The Contribution of Consensus Building Workshops
to Regional Planning in Lake Tahoe
by
B.A.,
Barbara L. Ingrum
University of Colorado
(1982)
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER IN CITY PLANNING
at the
MASSACHUSET TS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 1986
0
Barbara Ingrum 1986
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and to
in whole or in part.
distribute copies of this thesis docume
Signature of Author
Department of Ub
n Studies and Planning
June 2, 1986
12
Lawrence Susskind
Certified by
Lawrence Susskind
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
Chairman, Departm 4 tal
Phillip
Clay
Committee o4 Graduate Students
Rotdn
MASSACHUSETiS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
1
JUL 10 1986
L1BRPA~aS
The Contribution of Consensus Building Workshops
to Regional Planning in Lake Tahoe
by
Barbara L.
Ingrum
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on May 22, 1986, in partial fullfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master in City Planning,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
A new approach to planning was conducted in Lake Tahoe over a ten
month
period
in 1985-86.
The Tahoe Regional
Planning
Agency
(TRPA)
convened its staff,
sixteen participants,
and a process
manager
to
write the regional plan for the
Lake
Tahoe
Basin.
After
fifteen
years
of
struggle
to
write
an
implementable
regional
plan,
this
broad-based
group
developed
consensus
agreement
on
the Goals and Policies portion of
the
plan.
The
final document,
proposed for adoption in June 1986, is supported
by
all
but one of the participants.
It represents
the
first
written example of consensus agreement among
citizens,
business
representatives, government agencies, and environmentalists about
planning
regulations
for the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The
consensus
building
process
used by the group contributed
widely
to
the
group's
ability to reach agreement on complex environmental
and
development issues.
Thesis
Supervisor:
Lawrence Susskind
Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT
2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
PAGE
4
Acknowledgements
Part 1:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency:
History of the Conflict
III.
A New Approach to Dealing with Conflicts
I.
II.
Consensus Building Workshops:
Consensus Building Workshops:
and The Outcome
Getting Started
46
51
The Issues
61
Discussion of the Consensus Building Process:
Achievements and Problems
73
74
89
Assessing the Plan
97
Bibliography
Consensus Building Worshop Interview
Guide
Appendix B:
45
The Process
Was the Process Worth It?
Appendix A:
36
Regional Planning
Consensus Building Workshops:
Part 3:
12
22
The Parties, their Positions and Interests
in
II.
the Uses of Lake Tahoe
Regional Planning Efforts
Part 2:
I.
6
Introduction
History of
5
Agreements on Complete Plan
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funds to support the development of this thesis were
contributed
from several sources:
The Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency,
the
Lincoln
Institute for Land Policy and R.T.
Nahas.
My
special
to
the TRPA staff for their interest in the project
thanks
and
assistance during my visits to the Basin.
I must also express my
gratitute
to
Larry for his patient hours with the red
pen
and
endless reminders about DATA!
and "passivity."
Lastly,
I would
like
to
thank
my
front
line
supporter
for
his
words
of
encouragement, intuitive advice, and ever-critical smiles:
Thank
you, Gregory.
4
Part
1:
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency:
History of the Conflict
5
Introduction
I.
struggled to reach agreement on the appropriate rate,
of
type
development,
as
protection
environmental
as
well
for the Lake
Tahoe
and
level
appropriate
the
have
Basin
Tahoe
in the Lake
officials
state
and
agencies,
citizens, government
planners,
For the past three decades,
of
level
1985
By
Basin.
dozens of studies, thousands of person hours, and fiften years of
meetings
and litigation still had not produced an
implementable
regional plan.
In
May
idea
another
1985,
regional
plan was introduced.
interest
groups
from
the
of
preparation
for the
Sixteen parties representing
all over the Basin
began
meeting
on
54
a
regular basis to hammer out agreement on growth, development, and
environmental
sixteen
(CBW),
These
protection issues in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
parties,
in a
clustered
Consensus
Workshop
Building
met four to eight times per month in all day sessions for
ten months.
These workshops produced the most promising regional
plan to date.
Consensus Building Workshops had many interesting and unique
characteristics.
o
These include such characteristics as:
plan's
regional
the
affect
that
could
parties
All
CBW.
eligible for participation in
were
implementation
the
sought
CBW
participants
major
the
Further,
participation of other individuals to represent a
spectrum of local, state and national interests.
broad
o
a
the guidance of
The participants assembled under
in
them
who
assisted
a
facilitator,
process manager,
designing their own process and agenda.
o
The
group
agreed
at
the outset to
attempt
to
consensus agreement on all the major issues that
obstacles to implementing the regional plan.
o
They
agreed
to participate in
6
a
collaborative
reach
formed
effort
which
would
solutions
o
include
data collection
and
seeking
new
to conflicts among parties.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency provided some funding
and sought
additional funding to assist the group
in
convening.
With the help of a professional facilitator, the CBW reached
agreement on the Goals and Policies portion of a Regional Plan in
April
of
1986.
The
document,
if
accepted
by
the
regional
governing body in the next few months, will guide the development
of
the Basin over the next ten years.
This
thesis will examine how and why this group came to be,
how the Consensus
Building process worked,
and the results of
the
process.
Why Study the Consensus Building Process?
In October 1985,
management
attracted
States.
a national conference on community
strategies,
sponsored
by the Urban Land
urban and regional planners from all over
growth
Institute,
the
United
Planners indicated a growing need to find better ways of
engaging residents with conflicing views in the planning process.
(ULI, 1986).
Lake
Tahoe
problems,
Lake
as
Tahoe
population.
communities
environmental
On
the
Consensus Building Workshops are one such way.
has
a
number
of
unique
growth
management
well as problems common to all resort communities.
is
a recreational resort
The
highly
polarized
with
views
a
in
large
the
permanent
Lake
Tahoe
are similar to those in other areas where urban
interests
other hand,
compete for use of the same
and
resources.
planning in the Basin is the focus
of
bi-
state, political interest; state and local interests in the Basin
7
And,
Basin.
and both have an impact on planning in the
differ
body
planning is directed by a governmentally-appointed regional
and
in its constituency the conflicts about the
reflects
which
of limited
management
natural
These
resources.
use
factors
combine to make the dispute over future development in Lake Tahoe
as
I conclude that if
bitter as any such controversy could be.
work
it can probably
consensus building can work at Lake Tahoe,
elsewhere.
brief
a
Following
description
surrounding environment, I will examine
in
of
review the concerns of all the parties,
well
as their underlying interests.
Consensus
their positions as
I will describe
Then,
Workshops
Building
I
efforts.
planning
will
the
its
the development conflicts
the Basin and the history of regional
detail
and
Tahoe
Lake
outcomes
the
and
in
achieved.
Lake Tahoe
Lake
Tahoe,
a
190 square mile alpine lake,
rests in
the
and west of Reno,
Sierra Nevada, east of Sacramento, California,
It is one of the largest and deepest alpine lakes in the
Nevada.
world (Strong,
providing
the
1984).
region
border
It lies on the California/Nevada
with year round vacation
and
recreation
activities as well as firewood, gravel, and water resources.
One
of
the few remaining glacial
lakes,
Lake
Tahoe
formed some 10 million years ago during the mountain uplift.
is
surrounded
peaks
on all sides by the Sierra Nevada mountains
rising from the water's edge.
dominate
Dense
coniferous
was
It
with
forests
the lower portions of the mountains with large portions
8
of
some peaks elevated above tree-line.
About seventy
streams and rivers flow into the lake forming the
watershed that is
Lake
western
U.S.
the Lake Tahoe Basin.
(Strong,
1984).
Aside
is unusually clear.
from its
(Goldman,
possible
common
1985).
of
because
in
unique
the
alpine
Twenty years ago visibility
feet was not uncommon. Today, 80-100
possible
is
500 square mile
Tahoe boasts some of the premier scenic vistas
setting the Lake
to 150
mountain
feet in visibility is
Lake Tahoe's Carribean-quality water
a lack of nutrients
in most fresh water lakes.
and
algae
growth
While the loss in visibility
has recently been attributed to urbanization around the Lake,
water remains
the
clear and potable.
Settlement Pattern
The
pattern
conflicting
Much
of
most
and
(TRPA,
Lake
reflects
part
(77%) is publically owned
1986).
and
the
and
the
Lake.
remains
The shoreline is privately held for
is dominated
recreational development.
the shore,
around the
diverse objectives of those who use
the Tahoe Basin
undeveloped
the
of development
by
single-family
homes
Several state parks are located
and
on
but most public land is located inland from the lake.
The map on page
11 shows the distribution of lands
in public
and
private ownership.
Of the 205,250 acres of land in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 33,500
acres
are
zoned
for
authority of the Basin,
of
1979,
28,000
human activity,
development
by
the
regional
planning
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
acres were urbanized (having been impacted
Western Federal Regional Council,
9
1979).
77%
As
by
of
the
urbanization is on the California side of the lake.
The only incorporated city in the Basin is
the Lake. Adjoining South
California,
at the southeast corner of
Lake
on the Nevada side is a casino
Tahoe
Nevada.
South Lake Tahoe,
area
at
Stateline,
Residential development is sparsely scattered along the
eastern
along
the northeast shoreline that abuts the Nevada State
Summer
side of the lake.
The Forest Service owns
steep
Nevada, on the northeast side of
and Tahoe City, California, at the northwest
urban
largest
areas on
the
Northshore.
boat
Forest
access areas
the Lake,
side of
the lake the
Sparser
residential
development occurs along the steep west side of
parks
Park.
home and residential communities dominate the north shore
with Incline Village,
and
land
the lake.
are intermingled with the California state
on the flatter portions of the west side with most of
Service
Homes
shoreline
holdings on the
Emerald Bay State Park.
10
southern
edge
the
near
Lake Tahoe Basin
11
History of the Uses of Lake Tahoe
II.
Introduction
can
of the current planning conflicts at Lake
roots
The
be found in the purposes for which people have
historically
From the late 1800's to the 1950's,
used the Lake.
*Tahoe
Lake
Tahoe
was a popular recreational resort used for relaxing in a mountain
short
During
environment.
mountain-climbing
swimming,
visits
enjoyed
people
fishing,
resort
quaint
and relaxing at the
hotels.
In the 1950's and 60's, as more and more people visited Lake
Tahoe, more people moved there to provide services
for recreation
Recreational opportunities expanded to include not
enthusiasts.
boating in the Lake, and enjoying the beaches,
just the scenery,
Part-time
and other more intensive uses.
skiing,
but gambling,
Much of te
summer and permanent year-round residents increased.
attraction
of
disappeared
as
the
Basin--the
peace
Lake Tahoe became an
and
solitude--slowly
urbanized
home-away-from-
home.
By
the mid-1960's,
studies reported damage to the Lake
problems of congestion and inadequate public
well
as
Many
residents turned their energies toward
growth
Tahoe
services.
population
slowing
scenic
and restricting future development to protect the
qualities
of the area.
available
residents
was
to
increasing
strong.
the momentum for making
However,
numbers
During the
of
1970's,
tourists
Tahoe
as
and
Lake
new
communities
solidified
their tourist-based economies and became dependent on
visitors.
Private
homes dominated the shoreline of
12
the
Lake.
Planning
of
was supposed to direct the Basin toward the proper
protection and development,
mix
but no one knew exactly how that
would come about and most disagreed on what that mix should be.
