022
Policy Regarding Disposition of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency TRPA) Development Commodities Owned by City of South Lake Tahoe Replacing Resolution 2019-067)

BACKGROUND
A. The Tahoe Regional Planning Authority ( TRPA) is the land use authority and has established a development rights system to manage future development and a system to regulate the amount of land coverage in the Tahoe basin.

B. The TRPA development rights are land use units that must be acquired before a property can be developed. Development rights include potential residential units of use ( PRUs), single and multi-family residential units of use ( RUUs), tourist accommodation units (TAUs), and commercial floor area (CFA).

C. Permanent land coverage is also regulated by the TRPA to protect the Lake Tahoe watershed. Parcels are limited to a specified amount of land coverage and, in some cases, may be transferred to maximize the allowable amount on a given parcel.

D. The City of South Lake Tahoe is subject to applying the development rights and land coverage systems to our review and approval of land use entitlement applications that are subject to the TRPA/City Memorandum of Understanding.

E. The City has TRPA development rights and land coverage which have accumulated from various sources ( e.g., Environmental Improvement Projects, implementation of Community Plans and Area Plans, City purchase of land with attached development rights, the retirement of rights, and TRPA allocation of development).

F. The City has been approached by project developers/applicants interested in securing development rights and land coverage from the City.

G. The City has independently sold or provided various TRPA development rights and land coverage to project developers/applicants based on the merits of the individual project.

H. Through the sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage the City has also provided an environmental and economic incentive to projects which otherwise would not have been economically feasible.

I. The City believes it is appropriate, and transparent, to establish a policy that addresses the future distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage maintained by the City.

Res 2022- 051 May 3, 2022 774

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Acknowledges and reserves the right to retain all necessary TRPA development rights and land coverage to support City-sponsored municipal projects; and

2. Hereby authorizes the distribution and sale of City maintained TRPA development rights and land coverage subject to the provisions of this policy; and

3. The City Council adopts the following policy for the distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage:

A. Distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be directed toward the development of residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial properties in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

B. Distribution and sale of City-owned TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan, TRPA Code of Ordinances, City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and Municipal Code, and all other applicable community or area plan policies. i. When a developer/applicant requests City maintained TRPA development rights and/or land coverage for a project to be located within the City, the proposed project shall be evaluated to ensure the project is consistent with the following criteria;
a. The subject property must be in the City of South Lake Tahoe; and
b. The developer/applicant must have a planning application on file with the Development Services Department, prior to a project developer/applicant requesting development rights and/or land coverage; and
c. The proposed project provides an environmental and/or economic benefit for the community.

C. The distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage shall be to the affected parcel(s), not the developer/applicant; and i. Any change to an approved project (e.g., elevations, building size or siting, land uses, or density) may result in the revocation of prior reservation and/or allocated development rights and/or land coverage. The City Manager has the discretion to require any project change to be reviewed by the City Council to determine whether development rights or land coverage should be revoked. If revoked, the developer/ applicant will return to the City the allocated development rights and/or land coverage. The City shall reimburse the developer/applicant the price of sale, less the City's Res 2022- 051 May 3, 2022 775

administrative processing fee.

D. The distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost for the following projects:
i. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to single or multi-family residential projects, which are deed restricted to accommodate low, very-low, and moderate-income families, as defined by the Department of Housing and Community Development HCD) annual State Income Limits, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 50093.
ii. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to a developer/applicant of a multi-family residential project or a mixed-use project containing multi-family residential units, if the project is located with the boundaries of an identified Town Center. a. A mixed-use project can be the horizontal or vertical mix of uses residential, commercial and industrial).
iii. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to commercial/industrial projects, when the property is deemed to be distressed and/or blighted, and the value of the proposed improvements and/or new construction are greater than fifty-one percent of the El Dorado County assessed value.
iv. Up to 20 City banked Tourist Accommodation Units may be converted to Residential Units of Use and sold at no cost for the construction of new Accessory Dwelling Units.
v. Up to 20 City banked Tourist Accommodation Units may be converted to Residential Units of Use and sold at no cost for the construction of new multifamily (2 or more units) projects where the developer/applicant provides evidence that all residential units utilizing converted City Tourist Accommodation Units are deed-restricted for occupancy by a tenant employed at least 30 hours per week at a place of business located in the Tahoe Basin.

Should an approved residential, commercial, mixed-use, or industrial project later choose to subdivide the land (pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act), all previously required deed restrictions will remain in force or the developer shall reimburse the City the full market rate for said development rights/land coverage at the time of subdivision.

E. Should the City provide or sell development rights or land coverage for a project containing residential units, a deed restriction shall be placed on the property prohibiting use as a Vacation Home Rental as defined in City Code Section

3.50.370.

F. Commercial Floor Area shall only be provided or sold to a commercial project and shall Res 2022- 051 May 3, 2022 776

not be converted to other development right types.

4. The City Council adopts the following implementation strategy for the distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage:

A. The Development Services Department will have an appraisal prepared by a California licenses appraiser, analyzing the sale of each development right ( potential residential units of use (PRUs), single and multi-family residential units of use (RUUs), tourist accommodation units ( TAUs), commercial floor area ( CFA); and land coverage), for the preceding calendar year.
i. The appraiser shall prepare the above-described report for presentation to the City Council on or before February 1 of each calendar year. a. The report shall describe the methodology used in determining the value of each development right category, including commercial floor area, and
b. The report shall contain recommendations for each development right category, including land coverage; and
c. The report shall also include a recommended tiers rate structure to address variances based on the scale of the project.
ii. The City Council reserves the right to annually set the price point for each development right type and/or land coverage; and
a. The established cost per category, shall be based upon one-third of the recommended appraisal rate.
iii. A developer/applicant shall have one-year from the date of the approved development right/land coverage request to submit and obtain a building permit, issued through the City. If this milestone is unachievable the applicant may apply for an extension or relinquish the City granted development rights and land coverage.
iv. One, one-year extension for the retention of approved development rights/ land coverage may be granted by the City Manager, based on the project continuing to meet the distribution policy and proceeding in a diligent manner, or relinquish the City granted development rights and land coverage.
v. The sale and transfer of development rights/land coverage shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. vi. If any of the associated City Planning, Building and/or TRPA permits expire, the allocated development rights/land coverage shall be returned to the City. The City shall also reimburse the developer/applicant for the cost of those development rights/land coverage, less the City's administrative processing fee.

Res 2022- 051 May 3, 2022 777

vii. Should the project parcel(s) change ownership the development rights may be transferred to a new owner so long as the project is constructed as approved. Any change to an approved project (e.g., elevations, building siting, interior configuration) may result in the revocation of prior reservation and/or allocated development rights and/or land coverage. viii. When approved development rights/land coverage is banked on a sending parcel, the developer/applicant shall obtain TRPA Transfer of Development Rights approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
ix. The proceeds from the sale of city-owned development rights/land coverage shall be dedicated to the City's Workforce Housing Fund to support the City's affordable housing initiatives.

B. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Manager the authority to approve or deny, and to complete the distribution and sale of the development rights/land coverage inside the City of South Lake Tahoe consistent with the criteria outlined in this policy.

C. The City Council reserves the sole right to distribute and sell development rights/land coverage to private developers and other public agencies outside the City of South Lake Tahoe, and all such distribution and sales shall be at the full market rate at that time.

D. The City Council hereby directs the implementation of an annual review process of this policy to be completed prior to February 1, of each calendar year.

E. These policies supersede all other distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage policies adopted by the City Council through Resolution No. 2017-73.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 3, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes: Bass, Creegan, Friedrich, Middlebrook and Wallace
Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.