Today's
historical
and
conflicts
struggle
in
the
Basin
can
be
traced
between those advocating urban
those pressing for environmental preservation.
development
Urban
include residential development, recreation, and gaming.
to
preserve
the land are visible in the actions of
an
to
the
uses
Efforts
Forest
Service
and
history
of each of these uses and protection efforts provides
foundation
private land protection groups.
A summary of
for examining the details of the current dispute
the
a
and
the effectiveness of-consensus building efforts.
Residential Uses
Residential
when
a
new
skirting
settlement
passage
the
of Lake Tahoe began in
over the
north
shore
Sierra
of
Nevada
Lake
Tahoe,
the
1850's
mountain
range,
was
discovered.
Speculators seeking passage from California to the goldfields
the
Sierra told of
1984).
stopover
A
large alpine Lake
(Strong,
tourist trade developed at the Lake when it became
for
Placerville,
vacation
the beauty of this
travelers
going
California.
spot
for
from
By 1864,
adventurous
Carson
from
Nevada,
a
to
Lake Tahoe was a we.ll known
Californians
travelling over the Sierras to Yosemite.
establishments
City,
of
and
Easterners
Innkeepers moved their
the roads to the lakeshore to
provide
the
most attractive accomodations for overnight visitors.
Rail
improvements
in
the 1870's made Lake Tahoe
eight hour's trip from the San Francisco Bay area.
13
only
Through
an
the
1860's and 1870's, steam boat travel on the Lake enabled visitors
to
Steam
settled.
ships
transported goods and mail
land
of
and increased the amount
all parts of the Lake
see
from village to
village extending communication and services around the lake.
100 people per day travelled from Truckee
the end of the 1880's,
to
system
road
and the current
California,
City,
Tahoe
and
(Strong,
pattern around the lake was well established
settlement
By
1984).
the
During
period
from
1900-1930,
development became more lucrative as the demand
increased.
residential
land
for summer
homes
sprang up around the
Private estates and subdivisions
In 1906, a reno real estate developer offered 82 75-foot
Basin.
lakefront
were selling for $5,000 each.
properties
100
foot
Hill
side
By 1924,
at Emerald City for $200-$500 each.
tracts
properties off the lake could still be found for $400 for a large
parcel
(Strong, 1984).
The 1930's brought a small boom in construction (in 1939, 50
Total real
homes were built) and increasing numbers of visitors.
values
summer
population
probably
at
population
winter
$20
were estimated at upwards of
estate
peaked at 20,000
The
2,000.
signs
The
million.
people,
of
and
growth
the
were
increasingly apparent, and residents complained in the newspapers
of deteriorating recreational opportunities due to the numbers of
visitors
(Strong
Conflicts
began
as
into
1984).
over
the use of zoning to
as early as summer of 1938.
King's Beach,
the
restrict
development
North shore communities such
where a developer wanted to allow "new
Basin and some residents wanted
14
to
restrict
blood"
growth,
considered
adopting
zoning
ordinances.
At
the
time,
the
developer won, arguing that restrictions would prevent the "small
fellow from having even a summer cottage."
(Strong 1984).
The problem of lack of communication between segments of the
Lake Tahoe communities was noted when "the editor of the
that
complained
people
at
developments
Brockway
not
concerns,
"something
because
be
During
done
to
recreation
of
even
The editor
important
heard
the
entire
World War II,
the
Basin
Lake
of
local
that
suspected
community
became
of the nation concentrated monetary
much
starts
idea
tie
supporting the war, not vacationing.
home
no
had
and possibly had not
the whole Lake.
on
must
togethter."
Bijou
Most people concentrated their energy on
Beach."
King's
in
Tattler
deserted
resources
on
Fewer vacationers and fewer
left the Basin quiet until the 1950's
when
winter
opportunities again changed the character of the Lake
Tahoe Basin.
(Strong, 1984).
Recreation Uses
Until
recreation
living
in
the
1950's
people
visited
opportunities it offered.
the
visitors,
Tahoe
There were few
Basin to provide services
travellers hiked and camped in the Sierra,
of
Lake
for
for
residents
visitors.
but for the
water-related activities such as fishing,
the
Some
majority
boating
and swimming at the Lake were the main attractions.
After World War II,
in the U.S.
the
Basin.
solidifying
downhill snow skiing grew in popularity
By the mid 1950's, there were 19 ski resorts around
In 1960,
Squaw Valley hosted the Winter
Olympics,
the Basin as a year-round recreational resort.
15
New
jobs at the resorts as well as new services to support additional
visitors
created
year-round jobs and a
population at Lake Tahoe.
residents
of
the
Lake
(Ingram and Sebatier,
established in 1956,
much
larger
Between 1956 and 1960,
area increased from
1984).
By 1975,
permanent
the permanent
2,850
to
12,262.
Heavenly Valley Resort,
was servicing 10,000 skiers a day
(Strong,
1984).
Conflicts between the recreational uses of
concerns
of
environment
brought
residents
began
much
as early
as
the
1938.
development
desiring
peace
and
quiet
recreational development,
pristine
Recreational
place.
in
the
survive.
Basin
the
alpine
enthusiasm
and
Tourism
formed the economic base that
the permanent population to
of
quiet,
to the Basin in the first
people
recreational
seeking
the lake and
Many
opposed
enabled
residents
continued
but also found themselves dependent on
it. This paradox remains.
Gaming Industry
Another component of recreational activity that affects
economy of the area is located only in Nevada:
Gambling.
the
Nevada
legalized gambling in 1869 and the first clubs at the Lake opened
in the 1920's and 30's.
of
Nevada
followed.
state
hotel
and casino development in
the
Basin
Casinos were built close to the north and south shore
borders
to attract California
complexes
attractions.
and
in the 1950's,
The gaming industry grew rapidly in all
growth
immediately
tourists.
became
The
luxurious
year-round
tourist
They brought an increased number of permanent jobs
in the year-round
resident
16
population.
Growth
in
secondary
services
to
support the
increasing
The economy at Lake Tahoe
tourism followed.
and
population
is now inextricably
interwoven with the gaming industry.
transitory use of the Basin's resources that I will
Another
discuss in detail is logging.
not
Timber developers clear
between 1850 and 1880,
the Basin forests for 30 years,
departed leaving broken trunks and scattered stumps on
of
acres.
and then
thousands
After 90 years of forest and Lake regeneration,
industry's ecological impact is now invisible.
the
cut
the
The presence
of
industry did shape the pattern of land holdings for years to
come by making large tracts of land available for purchase by the
government and developers alike.
I
now
preserve
began
turn
to
a discussion of the
Lake Tahoe in a natural
state.
historic
efforts
Preservation
to
efforts
early in the Basin and were spearheaded by both public and
private interests.
Public Land Protection
The U.S.
Reserve
first
the Lake Tahoe Forest
on the California side of the Lake in 1899,
federal
Basin.
Forest Service's creation of
marked
effort to preserve a large tract of land
the
in
the
On the southwest shore, 136,335 acres were reserved, but
only a small portion was shoreline.
The Reserve was extended in California in 1905 by
Theodore Roosevelt.
for
California
"source
may
President
Roosevelt sought to protect the water supply
agriculture
by ensuring that Lake
Tahoe
of supply for the great reservoirs and irrigation
be safe from fire,
overgrazing and destructive
17
as
a
works
lumbering,"
(Strong, 1984).
The Reserve extension included
the California side of the Lake Tahoe Basin,
in
the
southeast
corner,
and
laid
the
virtually all of
except one township
foundation
for
the
substantial federal holdings that exist today at Tahoe.
Several
1950
to
proposals were made during the period from
make
Lake Tahoe a
expressed
concern
practices
in the Basin when,
under
over
government
usefulness
National
the logging
Park.
industry's
in 1898,
(Strong,
1984).
In 1899,
Gifford
Pinchot
clear
cutting
he suggested
care could the lands recover
1890-
that
their
only
value
and
Senator William Stewart of
Nevada
launched
Park.
His Senate proposal ended in defeat when he was unable to
design
an acceptable land exchange program for
a
campaign to create the Lake
deforested property.
the
Sierra
proponents
William
Club
Penn Mott,
National
privately
held,
The idea was revived in 1912 and 1918,
and California Senator
failed
Tahoe
to
mobilize
Jr.
Joseph
adequate
Knowland,
political
by
but
support.
of the National Park Service,
filed
a
report in 1935 suggesting the Basin be purchased and placed under
permanent public care.
for
In 1935,
purchase of park lands.
there were no funds
available
The report became the last serious
attempt to make the entire Basin public land
(Strong, 1984).
Land purchase for preservation by California predominated in
the
1940's
Emerald Bay,
1928,
and
and 50's.
Efforts resulted in the
preservation
and other California State Beaches and
Parks.
of
In
the family of Duane Bliss, former timber industry mangnate
tourist businessman,
for public ownership.
donated scenic lands on the West shore
Bliss recognized that the success of
18
the
tourist
trade
public
use.
depended
on the protection of scenic
lands
The state of California later added to these
for
lands
and funded the creation of the Bliss State Park.
Nevada
looked to the
establishing
1967
did
parks
federal government for
assistance
on the Nevada side of the Lake.
Nevada acquire the property that later
Nevada State Park.
area at Tahoe,
Not
in
until
comprised
the
This park, the only Nevada-owned public land
encompasses more than 13,000 acres and 7.5
miles
Forest
lands
of shoreline.
The
U.S.
Service
the 1940's and 50s
during
funds.
In
acquiring
largely because of the lack of federal
the 1970's the Forest Service began
acquisition
activities.
more
than
land
exchanges.
land
in
However,
had difficulty
extensive
Between 1965 and 1980,
they
36,000 acres of land by direct purchase
the
By 1980,
Basin
together,
and
the
acquired
and
through
the Forest Service owned 65% of
the states
owned
an
additional
public agencies owned only 16%
lakes's 71 miles of shoreline
land
of
the
6%.
the
(Ingram and Sebatier, 1984).
Public land ownership has clearly played a prominent role in
limiting
the
development
Lake Tahoe,
but
little
shoreline
has
Impervious
land cover at the shoreline causes increased
and
sediment
increases
been
of
protected
deposition.
algae
from
development
Sediment deposition
growth and reduces water
protection
of the shoreline has become critically
preserving
the
shoreline
state
and
clarity
of
the
Lake.
The
the
activities.
into
clarity.
of
erosion
the
Thus,
important
majority
of
Lake
the
to
the
remains privately owned and locally controlled despite
federal acquition efforts.
19
Private Land Protection
and
many
the late 1800's through to the 1940's,
From
Basin.
visitors expressed interest in protecting the
the
Muir,
unique
commented on
mountain ecologist,
famed
when he passed through in the
beauty
citizens
John
the
Lake's
He
1870's.
also
expressed grave concern about the "logging industry stripping the
the
noted
Tribune
Truckee
that
lumber
1984).
(Strong,
lumber
industry
sought
local
as mentioned
But,
did not stay long in the
of environmental
methods
would
barons
"spend
but not a dollar to save
thousands of dollars to visit the Alps,
Tahoe,"
An article in
(Strong, 1984).
land of its attractive features,"
the
previously,
and
Basin
protection.
residents
first
The
citizen's environmental group was the Tahoe Resource Conservation
Society, formed in 1957.