Res 2022- 051 May 3, 2022
Sue Blankenship ( May 25, 2022 09: 04 PDT)
Devin Middlebrook ( May 25, 2022 09:25 PDT) May 25, 2022 778
Res 2022-051 Policy Regarding TRPA
Commodities Revision
Final Audit Report 2022- 05-25
Created: 2022- 05-25
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAtGyrc2ECgvByyBwRi0dvs3q0zrXmOaug Res 2022-051 Policy Regarding TRPA Commodities Revision" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2022- 05- 25 - 3:51:49 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 05- 25 - 4:00:12 PM GMT
Email viewed by Sue Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2022- 05- 25 - 4:04:13 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 05-25 - 4:04:28 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 05- 25 - 4:04:30 PM GMT
Email viewed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) 2022- 05- 25 - 4:24:45 PM GMT- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Document e-signed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 05-25 - 4:25:04 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Agreement completed.
2022- 05- 25 - 4:25:04 PM GMT
779
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 6
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 6, 2023
Adopting Policy Regarding Disposition of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Development Commodities Owned by the City of South Lake Tahoe (Replaces Resolution 2022-051)

BACKGROUND
A. The Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA) is the land use authority and has established a development rights system to manage future development and a system to regulate the amount of land coverage in the Tahoe basin.

B. The TRPA development rights are land-use units that must be acquired before a property can be developed. Development rights include potential residential units of use ( PRUs), single and multi-family residential units of use ( RUUs), tourist accommodation units (TAUs), and commercial floor area (CFA).

C. Permanent land coverage is also regulated by the TRPA to protect the Lake Tahoe watershed. Parcels are limited to a specified amount of land coverage and, in some cases, may be transferred to maximize the allowable amount on a given parcel.

D. The City of South Lake Tahoe is subject to applying the development rights and land coverage systems to our review and approval of land use entitlement applications that are subject to the TRPA/City Memorandum of Understanding.

E. The City has TRPA development rights and land coverage, which have accumulated from various sources (e.g., Environmental Improvement Projects, implementation of Community Plans and Area Plans, City purchase of land with attached development rights, the retirement of rights, and TRPA allocation of development).

F. The City has been approached by project developers/applicants interested in securing development rights and land coverage from the City.

G. The City has independently sold or provided various TRPA development rights and land coverage to project developers/applicants based on the merits of the individual project.

H. Through the sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage, the City has also provided an environmental and economic incentive to projects which otherwise would not have been economically feasible.
780
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 6
I. The City believes it is appropriate and transparent to establish a policy that addresses the future distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage maintained by the City.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Acknowledges and reserves the right to retain all necessary TRPA development rights and land coverage to support City-sponsored municipal projects; and

2. Hereby authorizes the distribution and sale of City maintained TRPA development rights and land coverage subject to the provisions of this policy; and

3. The City Council adopts the following policy for the distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage:

A. Distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be directed toward the development of residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial properties in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

B. Distribution and sale of City-owned TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan, TRPA Code of Ordinances, City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and Municipal Code, and all other applicable community or area plan policies.
i. When a developer/applicant requests City maintained TRPA development rights and/or land coverage for a project to be located within the City, the proposed project shall be evaluated to ensure the project is consistent with the following criteria;
a. The subject property must be in the City of South Lake Tahoe; and b. The developer/applicant must have a planning application on file with the Development Services Department, prior to a project developer/applicant requesting development rights and/or land coverage; and c. The proposed project provides an environmental and/or economic benefit for the community.

C. The distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage shall be to the affected parcel(s), not the developer/applicant; and
i. Any change to an approved project (e.g., elevations, building size or siting, land uses, or density) may result in the revocation of prior reservation and/or allocated development rights and/or land coverage. The City Manager has the 781
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 3 of 6
discretion to require any project change to be reviewed by the City Council to determine whether development rights or land coverage should be revoked. If revoked, the developer/ applicant will return to the City the allocated development rights and/or land coverage. The City shall reimburse the developer/applicant the price of sale, less the City's administrative processing fee.

D. The distribution and sale of TRPA development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost for the following projects:
i. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to single or multi-family residential projects, which are deed restricted to accommodate low, very-low, and moderate-income families, as defined by the Department of Housing and Community Development HCD) annual State Income Limits, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 50093. ii. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to a developer/applicant of a multi-family residential project or a mixeduse project containing multi-family residential units, if the project is located with the boundaries of an identified Town Center.
a. A mixed-use project can be the horizontal or vertical mix of uses residential, commercial and industrial).
iii. The sale of city-owned development rights and land coverage shall be at no cost to commercial/industrial projects, when the property is deemed to be distressed and/or blighted, and the value of the proposed improvements and/or new construction are greater than fifty-one percent of the El Dorado County assessed value.
iv. City banked Tourist Accommodation Units may only be converted to Residential Units of Use and sold at no cost for the construction of new Accessory Dwelling Units or the construction of new multi-family rental units (2 or more units) projects.

Should an approved residential, commercial, mixed-use, or industrial project later choose to subdivide the land (pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act), all previously required deed restrictions will remain in force, or the developer shall reimburse the City the full market rate for said development rights/land coverage at the time of subdivision.

E. Should the City provide or sell development rights or land coverage for a project containing residential units, a deed restriction shall be placed on the property prohibiting use as a Vacation Home Rental as defined in City Code Section

3.50.370.
782
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 4 of 6
F. Commercial Floor Area shall only be provided or sold to a commercial project and shall not be converted to other development right types.

4. The City Council adopts the following implementation strategy for the distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage:

A. The Development Services Department will have an appraisal prepared by a California licenses appraiser, analyzing the sale of each development right (potential residential units of use (PRUs), single and multi-family residential units of use (RUUs), tourist accommodation units (TAUs), commercial floor area (CFA); and land coverage), for the preceding calendar year. i. The appraiser shall prepare the above-described report for presentation to the City Council on or before February 1 of each calendar year. a. The report shall describe the methodology used in determining the value of each development right category, including commercial floor area, and b. The report shall contain recommendations for each development right category, including land coverage; and
c. The report shall also include a recommended tiers rate structure to address variances based on the scale of the project.
ii. The City Council reserves the right to annually set the price point for each development right type and/or land coverage; and
a. The established cost per category, shall be based upon one-third of the recommended appraisal rate.
iii. A developer/applicant shall have one-year from the date of the approved development right/land coverage request to submit and obtain a building permit, issued through the City. If this milestone is unachievable the applicant may apply for an extension or relinquish the City granted development rights and land coverage.
iv. One, one-year extension for the retention of approved development rights/ land coverage may be granted by the City Manager, based on the project continuing to meet the distribution policy and proceeding in a diligent manner, or relinquish the City granted development rights and land coverage.
v. The sale and transfer of development rights/land coverage shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. vi. If any of the associated City Planning, Building and/or TRPA permits expire, the allocated development rights/land coverage shall be returned 783
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 5 of 6
to the City. The City shall also reimburse the developer/applicant for the cost of those development rights/land coverage, less the City's administrative processing fee.
vii. Should the project parcel(s) change ownership the development rights may be transferred to a new owner so long as the project is constructed as approved. Any change to an approved project (e.g., elevations, building siting, interior configuration) may result in the revocation of prior reservation and/or allocated development rights and/or land coverage. viii. When approved development rights/land coverage is banked on a sending parcel, the developer/applicant shall obtain TRPA Transfer of Development Rights approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
ix. The proceeds from the sale of city-owned development rights/land coverage shall be dedicated to the City's Workforce Housing Fund to support the City's affordable housing initiatives.

B. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Manager the authority to approve or deny, and to complete the distribution and sale of the development rights/land coverage inside the City of South Lake Tahoe consistent with the criteria outlined in this policy.

C. The City Council reserves the sole right to distribute and sell development rights/land coverage to private developers and other public agencies outside the City of South Lake Tahoe, and all such distribution and sales shall be at the full market rate at that time.

D. The City Council hereby directs the implementation of an annual review process of this policy to be completed prior to February 1, of each calendar year.

E. These policies supersede all other distribution and sale of development rights and land coverage policies adopted by the City Council through Resolution 2017- 73, Resolution 2019-067, and Resolution 2022-051.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on June 6, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
784
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 6 of 6
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certified that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
785
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 22
Agenda Item: City of South Lake Tahoe Residential Allocation Procedures Executive Summary: The City Council maintains a policy for the distribution of residential allocations received from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The policy directs residential allocations to be available for single-family, multi-family and Town Center projects. The proposed resolutions would establish an allocation acceptance fee for single-family allocations based on the size of the housing unit constructed.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution approving revised residential allocation procedures and amending the Master fee Schedule.

Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Residential Allocation Proceedures.docx 02-RES 2022-050 Residential Allocation Procedures.pdf
03-Res 2023-XXX Residential Allocation Procedures.docx
04-Master Fee Schedule
786
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: City of South Lake Tahoe Residential Allocation Procedures Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services Background: In accordance with Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances Chapter 50, residential allocations are required for the development of any new residential dwelling units in the Tahoe Basin. An allocation represents permission to build an additional residential unit but must be paired with a Potential Residential Unit of Use (PRUU) to construct a unit. Typically, buildable parcels have one associated PRUU. In order to build a multi-family project, a property owner must acquire a PRUU and allocation for each unit proposed for construction or obtain Bonus Units from TRPA.

TRPA releases residential allocations to local jurisdictions in two-year increments.

Distribution to the local jurisdictions is based on a performance review of residential permitting and code compliance, short-term rental (VHR) neighborhood compatibility compliance and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation.

Local jurisdictions then distribute those allocations to parcels within their respective jurisdiction. TRPA reserves 10% of the allocations assigned to each jurisdiction for distribution to owners of undevelopable parcels below the IPES line. These allocations can then be transferred to developable parcels. Reserved allocations that are not claimed by June 1 of the year awarded are then given to the appropriate jurisdiction for issuance. The City Council has maintained a policy for residential allocation distribution, since 1991, with adopted amendments occurring in 1997, 2001, 2009, 2015, 2018, and 2022.
787
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 5
Prior to 2015 the City Residential Allocation Procedure assigned two thirds (66%) of the allocations to single family applicants and one-third of the allocations (33%) for multifamily or condominium projects. In 2015 the City Council amended its policy to align with the goals of the City General Plan, TRPA Regional Plan, and adopted Area Plans.

A central goal of these adopted plans, in particular the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, is the infill development of higher density residential and mixed-use residential land uses within Town Centers. TRPA's Regional Plan Policy LU-3.3 specifically states that development is preferred in and directed toward Town and Regional Centers. The City General Plan includes policies that promote creating higher density walkable mixed-use Town and Regional Centers, (LU-1 .2 and LU-2.10), creating a range of housing options and live/work opportunities (LU-1. 7), and directing allocation of development to Town Centers (LU-2.9). The intent of these policies is to promote infill development and encourage residential uses close to commercial, public, and employment centers to take advantage of existing and planned infrastructure that promotes walking, bicycling, and transit use to encourage mobility without the use of the private automobile. The amended Residential Allocation Procedures dedicated 49% of the City allocations for projects in the Town Centers and maintained a one-third and two-third split of the remaining allocations for single-family and multi-family projects. A map of Town Centers in adopted Area Plans is included as an attachment.

After distribution of allocations in 2015 and 2017 the Residential Allocation Procedure was again analyzed for efficiency in meeting City housing goals and the City Council made the following amendments:
 Cap the number of allocations dedicated to projects in Town Centers at 55 and, if at the cap, distribute all of the allocations 66.6% to single-family and

33.3% to multi-family;
 Distribute allocations reserved by TRPA for low IPES parcels then returned to the City first to single family then multi-family applicants;  Allow any allocations designated for multi-family to be released to singlefamily applicants if there is no demand for multi-family allocations (i.e. no waitlist);
 Only allow an applicant on a waitlist to turn down an allocation offer made after the initial distribution and keep their spot on the waitlist once; and  Allow for more than 8 allocations to be used by a multi-family project in a Town Center.

These amendments allowed for the continued maintenance of an allocation pool to incentivize residential development in Town Centers however, once the cap of 55 is reached, allowed for allocations to be funneled to the single-family waitlist if there isn’t multi-family demand.

In 2021 the policy was again amended to remove the requirement for duplex and triplex projects receiving allocations to submit a Design Review application consistent with the Objective Residential Development and Design Standards adopted in March 2021. The current Resolution 2022-050 approving Residential Allocation Procedures is included as an attachment. In 2022 the policy was amended to require multi-family projects proposing to subdivide into condominiums to obtain single-family allocations. 788
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 3 of 5
Issue and Discussion: Currently, the City maintains the following allocations, from previous distribution years:

Town Center 55
Multi-Family 7
Single-Family 16
The City historically had a very long waitlist for property owners to receive and allocation. There are currently eleven properties on the single-family waitlist, however all of these properties have previously been offered allocations but chose not to accept them. When a property owner requests an allocation, or to be placed on the waitlist, they are required to pay a fee of $746 and submit a deposit of $1000. If the applicant later accepts and utilizes an allocation the deposit is applied to Building Permit fees.

The 55 allocations set aside for Town Center projects have not been utilized, partially due to the scarcity of PRUUs to pair with the allocations. However, as part of an agreement with the California Tahoe Conservancy in 2022, the City obtained 65 PRUUs and are available for distribution according to the City Council Policy Regarding Disposition of Tahoe Regional Planning agency Development Commodities also being discussed on this same City Council agenda. The availability of these PRUUs as well as the conversion of Tourist Accommodation Units to Residential Units of Use will provide additional incentives for developing multi-family projects.

The following chart represents the size of single-family units built within the City between 2017 and 2021. Some of these homes were constructed without the use of a City allocation, however the data provides a general depiction of the new construction distribution of house size.

On April 26, 2023 the TRPA Governing Board approved the distribution of 66 allocations to the City based on the average performance review score for 2021 and 2022 of 93.77 with no deductions based on the results of the performance review. Based on the current Residential Allocation Procedures, 44 allocations would be made available for single-family projects and 22 for multi-family projects. 789
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 4 of 5
Staff is bringing forward a recommended amendment to the Residential Allocation Procedures and City Master Fee Schedule in order to align the policy with City housing goals. The recommended amendment would apply a sliding scale fee for accepting single-family allocations based on the size of the home constructed with that allocation.

The home size increments proposed are consistent with those being analyzed for use in a potential Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, as discussed by the City Council on May 2, 2023. At the time of a property owner’s acceptance of an allocation they would be required to indicate the size of the home they propose to construct and pay the associated fee if the home is greater than 2,000 sq. ft. The home size would then be verified at the time of the Building Permit application.

The recommended fee structure is as follows:

Under 2,000 sq. ft. $0
2,001-2,500 sq. ft. $2,000
2,501-3,000 sq. ft. $5,000
3,001-5,000 sq. ft. $10,000
>/=5,001 sq. ft. $15,000
The maximum fee is based on the market value of purchasing a Residential Unit of use on the private market. These fees would be in addition to the $746 application fee and be subject to CPI increase each year with the Master Fee Schedule adoption.

Revenues generated by these fees would be deposited in the City’s Workforce Housing account and be used for the implementation of City housing initiatives.

If the City proceeds with the adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, this policy will be further evaluated for consistency with the final ordinance and revisions may be recommended at that time.

Financial Implications: If adopted, these amendments would generate a modest amount of funding to support City housing priorities. Residential allocations utilized to construct new housing units in the City also often result in an increase in property value and property taxes received by the City.

Environmental Considerations:Amending the Residential Allocation Procedures is not approval of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15352 and 15378. Any proposed project that uses development rights or land coverage purchased from the City would be required to go through a project-level environmental analysis pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. 790
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 5 of 5
Policy Implications: The proposed action is consistent with City General Plan Policy LU-1.2
Policy LU‐1.2: Smart Growth
The City shall implement Smart Growth principles to create walkable, mixed‐use centers, compact and complete neighborhoods, and enhanced gateways and places. Smart Growth principles include:
• Creating a range of housing opportunities and choices; • Creating walkable neighborhoods;
• Encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration;
• Fostering distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; • Making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost‐effective; • Providing a mix of land uses;
• Preserving open space, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; • Providing a variety of transportation choices;
• Strengthening and directing development to existing communities; and • Taking advantage of compact building design.
791
792
793
794
795
Res 2023-XXX
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 6, 2023
Approving Revised Residential Allocation Procedures

BACKGROUND
A. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency provides authority for the distribution of residential allocations to the city pursuant to TRPA Code of Ordinances Section

50.5.2.C.