Lake Tahoe residents and citizens from California and Nevada
gaming
as an outgrowth of
founded
in
1965
(formed
in
1957).
the
The League sought to
increasing
recreation
Lake
League to Save
The
grew.
industries
the
1950's and 1960's as
the
in
urbanization
effects of
about the environmental
concerned
became
Tahoe
Conservation
"limit
and
was
Society
expansion
of
casinos, curtail proposals for new highways, promote reseaarch in
water
Lake
quality,
Tahoe."
ecological
and
create an effective regional government
The
group
danger
and
believed the
tried
to
was
Lake
"preserve
the
in
in
serious
environmental
balance, scenic beauty and recreational opportunities of the Lake
Tahoe Basin,"
the
(Strong,
organization
1984).
continues
to
This remains their mandate
and
be the
the
leading
community promoting environmental protection.
20
voice
in
Summary
Pressures
Basin
for growth
continued
population
1970
into
and increasing urbanization
the 1960's
construction
20,263
to
1970's.
The
the
permanent
of the Basin went from 12,200 to 26,100 from 1960
(Ingram and Sebatier,
increased
and
in
boomed
in
in
1984).
the 1970's.
Primary and
The total
the Basin 1.8 times between 1970
36,043
dwelling
units
(Western
to
secondary
home
housing
stock
and
1978,
Federal
from
Regional
Council, 1979).
The
problems
that
accompanied this growth
could
not
be
easily handled by the separate and uncoordinated efforts of state
and
local governments.
Each community attempted to provide its
own fire and police protection,
disposal.
building
A
schools, water supply and sewage
lack of zoning and indiscriminate distribution
permits
brought "hordes of new
residents
seeking
of
to
establish businesses, raise families and live life reminiscent of
the urban areas from which they had come,"
the
mid-1960's,
a
(Strong,
movement was well advanced that
1984).
called
resolving Tahoe's problems through a regional authority.
21
By
for
Regional Planning Efforts
III.
Formation of TRPA
an organization was formed for the primary purpose
In 1956,
of advancing support for a regional planning agency to solve Lake
Area
The Lake Tahoe
urban and environmental problems.
Tahoe's
Coucil supported the Lake's protection and "orderly development,"
1984).
(Strong,
environmental
However,
and proposing regional
problems
grew hesitant.
interests
as soon as the Council began studying
and
and
attended by more than
300
regional
important
issues
as "formulation of
a
and zoning codes,
and provision
of
safe,
The Council published a regional master plan,
growth.
around
The
Plan
recommended large
Lake and expected tourist visits
the
126,300 on a summer weekend in 1962,
called
The
The
in 1964.
predictions
scale
development
to
increase
from
to 313,000 by 1980. It also
several bands of roads to be constructed around
for
plan
disposal
the
(Strong, 1984).
Lake to accommodate this growth
waste
dependable
its
particularly
a storm of protest,
raised
about
plan,
master
(Strong, 1984).
water,"
plan
most
establishment of
solution to sewage and waste disposal problems,
building
the
The Council presented
leaders.
business
local
The Council continued their work
held a public meeting in November 1958
civic
controls,
focused community attention on
and water quality.
A Council
the
problems
study
of
sewage
treatment
highlighted severe problems with the current means
disposing
of
Basin.
sewage,
spraying
effluent onto the land
Spraying contaminated the water supply and killed
22
of
in
of
the
trees
on
the
land.
governments
With
were
federal
able
and
foundational
to attack the waste
grants,
treatment
Basin
problem.
Sewage export began in 1968, and the South Tahoe Public Utilities
District completed a sophisticated waste water treatment facility
in the early 1970's
(Strong, 1984).
A 1963 Comprehensive Study, published by the Lake Tahoe Area
Council,
recommended the formation of a regional planning agency
with limited functions to coordinate planning and development
the
Basin.
Following hearings before both state
the
states agreed to form the Tahoe Joint Study Committee.
legislatures,
Committee was charged with providing recommendataions
an
Its recommendations,
issued in March 1967,
The
"concerning
area-wide agency to regulate growth in the region,"
1984).
in
(Strong,
suggested an
agency be formed through concurrent legislation with region-wide,
bi-state
authority to preserve the physical environment
region.
California
local
opposition
were
not
in 1967,
California
agencies
and
to
give a
joint
agency
the
responding
to reductions in local decision-making
willing
Instead,
and Nevada state officials,
of
extensive
to
power,
powers.
both states introduced bills to form separate
Nevada Tahoe Regional
Planning
were formed and each prepared a land
Agencies.
use
plan.
The
Both
functioned largely as interim bodies while the two states debated
a bi-state compact.
In 1967, a California Assemblyman introduced new legislation
to form a joint regional planning agency.
Both states continued
to debate the extent of power appropriate for a regional
They
Board.
finally
The
agreed on the structure and powers of a
Board
was to be dominated by a majority
23
agency.
Governing
of
local
representatives rather than state or federal representatives.
the
limited
and it placed
take any action,
to
both
states,
The
of
both
approval
In effect,
1984).
was not able to act without majority
Board
ways.
60-day
a
period on Board action (Ingram and Sebatier,
the
two
a majority of votes from members
required
legislation
states
of the Governing Board in
powers
legislatures
The
was to include equal numbers from each state.
It
agreement
and if it could not achieve agreement in 60
from
days,
any application for construction was deemed approved.
staff
The legislation required the Board to hire a planning
to
to
draw up plans and ordinances and make recommendations
Advisory
An
Board.
Planning
composed
Commission
the
local
of
government representatives would serve in an advisory capacity in
construction
considering
applications.
The
1970
Bi-state
Compact,
signed into legislation in January 1970, gave the Tahoe
Regional
Planning
Agency
(TRPA) powers to
"regulate growth
and
of
the
develop
measures to protect the environmental
Basin,"
(Bi-state Compact,
integrity
The Governing Board convened
1970).
in March 1970.
The Struggle to Produce a Regional Plan Begins
Regional
Plan
difficult
than
The TRPA developed its first draft plan in less than a
year
The
within
Compact
18
months.
mandated the TRPA to produce a
This
proved
to
be
more
anticipated.
with the assistance of a U.S.
from
plan,
universities,
Forest
Service team and volunteers
other agencies and the general
public.
The
unveiled in 1971, proposed a land capability rating system
24
which
rated parcels of land according to their ability to handle
construction without disturbing the water quality of the Lake.
The
system
"Bailey"
lands
was dubbed the land capability
system.
in
A
the
construction.
Land Capabilities map classified
basin
A
system
lot
according
to
their
was designated a High,
or
the
all
the
suitability
for
Moderate
Low
or
hazard according to its erosion or slope characteristics.
the Bailey system,
76% of the lands in the Basin were considered
high hazard and not suitable for construction
map
on
lands
Under
(WFRC,
1979).
The
page 26 shows the capability classifications of all
in
the
Basin,
according
to
Bailey.
The
criticized by individuals and government agencies.
the
system
was
Parcels were
classified on the basis of soil samples taken in just one portion
of
each lot.
system
land,
Some argued that the Bailey system, adapted from a
used
was
by the Soil Conservation Service
inappropriate
for
for the mountainous
terrain
Basin.
Local
owners
and developers complained that the planning
would
reduce
agricultural
resistance to the plan was substantial.
of
the
Property
restrictions
property values and not allow property
owners
to
build.
The
Governing
The
new
staff
Board
returned
version
called for significantly
properties
Basin:
280,000
1984).
the
of TRPA adopted it the end of
private
Sebatier,
with a redraft of
and
a higher population
Plan
and
December,
less
the
1971.
downzoning
capacity
versus the previous plan's 136,000
of
for
the
(Ingram
and
The Land Use Ordinances implementing the plan
were adopted in February 1972.
25
Lake Tahoe Basin
Robert G. Bailey's Land Capabziity Classification (Strong ,
26
1 9
84)
Considerable
fronts.
Plan
The
restrictive
initial
opposition
and
to the TRPA plan appeared
the
Ordinances
were
all
sufficiently
to enrage property and business owners,
approval
on
of several casino expansions in
but
TRPA's
1973-74
also
infuriated environmentalists.
California state officials responded to what they
as
inadequate environmental protection by creating the
Regional
Water
Regional
Planning
sensitive
hand,
Agency
(CTRPA)
to
Lahontan
California
promote
Tahoe
environmentally
Heated
battles
and
sruggles between the Lahontan Board and CTRPA on one
and local
the
Quality Control Board and the
planning policies in the Basin.
tremendous
on
perceived
businesses,
other
erupted
property owners and local government
when
the
agencies
introduced
highly
restrictive plans.
Under the Clean Water Act
Board
(public law 92-500),
the Lahontan
was required to prepare a regional water pollution control
plan for the Tahoe Basin, and the CTRPA developed a regional plan
that
downzoned
Basin.
most of the land on the California side
Essentially,
TRPA's
power was usurped
in
of
the
California
(Ingram and Sebatier, 1984).
Nevada government officials and local developers opposed the
plan's restrictions on commercial and residential development.
coalition
formed:
of
property rights advocates and
business
the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council.
Preservation
Council
strongly opposed the
A
interests
Members of the
restictions
on
new
subdivisions, sewer connection moratoria, and limitations on home
construction in improved subdivisions.
the
TRPA
through
The group lobbied against
the Nevada legislature and became
27
an
active
voice at planning board and Governing Board meetings.
In the face of Basin-wide criticism,
Governing
Board
performance
and progress of TRPA.
recommendations
effectiveness
Primarily,
and
was
they
restructure
members
in
1975
to
to the conclusion that
recommended
the
of
the
Agency's
the
Compact.
that a new Compact be
Governing
and
evaluate
The committee made a number of
inhibited by the structure
the
representatives
came
formed
an ad hoc committee of
Board
to
include
fewer local members.
The
devised
more
to
state
Committee
also
recommended that the new Compact secure TRPA's source of funding,
and that no new casino development be allowed in the Basin.
The
public and local governments disapproved of the
recommendations.
Nevertheless,
were
most
of
the
recommendations
eventually
followed.
In 1979,
Nevada passed legislation that forbid construction
of new casinos.
content
of
finally
agreed
amended
and
After many drafts,
a new Compact,
on
and bitter struggle over the
California and
the language of
Nevada
the new
Compact
signed into law on December 19,
legislatures
which
was
1980.
A New Bi-State Compact
The new provisions in the Compact reflected growing
among
Basin.
Basin
residents
about environmental
in
the
Several studies completed in the 1970's reported on the
deteriorating condition of the Lake.
water
protection
concern
clarity.
One focused on the loss of
Charles Goldman reported,
in 1974,
that algae
growth had doubled in the prior decade. He estimated the Lake had
lost 25% of its clarity in only fourteen years
28
(Strong, 1984).
In 1979, the Western Federal Regional Coucil reported on the
state
of the environment.
The Council,
a federal
inter-agency
task force composed of representatives from the Foreset
Department
of
Tranportation,
Development,
Protection
Department
Agency,
characterized
the
and
of
Depaprtment of Housing and
Energy,
and
quality
the
many local agnecies
situation
Lake
Tahoe
monoxide and ozone.
exceeded
33
Environmental
and
consultants,
in the
Basin
Basin
The study described the
as
"rapidly
Incoming traffic to the Basin increased by 80%
making
Urban
natural and man-made conditions of the
and changes in environmental conditions.
air
Serivce,
a national non-attainment
worsening."
from 1970 to 1978,
area
for
carbon
Peak concentrations of these pollutants were
times in 1976 and 70 times in
1977
(WFRC,
1979).