B. The City Council adopted a Residential Allocation Policy Statement in 1991 which was amended in 1997, 2001, 2009; 2011, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022.

C. It is desirable for the City to facilitate the utilization of residential allocations for new residential construction within the City limits and to prioritize the use of allocations consistent with City housing goals.

D. It is desirable for the City Residential Allocation Procedures to be clear and as streamlined as possible.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Adopts the Revised Residential Allocation Procedures, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A, and directs staff to initiate implementation of these procedures immediately.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on June 6, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Date:

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
796
Res 2023-XXX
Exhibit A

RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION PROCEDURES
The City of South Lake Tahoe distributes residential unit allocations to local governments every two years. The City Council has maintained a policy for the distribution of these allocations to properties within the City since 1991 with amendments occurring in 1997, 2001, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022.

The purpose of the policy is to provide consistency and fairness in the distribution of allocations to residential properties and property owners wanting to develop housing units within the City.

ALLOCATIONS RECEIVED FROM TRPA

1. Ten percent of the City of South Lake Tahoe allocations are retained by TRPA for the applicants for unbuildable parcels pool.

2. If there are 55 or more allocations currently available in the Town Center pool, the allocations shall be distributed as follows:
o Sixty-six percent (66.6%) of the residential allocations received from TRPA are assigned to single-family applicants.
o Thirty-three percent (33.3%) of the residential allocations are assigned to multi-family projects. These allocations can be used for condominium projects.

3. If there are less than 55 allocations currently available in the Town Center pool, the allocations shall be distributed as follows:
o Forty nine percent (49%) of the residential allocations received from TRPA are assigned to Town Centers in adopted Area Plans. In the event that no applicants on the Town Center waitlist claim an available allocation the Town Center pool may be capped at 55 and additional allocations may be distributed to the multi-family and single-family pools according to the formula described in section 2 above.
o The remaining residential allocations received from TRPA are assigned to any area of the City as follows:
• Sixty-six percent (66.6%) of the Citywide residential allocations received from TRPA are assigned to single-family applicants. • Thirty-three percent (33.3%) of the Citywide residential allocations are assigned to multi-family projects. These allocations can be used for condominium projects.

4. Any allocations which are reissued to the City by TRPA due to lack of applicants for unbuildable parcels shall be distributed first to single-family applicants with priority to those in the Town Center, then to multi-family applicants with priority to those in the Town Center.

5. If all allocations assigned to single-family applicants have been accepted and utilized and there are allocations assigned to multi-family applicants, which have been offered to all applicants on the waiting list but not accepted, indicating a lack of demand, those allocations may be offered to applicants on the single- family waiting list.
797
Res 2023-XXX

NOTIFICATION LETTER

6. Within 30 days after receiving a Notification Letter from the City of South Lake Tahoe the property owner is required to return the Notification Letter with one of the following options selected;
o Accept the allocation and comply with all requirements. The Allocation Certificate must be claimed by the owner or an agent (with written authorization from the owner). Signed original documentation must be provided. A copy of the current Grant Deed must be presented. The multi-family notification letter will specify the number of allocations being issued. The single-family letter will require the property owner to specify the habitable floor area of the unit that will be developed with the allocation and pay a single-family allocation acceptance fee. The applicable fee is included in the City Master Fee Schedule and floor area will be verified at the time of Building Permit application. o Reject the allocation and request name to be placed at the end of the waitlist and include the fee established by the current City Council in the City Master Fee Schedule.
o Reject the allocation and request name to be removed from the waitlist and that the deposit held by the City of South Lake Tahoe be refunded.

7. Only projects offered allocations in the initial distribution are required to be placed at the end of the waitlist or be removed. Allocation offers to projects further down the list, which were not accepted in the initial distribution, may reject the offer and remain in place on the waitlist. However, rejecting an allocation and remaining in place on the waitlist may only occur one time per project. Subsequent allocation offer rejections will result in the project being placed at the end of the waitlist.

ALLOCATIONS AWARDED

8. A property owner (or his/her agent) may receive only one single-family allocation per building season unless there are no other applicants on the waiting list.

9. A maximum of eight (8) allocations may be issued to any one multi-family project per allocation period except for projects located in a Town Center where there is not maximum limit.

10. Repeat names will be moved to the end of the list in the order encountered as it stands at the time of award of these allocations. No additional fee is charged.

11. Multi-family projects that are subdivided into condominiums must obtain singlefamily allocations.

TRANSFER OF ALLOCATION

12. Property owner/applicant's place on the list is parcel and owner specific. It may not be transferred to any other property or owner. If title to the property changes or the property is sold before an Allocation Certificate is issued the property will be removed from the list and the original applicant may request a return of the refundable portion of the deposit. The new owner shall submit the required documentation, fee and deposit to be placed at the end of the existing list.

13. Once an Allocation Certificate is issued the property can be sold with the allocation. Under no circumstances can that allocation be transferred to any other parcel of land.
798
Res 2023-XXX

PLAN SUBMITTAL AND CRITICAL DATES

14. For projects with more than three units, within three (3) months the property owner shall submit a Design Review application packet and checklists to the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Division. Within six (6) months of a design review approval, or one (1) year after submittal date for design review, the property owner shall submit a complete multi-family residential application to the City of South Lake Tahoe Building Division. If the Design Review is not approved within one (1) year after application submittal date the allocation(s) will go back in the distribution pool. The project may remain on the waiting list for future allocation distributions.

15. For single-family, duplex and triplex projects, within six (6) months the property owner shall submit a complete residential building permit application to the City of South Lake Tahoe Building Division.

16. Accepting a residential allocation via written notification to the City of South Lake Tahoe and at any time thereafter returning or rescinding the allocation, or failure to comply with any of the critical dates, shall cause a forfeiture of the deposit and the allocation to the City of South Lake Tahoe.

17. Council action is required to extend any deadlines. 799
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 6, 2023
Amending Master Fee Schedule for Single-Family Allocations

BACKGROUND
A. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency provides authority for the distribution of residential allocations to the city pursuant to TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 50.5.2.C.

B. The City Council adopted a Residential Allocation Policy Statement in 1991 which was amended in 1997, 2001, 2009; 2011, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022.

C. It is desirable for the City to facilitate the utilization of residential allocations for new residential construction within the City limits and to prioritize the use of allocations consistent with City housing goals.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

Does hereby amend the City of South Lake Tahoe FY 2023/2024 Master Fee Schedule to incorporate fees as follows:

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on June 6, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:

Fee Description Unit Adopted Fee
Single-Family Allocation Acceptance Per allocation
Under 2,000 sq. ft.
0 2,001-2,500 sq. ft. $2,000
2,501-3,000 sq. ft. $5,000
3,001-5,000 sq. ft. $10,000
>/=5,001 sq. ft. $15,000
800
Resolution 2023-XXX June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 2
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
801
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 23
Agenda Item: Status Update on Security for Collection of Tax for Transient Lodging Executive Summary: in the past three years, South Lake Tahoe has seen an increase in motel/hotel sales and has encountered instances where TOT audits required during the escrow process couldn't be performed because the City was not informed of the property's sale until afterward. Staff developed a mitigation plan to address the potential loss of TOT revenue. As part of this plan, in September 2022, staff presented to City Council an update to several sections of the City Code Title 3 (Finance), with one of them now requiring the security deposit payments to be made in cash or cash equivalent only. Several months after the update, staff mailed out letters to lodging businesses with the deposit requirements calculated based on existing cash deposits on file. Several lodging businesses expressed concerns about the deposit assessment in cash and requested that the City include this matter as an agenda item.

On May 2, 2023, the City Council subsequently requested that staff to bring this item for discussion (Councilmember Robbins, seconded by Councilmember Wallace).