Water
pollutants were estimated to exceed federal and California
state
water
quality standards,
though no
specific
data
were
collected.
The
study,
recommended
maintain
dense
with
statistics
and
conclusions,
"more restrictive controls over emissions
the
In summary,
in order to
scenic vistas visitors come to the Basin to
the Council stated that "in 1978, 17 of the 35 urban
and environmental components measured were operating at
limits,"
see."
(WFRC,
relationships
1979).
between
capacity
The study examined the cause and effect
different
sectors
resulting environmental degradation.
of
the
economy
and
The Council then suggested
possible environmental thresholds for air quality,
water quality
and land use protection.
The
1980
Compact
changed
29
the
Governing
Board
voting
procedure
project
so
that
a majority vote was needed to permit
in the Basin,
rather than to reject one.
The
expanded the Governing Board to include another member
by
the
President of the United States.
adopting the Regional Plan.
value
for
Tahoe
it called for the
the
developing
various environmental
new Compact adopted,
thresholds.
to
indicate
The thresholds would
ecological damage
undersirable
With
the
The thresholds would be based on the
"carrying capacity."
"numerical
which
Compact
and acceptance of environmental thresholds prior
development
Basin's
new
appointed
It created
and most importantly,
Transporation District,
a
the
paramaters
beyond
(WFRC,
1979).
occurs,"
TRPA's attention turned
to
TRPA prepared a detailed report on
threshold "carrying capacities"
for air quality,
water
the
quality,
soil conservation, vegetation preservation and noise in the Basin
(TRPA,
1982).
Standards
were
developed for carbon
monoxide,
ozone, visibility and nitrate deposition for air quality;
clarity
and primary productivity standards, dissolved inorganic nitrogen,
dissolved
phosphorus,
diversity,
abundance
soil conservation;
and
off-road
months
of
and
dissolved iron
regional
debate,
stringent
approved.
Regional
of 1983,
plan,
construction
in
By
Plan
quality;
and aircraft, boat, motor vehicle, motorcycle
vehicle noise leve-ls
August
water
species richness and pattern of growth for
for
noise
thresholds were
Governing Board in August of 1982 (TRPA,
In
for
TRPA
the
adopted
began
Basin
a
until
self-imposed
a
After
by
regional
adopting
30
comment.
a
moratorium
on
plan
be
could
TRPA had developed a final
circulated it for
the
1982).
the original deadline for
November 1983,
and
control.
The
new
draft
Plan
to regulate development in the Basin for twenty
proposed
In the draft Plan,
for
which
planning
Basin
the Basin was divided into 175 Planning Areas
TRPA would prepare statements outlining
needs.
focus
each
on
redevelopment and infill of
that,
populations
area's
The Plan suggested future development
already
with
the
implementation,
by the year 2003 might approximate
in
the
developed
areas rather than new construction in outlying areas.
estimated
years.
The
Plan
average
summer
150,000.
(TRPA,
1983).
the
Heated
debate
Spring
of 1984.
completion
April 26,
against
date,
1984.
TRPA
over
the
the content of the Plan continued
Finally,
ten months
past
the
into
mandated
Governing Board approved the new Plan
on
The same day, the State of California filed suit
seeking an injunction
against
charging the Plan violated the Compact.
TRPA's
operation,
The League to Save Lake
Tahoe filed a similar suit the following day.
The two plaintiffs
declared that the new plan was illegal because it did not attempt
to
achieve
the
thresholds;
it
allowed
far
too
much
new
construction (1.1 million square feet of commercial over the life
of the plan); and, it provided no time schdules for remedial work
to reduce algae growth.
Edward
Garcia
restraining
of
(Martens,
1985).
On May 1, 1984, Judge
the ninth district court placed
a
temporary
order on TRPA allowing no construction in the
Basin
and no permit issuance until further notice.
A temporary injunction was affirmed on TRPA on June 5, 1984.
TRPA
entered
California
into settlement negotiations with the
Attorney
General's
31
cases.
The
League
Governing
and
Board
appointed a Special Litigation Committee to negotiate a new Plan.
After
ten
prepared
drafts
and "hundreds of hours
a new plan for release
of
in April 1985
meetings,"
(TRPA,
they
March
3,
side
as
1985).
Several
well.
weeks later,
The
TRPA
and
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council
the
Preservation
properties
the
Basin.
property
owners
compensation,"
At
new plan in the
name
Council sought damages
in
"deprived
TRPA got hit from the other
the
(U.S.
They
of
plaintiffs.
The
for inverse condemnation
claimed
their
of
364
filed suit against
TRPA's
property,
of
regulations
without
just
District Court, District of Nevada, 1985).
same time,
the Preservation Council,
growing
more
displeased with TRPA's operation in the Basin, began an effort to
Nevada Legislature to withdraw from
convince
the
Compact,
effectively disbanding the TRPA.
the
Bi-state
They argued that TRPA
was not functioning as mandated and that regional planning in the
Basin
simply
wasn't going to work.
A bill was introduced
Senator Lou Bergevin which called for Nevada withdrawl.
Richard
Governor
Bryan of Nevada strongly supported the TRPA and made
known that he would veto any such bill.
A sub-committee
by
it
debated
the intricacies of the bill through the Spring of 1985.
Simultaneously,
private
called
developers
the
the
Preservation Council was working
and an organization
Tahoe Basin Area Governments
of
local
(TBAG),
with
governments,
to retain
Urban Land Institute and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
analyze
the situation in Lake Tahoe.
organized
a week-long,
In the Fall of 1984,
the
to
they
intensive workshop at which experts from
all over the country would conduct interviews,
32
prepare a
report
and
present findings on the main issues confronting Lake
Seven
panelists
made recommendations to the Basin
"governmental,
financing
planning,
issues
in
environmental,
the Basin".
and
One of
the
suggested that TRPA was
"the most
handling
infrastructure
most
recommendations supported the existence of TRPA.
group
for
important
The Panel Study
appropriate approach for
managing
the Tahoe Basin" and should be given steady and
funding.
(ULI Report,
in
the
Basin
elimination.
who
The
1985)
secure
This outcome surprised many people
expected
report
Tahoe.
the
also
group
stated
to
the
recommend
TRPA's
importance
Governing Board finding strong leadership for the TRPA,
of
the
which had
been without an Executive Director for eighteen months.
About this time, the California district court ruled against
the
Preservation Council's inverse
liability
of TRPA or the Governing Board
District
results
condemnation suit denying
of
of
Nevada,
the
1985).
(U.S.
This ruling,
ULI report and the Plan
District
combined
agreement
the
Court,
with
the
reached
in
settlement negotiations, suggested a brighter future for TRPA.
That did not last long.
document
on
Preservation
serious
April
15,
Council,
Well before the unveiling of the new
1985,
the
Nevada
legislature,
many local groups and citizens
dissatisfaction
with the
agreement.
The
the
expressed
Preservation
Council wrote to the Governing Board expressing "indignation
and
dismay
of
the
agreement such as a "Basin-wide limit of 25 building permits
for
at
the
suppposed
'settlement.'"
Components
new single-family homes per year for the next five years
the
total
eligible
lots)"
were viewed
33
as
a
(1.2% of
"massive
step
that
backwards"
agreement as
viewed the
legislature
Nevada
17,
1985).
biased
toward
In the face
of the Bi-state Compact should the Plan be adopted.
the Governing Board decided not
of tremendous public opposition,
the injunction in Judge Garcia's Court
(U.S. District Court of Appeals for
Many
lost
and
the Ninth Circuit, May 1985).
people in the Lake Tahoe Basin were becoming concerned
their livelihoods.
about
Instead,
the plan they had labored over for ten months.
appealed
TRPA
the
and reemphasized their threat to pull out
environmental concerns
to adopt
of
credibility
January
(Tahoe Sierra Preservation Coucil,
TRPA,"
The
only "undermine the
would
The ULI
Study and subsequent
reports
noted a declining economic base. In the period from 1978 to 1984,
total retail expenditures in South Lake Tahoe declined about
were also declining.
39%
on
occupancy
the
the north shore
Retail sales on
adjusted for inflation).
(when
Average annual motel occupancy ranged
north shore to 50%
on
rates declined 10 percent
the
Shore.
South
from 1978 to
from
Average
1984.
(TRPA,
TRPA
The injunction was believed by many opposed to the
1986).
20%
to be the primary cause for the decline.
Against this backdrop,
work
on April 1,
1985, Bill Morgan began
as the new Executive Director of TRPA.
director
Service.
of
Morgan was
the Tahoe Basin Management Unit of the
He brought direct knowledge of
U.S.
former
Forest
the interest groups and
many of the individuals involved in the disputes, having lived in
the
Basin for 12 years.
He was respected by the community
and
had several new ideas.
The
first
idea,
for
which
he
secured
the
Nevada
Legislature's support, was to replace the outdated and inaccurate
34
Bailey
System of
land classification.
form of settlement negotiation:
Another was
to try a
Consensus Building.
The Consensus Building process was supposed to be
from past efforts in two ways.
be
gathered
and second,
different
First, all affected parties would
together to negotiate the content of
Plan at one time;
new
the
Regional
a facilitator would be brought in
to manage the process and help the waring parties work
35
together.
Parties to the Dispute, their Positions and Interests
IV.
already
have
introduced
current dispute.
the
the Tahoe Sierra Preservation
Association
Basin
Tahoe
of
the following pages,
described
by
the
This
categories.
the
Governments,
state agencies such as the Lahontan Water
In
the
Council,
the California Attorney General and
legislatures of both states,
other
the
The parties mentioned so far include the League
to Save Lake Tahoe,
TRPA,
in
involved
many of the parties
I
Tahoe,
reviewing the history of the conflict at Lake
In
interests of the
is
necessary
Board.
Quality
parties
are
insure
the
to
confidentiality of individuals views.
there are essentially five categories
In the Tahoe dispute,
of
interest groups.
private organizations, citizen groups,
with
similar
of
Each category includes representatives
and/or government agencies
The groups
positions and concerns.
are
broadly
drawn and members do not necessarily share a complete identity of
However,
interests.
enough
similarities
the
within each
parties
perspective
in
to
be
share
category
grouped
together.
The categories are:
o
Development and property rights advocates
o
Environmental
protection
and
limited
development
advocates
o
Local environmental agencies and commissions
o
Local
o
State and federal agencies
Within
are
government
each category,
first listed.
These
are
the stated positions of the
Their underlying interests are
parties
also described.
derived from interviews and CBW meeting minutes
36
(see
Appendix A:
concerns
The
Interview Guide).
The parties'
'interests' are the
and desires that brought each to the bargaining
positions
statements
listed in each category
about what they hope to
correspond
to
table.
parties'
'win' at the bargaining table
(Fisher and Ury, 1981).