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to provide direction to staff for future actions regarding security for collection of tax for transient lodging per the City Code Section 3.50.140. Potential alternatives include: (1) elimination of security deposit requirement; (2) reduction in the security deposit maximum amount: (3) no change to the current City Code and processes.

Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - TOT Security Deposit.docx
802
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: Security for Collection of Tax for Transient Lodging Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance (530) 542-7431 Ben Hannah, Accountant II (530) 542-6079
Background: The City Code Title 3 Finance includes provisions for the collection of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). These provisions, along with internally developed processes and procedures, are designed to ensure compliance with TOT payment requirements and recover unpaid TOT. The City employs several methods to ensure accurate TOT collection. Some of these methods include:

1. Liens. Added in 1987, this ordinance allows the City to record a notice (or place a nonmonetary lien) on every transient lodging facility containing more than two units. The current Section 3.50.140, in part, states:

E. Notice shall be recorded with the El Dorado County recorder’s office on every transient lodging facility containing more than two units, as defined in SLTCC 3.00.010. The following notice shall appear with regard to such properties:

Pursuant to this chapter, if any owner or operator liable to the city for any amount of transient occupancy tax or security deposit sells, transfers or assigns the property, the purchasers or successors of such person shall, in escrow, hold sufficient funds to pay such amount in full. The amount shall be determined by audit as described in SLTCC

3.50.140(D).

If any person fails to pay or withhold the required sum, or allows escrow to close without satisfaction in cash of the amount owed to the city, such person shall be personally liable.

2. Deposits: Prior to September 2022 City ordinance update, City Code permitted the use of certain security instruments for deposits in various forms and amounts. The section regarding the deposit was originally added in 1971 and was updated in 1994 to allow cash, bond, or other security as deposit instruments, with $10,000 limit. The bond as an allowable security was removed in 2017, and the deposit limit was increased to $20,000. The current Section 3.50.140 regarding security deposits states:

A. To ensure compliance with transient occupant tax payment requirements, the tax collector shall require each person subject to such requirements to deposit with the city a noninterest bearing security in the form of cash or cash equivalent in the amount required by the terms hereof. The required security shall be equal to an amount not greater than twice the person’s estimated average liability for the period for which a return must be filed or the sum of $20,000, whichever is less. At any time after the amount of the initial deposit is determined, the amount of the security deposit may be determined on current information and recent reporting and payment history if the secured amount is deemed insufficient by the tax collector.
803
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 4

3. Audit and Escrow Demand: When notified of a property’s sale, City Code Section

3.50.140 (D) requires the City to place an escrow demand with the title company for the amount determined based on the history of the most recent three years of TOT filing. The City is also required to perform an audit. The City Code section states the following:

D. If any owner and/or operator of any business or the real property upon which such business is operated sells, transfers, assigns, leases or otherwise quits the business, any person who takes ownership or operation of the business and/or real property upon which such business is operated shall, in escrow, or otherwise, pay such amount in full. The amount to be paid shall be determined by an audit for the last three fiscal years of the property being transferred conducted by the city, less the security deposit, if any, held by the city. No escrow shall be allowed to close concerning any property subject to this chapter unless sufficient funds are retained in escrow to cover any delinquency and paid over to the city from the escrow upon demand; provided, however, that such audit shall, in all cases, be completed within a reasonable period of time after all records necessary to the audit have been provided to the city. All sums deemed due the city at the completion of the audit shall be paid to the city at the completion of the audit by the escrow holder upon written demand of the finance director.

Issue and Discussion: In the past three years, South Lake Tahoe has seen an increase in motel/hotel sales and has encountered instances where TOT audits required during the escrow process couldn’t be performed because the City was not informed of the property’s sale until afterward. This has resulted in potential loss of TOT revenue. While most of these properties have a continuing lien, it is non-monetary and is often overlooked by title companies during escrow.

Bonds and CDs have also been redeemed in the past without the City’s knowledge. Staff raised concerns to the City Manager and developed a mitigation plan to address the potential loss of TOT revenue.

On September 20, 2022, staff presented an update to the City Council regarding the City Code Title 3 Finance, which included two provisions that were outdated or required clarification. The revisions were intended to streamline the collection of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and included changes to the security deposit instruments and an update to the title of the recordkeeping section to align it with audit procedures.

The updated Section 3.50.140 “Security for the Collection of Tax” now requires security deposit payments for Transient Occupancy Tax to be made in cash or cash equivalent only. Redeeming other security instruments, such as certificates of deposit (CDs), can be challenging as CDs can often be redeemed without the City’s authorization. Surety bonds (bonds provision was eliminated in 2017) can be terminated with a simple notice from a hotel operator, requiring additional staff time and effort to recover the deposit. Additionally, record-keeping for non-cash deposits over extended periods has proven to be unsuccessful and prone to errors.

Following these process improvement initiatives, the Finance Department began compiling information on all hotels and motels, calculating the deposit requirements, comparing existing deposits with the requirements, and sending letters to each establishment informing them of the amount due. The letters were sent to hotels on April 6th. Properties were requested to pay the balance due by May 15 or contact the Finance department to set up a payment plan.

The method for calculating the required deposit is in accordance with City Code Section 3.50.140 (A), which states that the “required security shall be equal to an amount not greater than twice the person’s estimated average liability for the period for which a return must be filed or the sum of $20,000, whichever is less”.

In response to the letters regarding the deposit requirements, the Finance Department received 804
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 3 of 4
full payments from 32 hotels and motels and partial payments from 2 others, bringing deposit compliance to 68%. Another 16 properties have made arrangements or payment plans which will bring compliance to 82%.

Several lodging businesses have expressed concerns about the deposit assessment, stating that their companies have consistently and promptly paid their TOT for many years, and they have been in business since the 1980s. Some of these businesses have requested that the City include this matter as an agenda item. On May 2, the City Council directed staff to bring this item for discussion.

Since the day the letters were sent out, staff has been contacted by several business owners requesting further discussion regarding the requirement. On May 23, staff met with two representatives of the lodging association to receive feedback, listen to their concerns with the process and the requirements, and to discuss alternative solutions, some of which are described below.

1. Notification method. It was discussed that a better notification process could have been employed reaching out to the lodging community.

2. A new separate interest-bearing account requirement. This option was proposed if the deposit requirements remain in the City Code. Representatives proposed setting up a new separate interest-bearing account and using interest revenue proceeds for lodging and tourist-related activities and events. Currently, the code provides no information as to where the deposit moneys are held. All interest earned is deposited into the General Fund, and this revenue supplements funding for all City services. Setting up a new bank account is an option; however, the account must be liquid, allowing necessary withdrawals when refunds need to be made. The regular checking account’s interest is minimal, and a separate account will require additional staff time for reconciliation and audit reporting. The total amount of deposits, if received from all 112 hotels, is currently calculated at $921,000.

It is projected that a large part of the potential interest revenue earned on a new interestbearing account will be absorbed by bank fees. Additionally, City Code will need to be updated to memorialize this requirement. Staff is not recommending this option.

3. Explore Surety Bonds option in lieu of the deposit requirement. Some bond companies may require collateral based on creditworthiness. The City would have to narrow down acceptable bond companies to maintain records and avoid the pitfall of shell corporations that issue bonds. Due to the complexity of the process involved, requiring all hotels to open a surety bond and subsequent enforcement of the process of paying on the bonds, staff is not recommending this option.

4. Impose fine or penalty in lieu of the deposit requirement. This process would require acknowledgement of personal liability by hotel owners. Staff anticipates it’s unlikely the hotel owners would be willing to accept personal liability for the TOT deposit, especially since one of the reasons to employ LLCs or corporations’ business types, which all hotels utilize, is to avoid personal liability. Staff is not recommending this option.

All provisions of the TOT collection enforcement in the City Code were created historically due to several motels found liable for significant amounts of unpaid TOT. In the past, the City had an allocated auditor position in the Finance department responsible for routine hotel audits. After a series of layoffs and reorganizations during 2010-2012, the position with this scope of responsibilities was eliminated. The Finance department currently does not have a dedicated hotel 805
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 4 of 4
auditor person on staff. All hotel audit-related duties are performed by an accountant who is also responsible for a variety of other regular and critical professional accounting tasks. The hotel audit process currently in place has been optimized to ensure completion and compliance with City ordinances while making sure other accounting responsibilities are performed accurately and on time.

Apart from the deposits that need to be collected, the City Council should be aware of several other related areas.

Staff plans to refile all notices of liens with El Dorado County to ensure that properties that were missed in the past or have notices that expired have them properly recorded and on file.

Additionally, to ensure accurate and prompt receipt of all revenues, based on deeper future research, staff will be conducting further outreach to lodging businesses regarding third-party booking platforms. Lodging businesses and individuals will be encouraged to make changes, if needed, to coordinate the TOT payment reporting process with the booking platforms they utilize in order to ensure that all payments are directed to the City without any revenue loss due to thirdparty booking fee assessments. Currently, it is estimated that between $200K and $400K annually is uncollected due to this issue.

Suggested Action: The City Council is invited to review the information in this staff report, hear staff’s presentation, listen to public comments, review and discuss the current City Code requirements, address public concerns, and provide direction to staff for future actions.

Financial Implications: The updates made in recent years to the Finance City Code section regarding deposits have reduced the time spent on interpreting the code, allowing City staff to oversee the process of deposit requirements more efficiently. Additionally, the audit process was streamlined, reducing staff time for audits during the escrow process. The implementation of the revised code has resulted in increased compliance with deposit requirements. The financial impact of implementing any alternative solutions or changes to the current deposit requirements will depend on the specific approach taken. Staff recommends not implementing the alternative solutions mentioned in this report.

Environmental Considerations: This report is exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review.

Policy Implications: The overall impact of financial policies is to strengthen and preserve the City’s financial position and fiscal health as well as maintain the highest level of ethics in the stewardship of public funds.
806
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 24
Agenda Item: Travel Authorization – League of California Cities Annual Conference, Sacramento Executive Summary: The League of CA Cities Annual conference will offer educational and innovative leadership sessions across a variety of formats, with a roster of more than 100 speakers. Change is constant in our cities, and these sessions will support city leaders by equipping them with the latest knowledge, resources, and tools to advance their communities and assist officials in their daily roles and operations within their city.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion identifying Council Members and authorizing travel and associated expenses to attend the League Annual Conference (September 20-22) and selecting a Voting Delegate
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Reviewed and Approved By:

Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Travel Authorization.docx
02-Register for the 2023 Annual Conference and Expo!.pdf 807
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: Travel Authorization – League Annual Conference, Sacramento (September 20-22, 2023) Location: Sacramento, CA
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk (530) 542-6005 Background: The City Clerk received an email regarding registration to the League of CA Cities Annual Conference and is bringing it forward to take advantage of early registration discounts. If participation is approved, a voting delegate will need to be selected.

Per City Council Protocols, the City Clerk is seeking authorization for attendance.

City Council Protocols – City Council Travel
b. General Travel on Behalf of the City: Councilmembers traveling on behalf of the City expecting reimbursement of expenses must first obtain approval of the travel by the City Council and coordinate their travel through the City Clerk’s Office who will generally charge all expenses to the City (rather than reimburse Councilmembers). As noted in the policy any unused reservation will be paid for by the Councilmember. The City Clerk will make reservations based on the City’s Travel Policy. Councilmembers who wish to upgrade rooms or flights will be responsible for providing a personal credit card for the additional charges. Personal travel added to business trips will not be reimbursed.

Financial Implications: A total cost per person is $1,652, estimated as follows:

Travel - Hotel (3 nights) $750, additional travel per diems (meals and incidentals) $252 Total Estimate: $1,002 per person (carpooling with City Vehicle anticipated).

Registration - $650 per person.

City Council Budget for Travel has a remaining balance of $1,197.78 (total adopted budget amount $5,000). In order for three people (maximum) to attend, an additional $1,808 can be reallocated from another line item - Tools, Parts and Leases, that has a remaining available balance of $2,940.

City Council Budget for Seminar Registration has a remaining balance of $1,475 (total adopted budget amount $4,000). In order for three people to attend, and additional $475 can be reallocated from the same line item as above.

Environmental Considerations: The proposed action is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

Policy Implications: The discussion of Councilmember attendance conforms to City Council 808
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Protocols.
809
Join us for the 2023 Annual Conference and Expo!
Registration is now open!
The League of California Cities is excited to announce that registration is now open for the 2023 Annual Conference and Expo in Sacramento at the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center, Sept. 20-22!
This year we will celebrate a milestone anniversary: 125 years of strengthening California cities through advocacy and education. The conference will feature a variety of speakers and timely presentations on key topics for local leaders, plus numerous opportunities for peer-to-peer sharing with other city officials throughout California.

Our popular Expo Hall will be filled with new and familiar faces and brimming with opportunities to engage with companies and organizations that provide services to cities.

Keep an eye out in the coming weeks and months ahead as we unveil our 2023 exhibitors.

Importantly, every year at the conference, Cal Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly and Resolutions process. This is a unique opportunity to engage all members on a range of significant policy issues to protect local control.

In response to member feedback, we have made several updates to improve the member experience and engage members in the process, including a change in the time for the General Assembly. As we lead up to the conference, be on the lookout for more detailed information about the General Assembly, Voting Delegate instructions, and the Resolutions process.

Additional information is available below in the Schedule at a Glance and Organizational Meetings sections.

Looking for more information? Visit the Annual Conference and Expo page of the Cal Cities website.

Register now!
2023 Annual Conference and Expo
SAFE Credit Union Convention Center
1401 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.calcities.org/ac
From: League of California Cities
To: Sue Blankenship
Subject: Register for the 2023 Annual Conference and Expo! Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 3:55:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 810
Sept. 20-22, 2023
Schedule at a Glance
Wednesday, Sept. 20
8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.
8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m.-noon
11:30 a.m.-1:15 p.m.
12:45-1:15 p.m.
1:30-3:30 p.m.
3:45-5:00 p.m.
5:00-7:00 p.m.
7:00-10:00 p.m.

Registration open/Voting Delegates Booth open
City Clerks Workshop (additional registration required) AB 1234 Ethics Training
Regional Division Lunches**
First Time Attendee Orientation
Opening General Session*
Concurrent Sessions
Grand Opening Expo Hall and Host City Reception*
CitiPAC Leadership Reception
Thursday, Sept. 21
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
8:30-9:45 a.m.
8:30 a.m.
9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
10:00-11:30 a.m.
11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
1:00-2:30 p.m.
1:00-5:15 p.m.

Evening
Registration open/Voting Delegates Booth open
Concurrent Sessions
Petition Resolutions Due
Expo Hall Open
General Session*
Attendee Lunch in Expo Hall
Resolutions Committee
Concurrent Sessions
Regional Division** and Caucus Events
Friday, Sept. 22
7:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
7:30-9:00 a.m.
8:00-10:45 a.m.
8:30-10:30 a.m.
8:45-10:45 a.m.
11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

Registration open
Regional Division Breakfasts**
Concurrent Sessions
General Assembly (note new time!)
AB 1661 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training
Closing General Session*
*No competing events may be scheduled during this time. **Check with your regional public affairs manager for specific day/time.

Registration Information
Early bird registration deadline
Save $50 on your full conference registration if you register by Wednesday, July 26. 811
Pre-registration deadline
Online registration ends Tuesday, Sept. 5. After this date, please register onsite if space allows.

Full registration includes . . .

Admission to general and concurrent sessions and the expo Wednesday host city reception, Thursday lunch with exhibitors, and Friday closing lunch
Admission to CitiPAC and diversity caucus receptions
Electronic access to all program materials
Registration Process
With an update in technology, registration will now happen directly through your MyCalCities account. Please take a moment to set up your account so you are ready to go! If you have not used your MyCalCities account already, please review details about the portal and contact us for questions.