The
Tahoe
Development and property rights
Sierra
Commerce,
Preservation Council,
Boards
of
Realtors
advocates include
the Northshore
(basin-wide)
the
Chamber
and
the
of
Gaming
The members of this group believe that:
Alliance.
o
Any regional plan must be fair to property owners
o
The moratorium
o
A
free
rate
of
on construction should
be
removed
market
economy
would
establish
the
best
commercial and residential development
in
the
Basin
o
Local
citizen and business involvement in the
process should increase
o
TRPA should provide incentives
local businesses
o
Any
planning
decision must be reasonable and
agreed upon facts
o
Some
planning
economy
The
desire
interests
to
is
beneath
stimulate
needed
for
to
economic
growth
rehabilitation
stabilize
these stated
the
of
based
the
positions
in
planning
on
local
include
Lake
a
Tahoe
communities.
Communities are interested in enhancing employment
opportunities
and
regulations
unemployment,
increasing
profits
for
businesses.
were perceived as exacerbating the problems of
business
closings
and
capital
TRPA
high
flight.
Of considerable interest to most members in this category is
increasing local autonomy and control over the future planning of
37
communities.
The
predictability
clear
of
parties
hope to
increase the
and
the future economy of Lake Tahoe by securing a
regional plan in which locals had a
parties
stability
strong
voice.
Some
expressed a strong desire that the Basin economy provide
amenities
for current residents before attracting new
residents.
making
permanent
Still other members of this group are interested
Lake Tahoe as attractive as possible for all
prospective
residents.
These
members
feel
in
visitors and
that
outside
investment will be needed to turn around the local economy.
Some
parties
feel
that businesses
'right' to improve their property.
and homeowners
have
a
Their underlying interest is
to ensure that TRPA regulations do not prohibit rehabilitation of
property
in the community.
increase
their property values.
Property owners want to
Most members of
retain
this
or
interest
group also support a regional plan and want construction in 1986.
The
Environmental
advocates
Women
protection
and
limited
include the League to Save Lake Tahoe,
Voters,
the
University Women,
Sierra
Club,
the Association
development
the League
of
of
American
and the California Attorney General's
office.
The positions of this group are that:
o
Long
term protection of the environment must take
place
through regional planning
o
A
regional
environmental
plan
must
enforce
the
established
thresholds
o
Water clarity of the lake should be improved,
maintained
o
TRPA should minimize future urbanization of the Basin
o
Extending
basin-wide
knowledge
of
the
not
importance
environmental
protection is necessary to protect
resources in the Basin
38
just
of
scenic
o
The regional plan must have broad community support
o
Future
economic
growth
must
be
balanced
with
environmental protection
The main concern underlying these positions
the
trend
of
environmental decline in the
Basin.
growth controls and regional planning as
advocates
reducing
the
Members
is in
of
regardless
adverse impacts of development on
this group want a plan to protect
reversing
This
methods
water
the
group
for
quality.
environment,
of current local interests and the political
climate
in state and local government.
The
environmental
thresholds adopted by TRPA are
by these parties and they feel that restrictions of
justified.
this type are
Some members do not desire an increase in population
in the basin or even growth in the local economy.
increase
supported
in
They want
congestion or the associated pollution and
no
traffic
problems.
Some parties feel that increased environmental awareness and
education will lead to greater protection of
Some members of
for
ecology.
this category also want the environment preserved
the enjoyment of future generations.
cohesive
the Basin's
community
They
recognize
that
efforts will produce a stable regional
plan
and greater environmental protection.
Within
interest
many
member
the
Local
environmental
agency
group there are only two members,
others
with similar interests.
representing
several
Lahontan Water Quality Board,
and
but
This group
commission
they
represent
includes
conservation commissions
and
and a representative for the
39
one
the
the
South Tahoe Public Utilities District.
Their positions
include:
o
Erosion
Plan
o
TRPA needs a practical, implementable plan
o
Lawsuits must be settled soon, and the injunction lifted
o
Plans
for
water
regulations
o
The
control
Agency
measures must be part of
use
needs
should
to
meet
the
state
incorporate
Regional
and
more
federal
technical
information in their planning process
o
The
Regional
Plan
should provide
clear
guidance
and
direction for individuals and localities.
These
and
mitigating
establish
program
They
the
parties
a
that
are interested in encouraging
current
environmental
damage.
new land classification system and
will provide protection
remedial
from
They
an
future
work
seek
acquisition
development.
want a regional plan to establish a predictable future
Basin.
for
They want to know the extent and location of future
development.
They also want improvement in environmental quality
in the Basin,
quality.
to
not simple maintainence of current
They
want
increased water clarity,
environtmental
which they
feel
could be accomplished through mitigation of soil erosion.
A
the
critical issue for these groups is provision of water
Basin.
construction
Members
are concerned that the
amount
of
allowed in the Plan not exceed the Basin's
in
future
capacity
to provide water.
The members of
moratorium,
rehabilitate
construction.
and
the group also have an interest in ending the
encouraging
existing
They
are
property and
structures
as
concerned that
business
well
as
panic
to
owners
begin
building
accompany the removal of the moratorium, so they support
40
to
new
might
a cap on
construction for 1986.
so
that
it
They want the regional plan to be
will not be open to
individual
clear
interpretation
or
abuse.
The
Local
Advisory
government group includes
Planning
representative,
Commission,
a member
from
a Tahoe Transportation
TRPA's
District
and an individual representing both the City of
South Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Basin Association of
Governments.
Positions espoused by this group include:
o
Local
government should have a larger voice in
planning
o
A regional plan must be practical and implementable
o
Allocation
of
construction
localities must be fair
o
The injunction must be removed and construction of
municipal services allowed
o
The
Plan
economy
One
group
of
is
address the need for
the most important,
in
government.
accepted
should
improving
Accompanying
permits
the
but subtle,
public's
this
by their communities.
regional
to
a
various
strong
new
local
interests of
perception
is a desire to be
of
this
local
trusted
and
Members of this group also seek
local autonomy and control over the planning process.'
Some
are
concerned
about potential
individuals in their communities.
high capability lots
be
freed
recognize
losses
Some members want the
the economy in Lake Tahoe is
TRPA
tourist- and
estate-based and requires growth to remain viable.
41
to
They want property owners with
(ones appropriate for early development)
from the injunction.
that
financial
to
to
real
The
State
and federal agency group includes agencies
that
carry specific national or state mandates extending beyond
or
regional interests.
Division
The groups
in this category are
of Environmental Protection,
office,
the
Environmental
Planning Agency,
Nevada
Nevada Attorney General's
Protection
and the U.S.
local
Agency,
Forest Service.
Tahoe
Regional
The positions of
this group are:
o
Water
quality
standards
o
Agreement
on the content of the plan must be reached
all the stakeholders
o
TRPA
should
region
o
The
TRPA
Governing
Board
planning in the region
o
The
measures
remain
must
the
meet
federal
planning
must
and
body
retain
state
in
by
the
control
over
new regional plan should be an improvement over the
1984 plan.
In
general,
region
that
the
these groups seek stability in the Lake
so they can do their jobs.
The agencies want to
the new plan is at least as environmentally
1984
planning
better
regional plan.
process
members argues
ensure
protective
They support local control
and feel regional management in the
than increased federal intervention.
Tahoe
One of the
over
as
the
Basin
federal
that the Basin is too developed to be managed as
recreation area or national park.
But,
is
a
they also want to see an
effective regional plan that meets the mandated guidelines of the
Clean
Water Act,
the Bi-state Compact,
thresholds.
42
and
the
environmental
Summary of Interests
The
concerns
and interests of the parties involved in
conflict constitute the agenda for negotiation.
difficult
to
However,
when
their
find when parties adhere
to
the
Common ground is
opposing
positions.
parties explore and explain the interests beneath
positions,
they
(Fisher and Ury,
can often find a
1981).
basis
for
agreement.
In the TRPA dispute, there are a number
of similarities in the interests of apparently opposing parties.
All
develop
parties
a
developing
want
to end the moratorium and most
regional plan.
Several mention
the
want
to
importance
of
a lasting agreement to ensure stability in the Basin.
(Some members of the development and property rights group
prefer
to
Basin,
but
TRPA
see an end to the TRPA and bi-state planning
might
in
the group is willing to support the continuation
and work toward an agreement recognizing that they may
the
of
not
prevail in an effort to remove TRPA.)
All
groups,
protection
and
supporting
except
limited
the
local
some
members
of
the
development group,
economy.
are
Reluctant
interested
members
environmental
category want balance between local
environmental
protection.
However,
environmental
of
concerns
in
the
and
they feel that the balance
must be achieved through TRPA intervention and fullfilling of the
mandate
some
of the Bi-state Compact.
of
All parties,
the environmental protection
advocates,
prefer
local
or
and
regional
except
limited
control
possibly
development
to
federal
intervention.
Parties
critical
vary
common
in
ground
their concern for
exists.
43
While
the
the
environment,
but
development
and
property
rights
group
object
to
past
"overemphasis"
environmental consequences of development,
that
the
all
the groups
regional plan must comply with legislatively
of
agree
mandated
standards and regulations.
Most
importantly,
all
groups recognize the
link
environmental protection and a sound local economy.
that
Lake
They realize
Tahoe's viability as a renowned recreational resort is
dependent
on the preservation of
the
and surrounding landscape.
Lake
between
environmental
policies
of
the
the unique
characteristics
In the face of
current
of
the
non-
administration
and
reductions in the California and Nevada budgets for mitigation of
environmental
protection
degradation,
will have to be accomplished locally
federal support).
they
must
economy.
conflicting
the group agrees that
However,
ensure
Discovery
environmental
(with state
and
in order to protect their resources,
the development of
a
sulf-sufficient
of the interdependencies of
interests provided part of
agreeable outcome.
44
any
the basis for a
local
apparently
mutually
Part
2:
A
New Approach to Dealing with Conflicts
in Regional Planning
45
Getting Started
Consensus Building Workshops:
I.
Why negotiate?
Having
of
years
unsuccessful
consensual
discussing
parties
why
did
members of
the
agree to try Consensus
case of the Governing Board,
appeared
be their
to
the
seemingly
members
to
plan
in
an
endless
may
be
exasperation.
In
It
Building?
controversy.
the
before
last alternative
described.
Enough
were
skeptical
members were,
Nevada
the
While many of
(he
the Basin
12 years with the Forest Service and was a former
some
The
The Board was weary
trusted Bill Morgan's knowledge of
member),
the
and
CBW
answer seems obvious.
legislature terminated their existence.
Board
had
in the Basin
likely result
consider possible reasons beyond mere
useful to
for
of the affected
Bill Morgan saw that developing a
specifically
Board
Governing
the
a
plan.
But,
idea
groups
public support would more
Basin-wide
accepted
the
Various
the plan.
adopt a regional plan.
with
for
their power to stop TRPA from fullfilling the mandate
proved
in
agreement on the regional plan was demonstrated by the
failures which resulted from not having all
past
the
groups
The need
the Basin were ready for one last ditch effort.
15
over
TRPA and many interest
of the regional plan,
content
the
After
disputes
to resolve
efforts
formation of
attempted.
can better understand why it was
we
CBW,
reviewed the events leading to the
about
however,
the
Board
worked
Governing
process
willing to
of
he
entertain
an alternative.
While
the individuals,
organizations
46
and agencies
in
the
their own reasons for participating,
had
Basin
exhaustion and Bill Morgan.
By
1983.
disappearing
June 1985,
the
The Basin
had
the
since
another
construction
industry
declining,
economy
1983 were still unable to construct homes in
Summer of
1985.
A
subdivision was approved and foundations poured in 1983 that
new
remained uncompleted.
After two years, people were exhausted by
failure to adopt a plan.
For many, the offer of equal voice
government
Local
past
to
People with building approvals in the
residents were desperate.
the
with
Basin and the local
the
from
had
The first were identical
a building moratorium of one type or
under
August
common.
Board's:
Governing
been
in
reasons
several
group
the
and the
(consensus) was enticing.
citizenry had little opportunity in the
controls
to participate in formulating the environment
setting
the amount and location of new construction.
They
or
saw
the CBW as a form of empowerment.
The
sought
General
thresholds.
that
was
Attorney
to Save Lake Tahoe and the California
League
a
They
plan
that
would
enforce
environmental
had worked hard for almost a year on
never adopted.
Continued delay did not
a
serve
plan
their
interests.
It
appeared
successful
that property rights advocates
would
not
in their attempt to dissolve TRPA through the
legislature.
be
Nevada
They now saw an opportunity to be fully represented
in TRPA's planning efforts.
The
federal
most
likely
takeover
and
alternative
to
management of the
47
consensus
Basin.
was
In
probably
the
late
1970's,
California
the
Tahoe
legislature,
over local planning,
1985,
particularly
those who wanted more
proposal.
the
For most,
Lake
control
of the
in
However,
long as
intervention remained as
plan did not exist.
regional
of
idea was unappetizing
Agreement on the revisions
not less.
threat of federal
the
The
preempted the recreation
Compact
the assistance
began devising a plan to turn
into a national recreation area.
to many in the Basin,
1980
with
League to Save Lake Tahoe,
the
a
to
alternatives
than consensus.
consensus were less desireable
Getting Started
the
In
convinced the Nevada legislature
Morgan
give
TRPA one last chance.
to
the
Bailey
(70% of the unbuildable
despised
Ingram and Sebatier,
Legislature
to
undeveloped,
but
at
one time,
He managed
the
lot
the
of all
TRPA would probably be able
court.
the
acreement.
on
the
to develop
injunction.
They strongly
48
legislature
a
This
resented
judge in
This extended Nevada's
the
He
affected
He also offered the Nevada legislature
Previously,
the
Basin.
Bi-state agency being controlled by a California
power over any agreement reached.
over
funds from the
evaluations
lots remaining in
was critical to the Legislature.
California
residents
Nevada
to secure
plan and get out from under the court-imposed
point
should
land in the Basin is in Nevada,
individual
subdivided
most
that by addressing the grievances
suggested
parties
1984).
perform
they
that
He vowed to develop an alternative
a system which
system,
of
series
first month at TRPA,
to and during his
Bill
a
initiated
Morgan
1985,
Prior
contacts.
political
of
spring
could
a
veto
power
only
approve
or
allocations
disapprove
the existence of TRPA
through
and participation in the Bi-state Compact.
At the same
time,
Morgan arranged
for his
Governing
vote at regular intervals on the continued work of
served
two
budgetary
purposes.
Board
the CBW.
The Governing Board could
to
This
reaffirm
its
decision making power by supporting or denying the continuance of
CBW.
And, since the Governing Board had ultimate decision making
power over any agreements recommended by CBW,
they would be kept
abreast of the results of CBW meetings and the development
of any
agreements.
Morgan
sought
wanted
to
educate
them in the
develop
While
also
in
training for his staff
in
their committment to this
June
new
representatives
Control
process
and
Morgan was orchestrating these arrangements,
Basin.
Attorney
He
theory and practice of dispute resolution.
introducing the idea of consensus to all the
the
1985.
TRPA
held several
of the League
General's office,
Board,
Association
meetings,
of
the
the
U.S.
other
preliminary
to Save Lake Tahoe,
Service,
brainstormed
a
list
the
of
end of these preliminary meetings,
developed
in
the
cautious
consensus
with
the California
Quality
Tahoe
Basin
At
these
issues
resolution before a regional plan could be implemented.
participate
parties
the Lahontan Regional Water
Forest
was
meetings
Governments and the Gaming Alliance.
group
he
needing
By
the
they had agreed on who should
building
workshops
commitments to the process.
and
had
The next
step
involved introducing the facilitator.
Bill Morgan and other key parties perceived an advantage
contracting
for
help from outside the
49
Basin.
In
in
preliminary
meetings,
formal
list
and
the group recognized that
they needed to create a more
respectful environment in order to address the
of issues
they had generated.
An outsider would
likely to be partial to one viewpoint or another,
might
have
greater legitimacy in the eyes of all
be
long
less
and therefore,
the
parties.
After a search process managed by Bill Morgan and the TRPA staff,
Geoff Ball of the Forum on Community and Environment met with the
full Consensus Building Workshop on August 9,
50
1985.
II.
Consensus Building Workshops:
The Process
Facilitation
Bill
Morgan introduced the process of
building
as
a planning alternative.
approach for a number of reasons.
condition
of
facilitated consensus
He selected a
Morgan recognized the hostile
relationships among the parties and
entrenched positions.
facilitated
their
deeply
He wanted to engage them in a process
would improve relationships among them.
To do that,
they
that
would
need the assistance of someone experienced in moving angry people
through
a process of
not
Mori
parties
Thus,
want to invite
dependent
he
resolving
on
sought
participants
joint problem solving.
a
a process
On the other hand,
that
would
the presence of
an
facilitator
manage
to
rather than a mediator to
the dispute.
outside
make
the
intervenor.
and
teach
the
assist substantively
(For more on the types
of
in
negotiation
strategies available, see Susskind and Ozawa, 1984).
In
managing
the
process,
the
facilitator,
used a number of facilitation techniques.
of dealing with contentious problems.
issues
from
other
people's
Geoff
Ball,
He introduced new ways
He suggested that
perspectives
component of constructive problem solving.
was
an
seeing
important
He displayed a series
of drawings to demonstrate that people should confront the issues
rather
than
discussed
identified
each
ideas
other.
In the
first
for getting effective
advantages
reflecting on agreements,
in
having
time
sessions,
agreements.
between
the
group
The
group
meetings
for
adhering to established deadlines, and
writing down agreements reached at the end of each meeting.
51
The
group
outlined
suggesting
the
role of the facilitator
opportunity
suggestions
techniques
during
for
agreements.
flipcharts,
to
recorder
He would remain neutral and try to
the group's energy on the task.
the
the
that the facilitator not contribute his own ideas
evaluate the group's.
had
and
to
participate
and
would
make
Ball used a number of
permanently retaining the group's
wrote
focus
He would ensure that all parties
meetings.
He
or
the
highlights
of
process
recording
thoughts
and
discussions
on
copied and distributed them
and later photographed,
One recorder took minutes of each meeting and
participants.
distributed those to members between meetings.
The First Meetings
In the first July preliminary meeting, Morgan explained
consensus building process that would be used explaining that
the
it
would include the following components:
o
Develop
a
parties
will
o
Reach agreement on the overall goal of
o
Use a problem solving approach that avoids imposing one's
positions
on
others,
but
rather seeks to
define
the
problem and
work from a broad set
of
alternatives
to
develop an approach that is mutually agreeable
o
Search
o
Try to achieve consensus on all
By
the
identified
participate,
of the preliminary
list
and
of
groups
way
the
the process
the issues
meetings,
that
should
the
be
group
had
invited
to
the critical issues that would need resolution
to achieve a workable Regional Plan.
Officially,
the
for areas of possible agreement
end
a
set of ground rules related to
work together
(TRPA, CBW Minutes, 8/9/85).
the group would make recommendations
52
to the' decision
making body, the Governing Board, in the form of revisions to the
1984 statement of Goals and Policies of the Regional
group
its
understood that
recommendations.
their
recommendations
Board.
Indeed,
the
Plan.
the Governing Board would not be bound
The participants
would
Board
expected,
carry weight
though,
with
the
of
all
the
Board's
hard
to
Governing
an
group made
various interest groups would be deserving
(TRPA,
that
As one Board
"a unanimous decision by a consensus
consideration."
by
Governing
was likely to be responsive
agreement reached by all the major interest groups.
member put it,
The
of
Board
up
the
Minutes,
7/24/85).
At
the
first full CBW meeting,
were established.
groundrules
and
protocols
They included:
o
No
statements made in CBW could be used
proceeding
o
No personal attacks or criticisms
o
Listen to each other
o
Be clear on what the group is agreeing to
o
Be brief, but take time to be clear
o
Ensure all points of view are heard;
in
avoid
any
one
court
person
dominating
o
OK to express opinions
o
No cheerleading or pressure tactics
o
Communicate
with
Boards,
Governing
Board
and
to address the interests of all other parties
so far
consitiuencies as to process and agreements
o
Try
as possible
o
No new suits filed in court during CBW
o
No agreement or committment is final
package is finished.
53
until
the
whole
it was not stated as a groundrule,
Though
could be resolved,
issues
Memory
meetings
notes,
would
relevant
the group hoped litigants would
drop
(TRPA, Governing Board Minutes, 9/26/85, and CBW
their lawsuits.
Group
if the
be
Reaching agreement on
8/14/85).
conducted
helped
to
how
a
establish
the
climate
conducive to further collaboration.
group gathered for two-day meetings one to three
The
participation required a large
Thus,
per month for ten months.
time committment from many people.
meetings
representing
the major
The duration and quantity of
for
and scheduling problems
(or those not
small organizations
parties
compensated
for
The original timeline proposed agreement
participation).
their
on
financial
posed
times
ready
issues by October with final recommendations
for the Governing Board by January 1986.
This timeline proved to
be too ambitious and had to be extended several times.
Initial
as
such
the
Statements
regional
on
plan
framework
(maps of planning regions).
of the major issues,
moved
to
emotional
discussions focused on the least
and
and the ranking of those issues,
technical information,
consider
For
many issues,
For
each
the group
issue,
(1) brainstorm the sub-issues,
parties proceeded to
(2)
For
issues
instance,
(5) discuss areas of
alternatives and
coverage
for
gather
agreement.
discussions either became heated or the
were set aside and returned to at a
CBW
the
(3) list interests, but not evaluate them,
realized further consensus hinged on subsequent issues.
cases,
Area
Plan
Following identification
substantive negotiations.
(4)
TRPA's
issues
attempted
to
address the
new residential development.
54
Most
In these
later
amount
group
date.
of
land
parties
felt
strongly about the issue,
The group
so there was little progress
at first.
turned, instead, to discussing the rate of residential
development.
The
outset
as
Governing Board and the CBW members realized
were
developed.
They
scheduled
joint
September, October, January, March and April.
matched
agreements
copies
the
the importance of sharing the details of their agreements
they
were
from
with
Governing
Board
as they were reached.
members
for
Individuals in CBW
to
explain
The Governing Board
of CBW minutes and group notes.
throughout
meetings
the
received
CBW remained
concerned
the process that the Governing Board was inadequately
informed about both the process and the resulting agreements.