If you are registering someone other than yourself, first sign in as yourself and then choose the option to register someone else.

Note: Registrations through MyCalCities are available for credit card payments only. If you need to be invoiced and pay with a check, create your account and then reach out to conference registrar, Megan Dunn to request an invoice. Full payment is due at the time of registration.

Conference registration is required to attend all conference activities including department, division, and caucus meetings as well as the General Assembly. Sharing of registration is prohibited.

To request an accommodation or for inquiries about accessibility, please contact conference registrar, Megan Dunn. Every effort will be made to honor requests submitted.

View Cal Cities’ event and meeting policies in advance of the conference.

Register now!
Hotel Information
A limited number of hotel rooms are available at reduced rates for registered attendees and exhibitors at the 2023 Annual Conference and Expo. The deadline to reserve your discounted hotel room is Friday, Aug. 25 or until the hotel block is sold out, whichever is sooner.

STEP ONE: Register for the conference
Registration can be completed through your MyCalCities Portal.

NOTE: Instructions on how to access your portal can be found at this link.

STEP TWO: Book a hotel room
Once you’ve registered, you will receive a confirmation email with a link to the Hotel Reservations Page. This page is where you will access discounted hotel room rates and manage your reservations, including modifications and cancellations. Hotels are subject to sell out prior to the Aug. 25 deadline — reserve early! Scam Notice: There are many hotel scammers who may contact you claiming to be the 812
housing bureau/service for the conference. Cal Cities has contracted with LiveCon as the official housing bureau/service for the 2023 Annual Conference and Expo. Official emails regarding the conference will come from addresses ending in @calcities.org or @livecon.com, or the actual hotel.

Educational Sessions
First-Time Attendees
A special presentation to welcome first-time attendees is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 20 at 12:45 p.m. Join us to learn more about Cal Cities and how to get the most out of your conference experience.

Panels, Facilitated Discussions, and Speed Sessions
Educational sessions at the Annual Conference are offered in a variety of formats and include professional development with a focus on leadership skills and workable solutions.

Targeting a broad audience, sessions concentrate on innovative, evidence-based, and discussion-provoking trends, tools, and best practices. Connecting professional experiences and collective understanding, these sessions aim to provide attendees the opportunity to gain practical skills and useful resources. Session titles and descriptions will be posted on the Annual Conference webpage as they are confirmed.

Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Credits available With support and leadership from the City Attorneys Department, a limited number of sessions will provide Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) presentations for California attorneys. Legal updates will be offered in municipal litigation subject areas:

General Municipal Law, Torts and Civil Rights, Labor and Employment, and Land Use and CEQA. Additional timely municipal law topics will be covered, including one hour of MCLE specialty credit. Sessions providing MCLE credit will be noted in the conference program.

All conference participants are welcome to attend sessions that offer MCLE credit.

State-Mandated Training
Training to meet state requirements on specific ethics laws and principles, as well as workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation will be offered during the conference. Understanding Public Service Ethics Laws and Principles (AB 1234 Training) will be available as a pre-conference workshop on Wednesday morning, and Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for City Officials (AB 1661/1825 training) will be available Friday morning during the concurrent sessions.

Cal Cities Partner Sessions
Cal Cities Partners represent many industries and bring a unique perspective to city officials.

Sessions planned by our Cal Cities Partners will be scheduled during regular conference times, designated with special signage, and noted in the program book. This is an excellent opportunity for Cal Cities members to get to know our Partners in a new way.

City Clerks Workshop
The annual City Clerks Workshop is scheduled on Wednesday morning from 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. before the conference begins. The workshop begins with a 30-minute department business meeting followed by a four-hour workshop. Certified Municipal Clerk/Master Municipal Clerk advanced education point accreditation will be available. Additional registration is required to attend the workshop.
813
Policy Development Meetings
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions Committee (RC), which comprises representatives from each division, department, caucus, and policy committee, as well as individuals appointed by the Cal Cities President, will meet on Thursday afternoon to consider resolutions. Resolutions approved by the policy committee and/or RC are next considered by the General Assembly on Friday.

General Assembly
Each member city may designate a city official as the city’s Voting Delegate at the General Assembly. If approved by the General Assembly, resolutions become Cal Cities policy.

The deadline to submit a general resolution for consideration is July 22, 2023. For more information on the resolutions process and deadlines, refer to the Policy and Resolutions webpage. Information on how to designate a city’s voting delegate will be sent directly to cities in June.

Networking Opportunities
Host City Reception
The City of Sacramento welcomes delegates to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. Please join us at the opening night host city reception and enjoy a selection of delicious hors d’oeuvres. The reception will take place from 5:00–7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 20 in the Expo Hall.

Diversity Caucuses
Cal Cities promotes membership in one of its five diversity caucuses: African American Caucus; Asian Pacific Islander Caucus; Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Caucus (LGBTQ); Latino Caucus; and Women’s Caucus. Sign up to join one or more of Cal Cities’ caucuses. Caucus networking events at the annual conference are open to all attendees.

Regional Divisions
Regional Divisions function as Cal Cities’ grassroots advocacy teams. Divisions are staffed locally by regional public affairs managers to support Cal Cities goals. Contact your regional public affairs manager for more information about division networking events during the conference. Additional registration may be required for regional division activities.

Municipal Departments
Functioning as professional societies with educational and networking opportunities, departments play an essential role in forming Cal Cities policy and programs. Learn more about your colleagues’ top priorities and the resources Cal Cities provides by attending department business meetings scheduled throughout the conference.

Reception to support CitiPAC
Join your fellow conference attendees and other supporters for an event in support of CitiPAC. Rollin’ on the River will be held from 7:00-10:00 pm. on Wednesday, Sept. 20, and will feature food, beverages, and entertainment.
814
Expo
The Expo will be open the evening of Wednesday, Sept. 20 and during the day of Thursday, Sept. 21. Exhibit booth sales are currently open. Do you know someone who might be interested in exhibiting? Have them contact Amy Wade, Associate Manager, Exposition Sales and Event Sponsors.

Contact us for more information or questions
Cal Cities staff are happy to help with any questions you have.

For program questions, please contact Christina George.

For registration questions, please contact Megan Dunn.

For exhibitor questions, please contact Amy Wade.

We look forward to seeing you in Sacramento!
2022-23 Cal Cities Board of Directors
Register now!
815
View this email in your browser.

League
of California Cities
League of California Cities | 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 Manage email preferences | Unsubscribe
816
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 25
Agenda Item: Red, White and Blue Crosswalk to Celebrate Independence Day Executive Summary: On May 2, 2022, the City Council directed the Public Works Director to evaluate and propose a location to paint a red white and blue flag-style crosswalk to celebrate the 4th of July (Independence Day). Staff has evaluated various art options as well as locations. To complete this work before the 4th of July, staff recommends a painted crosswalk along the South Tahoe Bikeway Path. In addition, if directed by City Council, staff can submit an Encroachment Permit to Caltrans for a similar style crosswalk along Lakeview Crosswalk at U.S. 50 intersection. This crosswalk will require approval from Caltrans. Once Caltrans grant this approval, staff can paint this crosswalk with the designated art form.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion directing the Public Works Director to paint a red white and blue crosswalk for the 4th of July, Independence Day, at Lakeview Commons Area for 2023-24.

CEQA Determination: Painting of a crosswalk area is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) because it is the maintenance or minor alteration of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Work (530) 542-6031 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Red White Blue Crosswalk.docx
02-Lakeview_BIke_Path_Views.pdf
03-Crosswalk_at_Lakeview_and_US_50.pdf
04-Flag_Options.pdf
05 - Presentation_Crosswalk_Options.pptx
817
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Title: Red-White and Blue Crosswalk to Celebrate Independence Day Location: South Tahoe Bikeway Path at Lakeview Commons
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works – (530) 542-6031 Background: During the May 2, 2023, City Council meeting, Councilmember Wallace requested staff to evaluate and present options for a Red-White and Blue painted crosswalk in the City of South Lake Tahoe, seconded by Councilmember Bass. Based on this request, City staff have reviewed legal requirements, potential locations, and types of painted crosswalks to receive direction from the City Council.