Stages of Consensus
The process proceeded in four stages:
Stage I:
Stage II:
Stage III:
State IV:
Entry, trust-building
Initial group work
(moderate issues)
Advanced group work
(most controversial
Group identity established
issues)
(handling final issues)
The issues discussed in each stage are as follows:
Stage I:
Plan Framework
Rate of Residential Development
Plan Area Statements
(Land Coverage attempted and set aside)
Stage II:
Stage III:
Individual Parcel Evaluation System
Sensitive Lands
Commercial Development
Community Plans
Land Coverage
Interim Plan for 1986
Stage IV:
Technical
work
on
Evaluation System
55
Individual
Parcel
Economic Feasibility of Commercial Plan
More on Land Coverage
Transfer of Development Rights
Density and Phasing of developments
In
Stage I,
consensus group members were
developing
new
relationships and learning about consensus building.
Through the
CBW
value
they
other's
learned
to see each other as people,
interests,
participants
and
initially
striving
for
enemies.
These
to
discuss
difficult
spent a great deal of
comfort
among
meetings
to
people
issues.
time
previously
focused on
each
deflating
The
and
energy
perceived
the
as
emotional
content of issues.
In
the
initial
Governing
Board
progress.
The
Governing
Board
stage,
the group was concerned
view them as legitimate
group
at
discussed
and
procedures
that
appreciate
for
the
their
briefing
joint meetings and strategies
for
the
gaining
Governing Board support.
During one of the first meetings,
of
the
lack
September 18,
rate
of
of trust among the
problems arose indicative
parties.
During
a
residential
development.
The larger group
this,
been
The
sub-
saying
Members of the larger group were disturbed by
it
undermined
participatory nature of the process.
key
had
began making progress and a ten minute break turned into a
two hour meeting.
were
on
1985, a sub-group caucused privately discussing the
struggling with the actual numbers for several hours.
group
break
the
supposed
broad-based,
Parties in the larger group
concerned about the process being directed by only the
parties
(Personal
interviews,
Minutes).
56
February
1986,
and
few
CBW
In
Stage
II,
from late September to the end
of
October,
trust-building continued as cohesion developed. After more than a
month of working together,
enough
CBW members began to trust each other
to break into smaller groups
to brainstorm or
facilitate
more
intensive discussion on the same issue.
then
reconvened and spokespeople from the small groups
their
progress.
By
similar
instance,
different
about
reported
in
able to make more rapid progress.
separately,
generated
group
collating all of the issues brought up
discussion, the group was
Working
The larger
the
findings.
small
small
groups
This
found
amazed
they
often
participants.
groups identified
similar
the design of an individual parcel evaluation
For
concerns
system
and
its consistency with the old Bailey system. The parties developed
greater
trust in each other when they could see their
being acknowledged by other members.
getting
agreement
climate
in
9/26/85).
the
Some noted that the act of
from the small groups
full
group
interests
(TRPA,
encourged an
Governing
agreeable
Board
minutes,
Most parties felt that using the small groups made the
process of developing agreements more efficient.
During
the
Governing
groups
made
symbolize
issue.
One
Board.
joint
They
the CBW made its first presentation to
Representatives from
presentations
alignment
member
negative
the
this period,
of
to
the group on a
the
opposing
Governing
particular
also discussed their opinions about
described
feelings
the process
as
Board
to
problem
or
the
"effectively
into positive solutions."
Another
group as getting "off the accusation mode and onto
57
interest
process.
channeling
described
creative
problem solving."
the
process
optimism,"
At least one member remained skeptical
and said the group should continue
this
stage,
controversial issues.
group
developing
some
to
issues
according
group,
began
On some issues,
to
such as
address
more
land coverage and
they were only able
to
achieve
agreement and left the remainder of the topic for later.
By mid-October,
and
the
to handle sensitive lands,
partial
"cautious
(TRPA, Governing Board Minutes, 9/26/85).
During
how
with
about
trust in the process
the extent
to
other
to the
and among members
that the group allocated discussion
forums.
They
prioritized
in
of
all
issues
type of forum that should address them:
small
advisory group, full CBW, or staff.
security
was
the group's power
over
Trust in the process
any
final
agreement
enabled the group to delegate tasks.
By mid-November,
stage,
small
issues.
members
At
first,
concern
individuals
Stage III. In this
began to address difficult
and
different
all small groups met at the same time,
participated
greatest
Usually
groups
the group was well into
in
the session addressing
to them.
The full Group then
presented the content of
the
topic
reconvened
the small
group
but
of
and
meetings.
some discussion and controversy emerged and the findings
of small groups were refined by the larger group.
November,
By the end of
small groups were meeting on different days to discuss
the issues.
Full CBW meetings convened regularly to review
all
materials and information developed by the small groups.
During
committees
Stage
to
issues such as
III,
the
group decided
form
technical
highly
technical
the individual parcel evaluation system
(IPES) and
generate
more information
58
to
on
economic
feasibility
committees
of
commercial
consisted of local,
members
and TRPA staff.
reached
by
study,
the
CBW,
or
They provided analysis of
commercial
specific
program proposals
this
period,
controversial issues.
the
group struggled
Commercial development,
process
agreements
including
reached,
and agreement to analyze
agreement,
feasibility
to
implement
IPES system.
with
the
With
several
community
a
most
for example, was
the focus of debate for 14 consecutive meetings.
creative
CBW
agreements
economic
agreements reached in principle by CBW, as with the
During
Technical
regional and state experts,
as with the
developed
agreement.
planning
the economic feasibility of
the group was able to turn the remaining issues
the
over
to technical committee by the end of December.
Stage
IV
Commercial
followed
Development
characterized by the
began
after
drafting
the
issue.
group
This
worked
stag-e
can
emergence of a group identity.
proposals
for
CBW review
through
rather
be
the
best
Small groups
than
simply
discussing issues and findings.
One of the most obvious characteristics of the growing group
identity was the group's ability to operate independently of
facilitator.
and,
Individuals
increasingly,
without
progress
technical
process,
being
on
considered
other
pressed to do so.
it
Members
appeared
of
view
The group continued
to
make
groups
were gained confidence
that the group was
agreement on all the important issues.
59
meetings
people's points
the toughest issues working with small
committees.
and
made process suggestions in
the
going
in
to
and
the
reach
of
confusion
problems arose,
new
However,
particularly
researching
committees
technical
with
the added
and
analyzing
For instance, with many people handling a number of
information.
proposals, not all information and presumptions were communicated
to
the
In one
larger group.
that
presumed
applied only to building
IPES
group
technical
the
The
sites.
CBW
parcels,
entire
that IPES would be used to evaluate
understood
Upon discovery of the misunderstanding,
not just building sites.
the
instance,
group sent the committee back to develop a system that would
full parcel.
evaluate the
In another instance, the group found that it had not defined
the
precise role and responsibility of the technical
In discussions
in advance.
make
the
view.
to the CBW.
recommendations
and
Members of
information
recommendations
gathering?
point
should be encouraged,
but
agreed
of
Should
CBW?
Or, was their role
The group
to
the CBW questioned
committee members adjunct members of
they make recommendations to CBW?
data
began
of recommendations coming from only one
validity
Were
about the economic feasibility study,
(all businesspeople and developers)
members
committe
committees
limited to
that
that written
oral
material
would be limited to the findings of their studies.
By mid-March,
for
completion
document.
of
the group imposed a deadline of May 1,
all the issues for the
Goals
The final full CBW was held April 14,
time, the full group had met 32 times.
60
1986,
and
Policies
1986.
By that
III.
Consensus Building Workshops:
The Issues and The Outcome
The Issues
Over
the ten month negotiating period,
Workshops
major
reduced
areas
expressed
of
Consensus
a list of 27 issues down to
contention.
The
list
approximately
covered
CBW participants interests and the
by
Building
the
concerns
TRPA
Regional
Plan requirements as established by the 1980 Compact.
issues
had
to
be
satisfactory to
o
Rate
addressed in order for an
6
These six
agreement
to
be
all parties:
of
single
family
dwelling
and
commercial
development;
o
Allocation
of yearly development rights
for each
county
in the Basin;
o
A new classification system for regulating the impervious
land cover on residential and commercial properties;
o
Protection of sensitive lands;
o
Community control of the planning process;
o
And, in general, the proper balance between environmental
protection and local economic growth.
Rate
of
development -
rate
of
future
controversial
As my descriptive history
development
topic.
in the Basin
has
suggests,
always
been
Rates of development for residential
commercial property for the entire Basin over the next ten
are
a critical element in any Plan.
the
treatment of projects
approved
for
or,
a
and
years
In determining these rates,
"in the pipeline"
construction,
the
in some
(either' allocated,
instances,
permitted
projects) prior to the injunction must be addressed.
Allocations -
The new regional plan will.have to
61
indicate a level
for
new
all
parties.
starts
development in each jurisdiction that is acceptable
The group had to agree on the number of
that would be allowed
single-family,
(commercial,
multi-family,
etc.)
tourist
to
building
commercial,
for the next ten years,
as
well as which jurisdictions would have what allocations.
Land
-
Cover
The
group
reclassify undeveloped,
ability
to
handle
significantly
replace
the
had to
design
a
new
system
to
but sub-divided, lots according to
land
damaging
cover
the
(man-made
environment.
structures)
This
Bailey Classification system
for
their
without
system
new
would
residential
construction only.
Under the
old system, some properties had been misclassified
or otherwise treated unfairly.
that
property
options
owners
with
The new system needed to
relatively
parcels
The
system would have to accurately protect
most sensitive to erosion and runoff
underlying
the
completely
Sensitive
rock).
Bailey
Lands
(usually steep parcels
particular,
to
provide
predictability
the value of properties
- Another major issue was
environmentalists
where streams fed into the Lake
impervious
cover
with
It would also have to be somewhat consistent
system
change
parcels
all over
and
the
Basin.
areas.
were concerned that in
(Stream Environment
or disturbances not be allowed
Zones),
because
areas were most vulnerable to erosion and siltation.
62
not
the protection of the
Lake's water quality through protection of sensitive land
In
had
such as acquisition for obtaining a fair price for their
property.
with
sensitive
ensure
areas
new
these
-
Community
Control
level
of
community input into the planning process as
local
control
areas.
to
increase
the
well
the configuration of development
This was a critical issue in the CBW.
ensure
other
over
Local governments wanted
in
their
The plan had
localities adequate autonomy while guaranteeing TRPA
agencies
the authority to enforce regulations
achieve adequate environmental quality throughout
-
Balance
needed
to
and
to
the Basin.
TRPA's main responsibility in the Basin is
protection
as
to
balance
of the environment with the encouragement of
a viable
tourist economy.
This balance was an underlying issue for
each
policy recommendation made by CBW.
A
description
reached on each of
follows
of
the content
of
the
agreements
these issues.
The Outcome
After
and
ten months of deliberation,
addressed
generated
the
six issues
and
the group had identified
many
sub-issues.
The
programs and translated them into new language for the
Goals and Policies portion of the 1984 Regional Plan.
The
important agreements resulting from the workshop concerned:
(1)
The Regional Plan Framework
(2)
Single Family development
- rate of development
- allocation of permits
(3)
reevaluation of the Bailey system
Commercial
development
- amount and rate of development
(4)
CBW
-
impervious coverage rules
community plans
-
economics feasibility study
A Plan for the 1986 building season
63
most
The
group
also generated proposed changes
Plan concerning capital
standards,
planning in
shoreline and stream zones,
to
the Basin,
protection of
improvements in public services, and
design review guidelines and
"best
for construction and rehabilitation.
practices"
Regional
improvements, monitoring of environmental
transportation
improvements
to the
management
These portions
of the Regional Plan were usually revised from previous plans
the TRPA staff or the CBW.
by
They will not be discussed in detail
here.