Issue and Discussion: A crosswalk is considered a "Traffic Control" device and identifies the location of pedestrian crossings. Crosswalk markings are white or yellow pavement marking lines that identify the crosswalk. Guidance and design of crosswalk markings are defined in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD – (current edition 2014-Rev 6)).

Chapter 3G: Colored Pavements in the CA MUTCD provides guidance on creative crosswalks and recommends: "Crosswalk art is purely aesthetic and is not intended to communicate regulatory, warning or guidance message to road users. Crosswalk art should contrast significantly with the adjoining paved areas. Crosswalk art should not use colors and patterns that degrade the contrast of white crosswalk lines".

Several agencies have installed creative art at crosswalks and intersections. Due to the nonuniform application, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued an Official Ruling (3(09)-24(I) – Application of Colored Pavement – guidance document. This guidance document states that "FHWA's position has always been and continues to be that subdued-colored aesthetic treatment between the legally marked transverse crosswalk lines are permissible provided that they are devoid of retroreflective properties and that they do not diminish the effectiveness of the legally required white transverse pavement markings used to establish the crosswalk."
Therefore, staff opinion is that art within the crosswalk area is permissible if the color treatments are uniform, consistent, repetitive, and expected so as not to be a source of distraction. FHWA discourages elements of aesthetic interior treatment that are random or unsystematic.

Based on these findings, City Staff evaluated several options for location and treatment types. The following are the staff options for Council consideration:
818
Council Agenda Report June 6, 2023 Page 2 of 2
A. Location Options:

1. The U.S. 50 and Lakeview/Champions Plaza: The South Lake Tahoe Bikeway Path at Champion Plaza – Both north and south paved legs, outside of the paving blocks.

The path is between 9 to 10 feet wide at this location and can be painted up to 50 feet in length. See Attachment 02.

2. The U.S. 50 crosswalk at Lakeview Avenue: This intersection is within Caltrans jurisdiction, and therefore, an Encroachment Permit and approval from Caltrans are required. See Attachment 03.

Based on field reviews, staff believes this location is suitable for implementing the U.S. Flag style crosswalk art. In addition, this location does not require ADA upgrades or approval from Caltrans and can be painted quickly before the 4th of July. Option 2 is also possible, but applying for a Caltrans permit may take a prolonged time. If approved by Caltrans, the intersection treatment can be implemented at a future date.

B. Art Types Options:

Displaying the U.S. flag is subject to the restrictions in the U.S. Flag Code, 4 U.S.C. section 8, and painting an exact image of the flag on the sidewalk is not permissible.

The U.S. flag must never touch the ground or laid-out flat, and must be lit during nighttime, among other requirements. Therefore, staff recommends a red-white-blue pattern to be painted on the South Lake Tahoe Bikeway path. The following two options for the red white and blue flags, as shown in Attachment 04.

C. Duration Options:

The Council may provide direction as to the duration of the implementation. Staff recommends implementation for 2023.

Financial Implications: This action will result in additional costs for painting and maintenance of the recommendation and duration of crosswalk art. However, the cost is minimal and can be absorbed with the operational budget.

Environmental Considerations:Painting of a crosswalk area is not a "project" subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies) if the type of installation complies with the CA-MUTCD guidance.

Policy Implications: This action supports patriotism, vibrancy, safety, sustainability, inclusivity, desirability, and economic strength of the City of South Lake Tahoe. 819
AƩachment A
South Tahoe Bikeway at Champion Plaza (Both Approaches to Lakeview Ave.) 820
Atachment 03
Crosswalk at U.S. 50 and Lakeview
821
Flag Op�ons
Op�on 1
Op�on 2
822
Red-White-Blue Flag
Council Presentation – July 6, 2023
823
Location Option 1
SLT Bikeway – Champion Plaza
824
Location
Option 2
U.S. 50 at
Lakeview
825
Art Option #1
826
Art Option #2
827
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2023
Agenda Item #: 26
Agenda Item: Agenda Planning Calendar
Executive Summary: The Agenda Planning Calendar is a projection of items coming before City Counci, for consideration.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: A Councilmember may request that an item be placed on a future agenda. Upon the support of one (1) additional Council Member, direction shall be given to the City Manager to calendar the item for a convenient future agenda, but no sooner than the second meeting after the request was made, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.

Responsible Staff Member: Joseph Irvin, City Manager
Responsible Staff Member: Joseph Irvin, City Manager (530) 542-6043 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Attachments:

APC -06 01 2023.pdf
828
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 06 01 2023)
Agenda Item Agenda Section
June 20, 5:30 p.m.City Attny Local Hire Ordinance (Second Reading) Consent

CC/STRSA
Ordinance Perfect Union Reaffirming Termination of DA (First Reading) NB City Clerk Assistant City Clerk Budget Appropriation NB City Manager 2023 Cannabis Grant Recommendations NB
Presentation on 2022 Cannabis Grant Project Success Presentation Tesla Chargers Contract Amendment 1 Consent
CalRecycle Used Oil Grant Application
Dev Services Permit Tracking and Public Portal Software PSA Award AHSC Co-Applicant Agreement Consent
REACH Code options UB
South Tahoe Refuse Report PH
Finance Annual Special Tax for CFD 2001-1 Series 2015 FY 2023-2024 Consent Cell Phone Policy
Mello-Roos Special Tax for Community Facilities District No. 1995-1 Consent Police Police Vehicle Purchase
Department
829
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 06 01 2023)
Public Works CalTrans US 50 Speed Limit Incease PH
2023 Pavement Rehab Award Consent
Pot Hole Repair Phase 3 Award Consent
Taxi Lane Rehab Award Consent
Aug 8, 9 a.m. City Manager TRPA Regional Grant Program (EV Charging/Pioneer Project) Via cost analysis of municipal fixed-route and microtransit service Dev Services PLHA Formula Grant Amendment
CDBG CV-1 Subrecipient Agreement-Boys & Girls Club
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Resiliency Center Grant
Finance
Fire
Police Police Patrol Vehicle Replacement
Public Works Financing Options for Stormwater Management and Snow Operations Award Contract - Rec Center Project
Chain Control Ordinance (First Reading)
830
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 06 01 2023)
New Fire Station 3 Feasability Analysis/Interim Fire Station 3 Upgrades UB Bellamy Parking Garage Phase 1 Award
Broadband PPP Contract
Heavenly/Vail Update Parking Agreement
Aug 22, 9:00 a.m. Budget Workshop
City Attny Franchise Agreement with South Tahoe Refuse
Public Works Award Police Department Roof Replacement
Sep 12, 9 a.m. Dev Services Pro-Housing Designation
3900/3908 Lake Tahoe Blvd DDA
City/CTC land exchange agreement
4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd (Chateau) update
Waiting list for Housing Needs
Public Works Hwy 50/89 Concrete/Pavement Option
Snow removal from City Sidewalks
City Attorney
Unscheduled/Pending
831
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 06 01 2023)
City Attny/PW Amendments to Small Cell Policy
City Clerk Records Management Policy (Updated)
Policy - Use of Personal Devices for City Business
City Manager Comprehensive Energy Services Contract
Electric Vehicle Charging Contract
Electric Municipality - Legal Feasability Analysis
SEED Solar Photovoltaic Project PPA
Dev Services Plan Area Statement Update for Tourist Accommodation Uses Employee Housing Bill of Rights
Local Housing Fundin Analysis:TOT
Single Room Occupancy Program Amendments
Finance Software Purchase
Fire Weed abatement/nusance Program - Defensable Space Policy Type III Fire Engine Purchase
Public Safety Pier at Ski Run Marina
Parks & Rec Parks Foundation MOU
832
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 06 01 2023)
Amendment 1 to Bijou Bike Park Association Maintenance Agreement Tahoe Swim Team Use Agreement
Bijou Golf Course "Rock the Lake" Event and Review
Public Works Award Contract EV Charging 1700 Shop Street 833