The Regional Plan Framework
The
CBW
began by reviewing the
Regional
Plan
Framework.
They started with this subject because it seemed like an issue on
which
agreement would be feasible.
overview
of
the
tasks ahead and
Also,
it gave the group an
allowed
discussion
of
less
emotional issues.
The
group
deciding
They
what
wanted
a goal
obstacle
needed
to
to
outlines
include
all the
in the Compact and the
of designing a practical
Plan
elements
to
needed
injunction
be
clear
and
to
its
prescription
all
Agreements
the
on
interests.
Complete
satisfy
decision.
set of regulations,
development standards,
safisfy
the
in
for
by
accomplish.
course that could not be implemented by TRPA.
protection
order
that belonged in the plan
objectives they wanted the
to
requirements
had
defined the items
CBW
not
an
The plan
environmental
and also
flexible,
Appendix
B,
in
attached,
Plan.
Single Family Development
The
group
established
allocations,
64
by
county,
for
residential
and
commercial development.
2,000 new
will be allowed between 1986 and 1991.
intended
would
the
to
avoid the
These allocations were
"panic" building that many
occur with the lifting of the injunction.
"pipeline"
issue
residences
by allowing all of
the
parties
CBW
felt
addressed
homes
with
TRPA
approvals to be built within the first year.
The
group
allocations.
received
then
Each
a
on
decided
county
percentage
and
the
distribution
the City of
of building
South
allocations
of
these
Lake
Tahoe
based
on
percent of vacant land remaining in the county. Table 1,
shows
the
project
be
allocations for residential
zones)
page 66,
units.
Every
would be required to meet TRPA restrictions in order
allowed
allowed
dwelling
the
construction.
This meant no contruction
on officially designated "sensitive lands"
and
capacity
there
available
would have to be
before
adequate
construction
would
to
be
(i.e.
stream
available
sewage
approvals
would
be
granted.
One
for
of the most sensitive issues was coverage
single family residential construction.
was inadequate,
before.
The
evaluations
restrictions
The Bailey
System
inaccurate, and destined for reform as mentioned
group developed a new system of individual
parcel
(IPES).
Rather
than use a broad approach to determining the
of land cover appropriate for a particular parcel,
application
of
system
would
vacant
parcels
one based
formulas and mapping of large parcels,
evaluate the relative
through
actual field
65
sensitivity
testing.
amount
of
the
on
new
individual
Experts
would
TABLE 1
ALLOCATION TABLE
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION
CATEGORIES OF RES. UNITS
South Lake Tahoe
Prior Approvals
New Allocations
'83 Allocations
1987
1986
-
107
El Dorado County
'83 Allocations
New Allocations
TTSA Service Area
'83 Allocations
1989
1990
1991
42*
60*
60*
55*
10
96*
18
96*
18
3
104
Placer County
Prior Apvls (4-7)
1988
96
10
6
97
103
103
16
23
0
35
300
103[22]
63[40]
63[40]
16
23
15
23
18[8]
18[8]
51
67
51
67
52
67
45[32]
45[32]
367
366
367
300
300
New /Reissued Alloc.
Douglas County
Prior Apvls (4-7)
Case-by-case
New/Reissued Alloc.
Washoe County
Prior Apvls (4-7)
*
Case-by-case
New/Reissued Alloc.
Total
o
6
0
17
32
If the Plan is implemented before December 31,
by-case projects allowed to receive permits in
shifted one column to the left.
66
1986, the numbers for the caseyears 1987, 88, and 89 shall be
determine the soil series of the remaining subdivided lots in the
Basin
(about 17,000 lots)
each.
Calculations for eight criteria would then be plugged into
an
equation
that
importance.
criteria:
slope,
and establish a permeability rate
weighted
The
technical
relative
ability of
erosion
each
according
to
its
relative
committee decided upon these
hazard,
the parcel to
for
runoff potential
eight
of
the
revegetate, geomorphic features
of the site, ease of access to the site, influence of the site on
Basin water quality
(water influence area),
the condition of the
surrounding watershed and the level of water quality improvements
downstream
from the parcel.
committee's
At the time of this
had been approved and
equation
writing,
the
system
was
the new
scheduled to begin field testing the summer of 1986.
The
design
CBW directed the technical committee and TRPA staff
a new system that "(1)
the public,
is
(4)
(2) is
is credible and understandable
as objective and scientific
as possible,
compatible with other systems applicable to other land
includes
a
transfer-of-development
includes
incentives
includes
an
(TRPA,
1986).
for
objective
By
remedial
rights
erosion
and technically-based
the
end of the
completion date of December 1988),
full
by
(3)
uses,
program,
control,
to
and
(5)
(6)
appeal
process,"
evaluation
(expected
each of these objectives would
hopefully be addressed.
Commercial Development
The
and
treatment of
commercial property was
time-consuming issue for the CBW.
addressing three major sub-issues:
67
the most difficult
Discussions resulted
in
rate and amount of commercial
coverage
and
development,
community
plans,
and
an
economic
feasibility study.
The
would
group
agreed in principal that the focus
the
be to encourage rehabilitation and renovation of
commercial
properties.
environmentally
flexibility
harmful
attempted
owners
because,
situations
to
paid
under
and
to
existing
provide
greater
In the past,
little remodeing
the previous system,
if
was
a
building
Bailey,
property
large fees and had to reduce their coverage at
time of remodeling.
the
Under the new system, property owners would
allowed to keep all their coverage as long as
damage
existing
repair
the parcel than allowed under
more of
covered
Efforts
plan
for commercial businesses to rehabilitate or remodel
properties were encouraged.
be
of
mitigated
Property owners could pay
to the parcel in some way.
mitigation fee to a "land bank",
they
a
or receive credit on one parcel
for reducing coverage on another.
The
CBW
agreed
to
allow
400,000
construction over the next ten years.
be
distributed
to local
square
feet
of
new
360,000 square feet would
jurisdictions
(South
Lake
Tahoe
and
Basin communities) for use in existing dense commercial zones and
40,000
square
feet would be allowed outside those
zones.
The
rate of development would be monitored and the community held
to
its
be
allocation.
coordinated
The
with
schedule
transportation
for new
development
improvements
and
would
watershed
restoration work.
New commercial property would be allowed 50%
property
owner
was
allowed more
68
coverage
coverage.
under
Bailey,
If a
the
property
paying
owner could obtain the difference in coverage by
a
mitigation
fee,
reducing
performing mitigation measures on-site.
allowed
on
coverage
elsewhere,
or
No development would
sensitive lands for the first
community areas, commercial
again
ten
years.
be
Outside
coverage would be permitted according
to Bailey allowances.
Community Plans
In
accordance
with
communities' desire
to
gain
greater
control over planning, the CBW recommended that each community be
allowed to develop its own plans,
commercial uses
Twenty
designating the
and construction in each of its
Community
commercial
Planning areas were identified in
TRPA now advocates a cooperative process involving
regional
and
identifying
arrangement of
the
Basin.
local,
state,
federal government and the business
the
type,
amount
and
location
areas.
community
of
in
commercial
development over the next two to three years.
TRPA will specify the community plan boundaries,
goals
and standards for all community plans,
and devise
but the actual plan
will be determined according to the type
and level of commercial
construction
Plans will be developed
needed in each community.
by broad-based community planning committees.
approach
The CBW felt this
would allow planning to be responsive to the needs
opportunities
communities,
of
each
area,
give locals
control
over
and
their
and perhaps improve relationships between TRPA
and
the localities.
Economic Feasibility Study
Another
critical
element
in obtaining
69
agreement
on
the
commercial
issue was a technical committee's performance
unbiased,
objective
the
of
evaluation
an
commercial
A technical commmittee composed of local economists and
program.
committee
The
disallow
the
responsible improvement of
the
local
to
render
or
community
the commercial
proposed
projected
the agreements been
of
in
construction
impossible
of
assessed the fiscal impacts
impacts
Had
policies.
baseline
and gathered
formed in January 1986,
business people
data.
economic
of
economy,
there was a committment within the group to reevaluate the entire
package of
commercial policies.
The Committee began their work by assessing the
the
economy
at Lake Tahoe.
condition of
Basin's
They found that the Tahoe
economy is highly dependent on tourism and that the Basin economy
Retail sales,
had been contracting over the past ten years.
constant
Lake
total
dollars,
Tahoe.
have declined over 20%
in the City
contraction.
The
Committee,
through
analysis
commercial projects, suggested that with the
per
Basin
South
Low retail sales and occupancy rates and declining
visitation to the Basin are other indicators
the Basin
of
in
of
of
economic
several
low current rents in
($.50-$1.50 per square foot, with average rents at $.85
square foot) for commercial space,
new construction in
the
fees
and
was unlikely with or without the Regional Plan's
restrictions.
The suggested pioneer and opportunistic investors
are the likely developers of the near future.
The Committee made a number of recommendations to CBW.
They
that fees for commercial rehabilitation projects
will
currently
only
suggested
have
a
large
impact
on
projects
70
that
are
marginally feasible.
the
they supported a
So,
"land bank" as being
the
most simple and the most certain approach to minimizing
impact of fees.
land bank would be established to receive all
A
mitigation fees paid by property owners
would
funds
disseminate
to
in the Basin.
environmental
individual
relieve
property
of
owners
bank
restoration
and
would
This approach
projects throughout the Basin.
mitigation
The
making
expensive
improvements they could ill afford.
The
Committee
condition
the
of
also found that until the
Basin is reversed,
the
in
"cap"
first ten years)
probably not create a constraint on construction.
interests
economic
the commercial
(400,000 square feet for the
construction
current
on
would
Small business
Basin had been concerned that the
cap
would
of
heated
create a negative effect on construction in the Basin.
Plan for 1986
In
December
1985,
the
CBW was in
the
midst
on the commercial development issue.
discussion
issues remained unaddressed and it
They
realized
seemed
unlikely
many
other
that
both the Goals and Policies and the implementing ordinances
would
developed in time for construction in
be
1986.
The
to
returning
for
session
season,
building
bleak.
group was
The
1986
litigants
the
summer
aware that the Nevada legislature would be
in January
1987,
and
without
a
1986
prospects for continued support of TRPA seemed
group set up a committee to develop an interim
to be presented to Judge Garcia's
court.
With
and all intervenors supporting a stipulated
for construction,
of
it seemed likely that the court would
71
plan
both
agreement
approve
it.
CBW
A
permits
group developed a plan
small
be
to
as
approved
well
as
the
Capital improvements
commercial properties.
300
for
residential
pipeline
remaining
in transporation
and
At the time
of
remedial erosion control were also agreed upon.
signed
the stipulated agreement has been drafted,
this writing,
by all parties,
TRPA expects
and adopted by the Governing Board.
approval from the courts in June 1986.
Status
of agreements
(as of this writing)
All members of the Consensus Building Workshop supported all
parts of the Regional Plan,
two members of
with the exception of
the Development and Property Rights group.
One
final
with
participant withdrew from the CBW completely
committee.
of the commercial economic feasibility
report
This member felt that
50%
the
coverage for commercial properties
was
economically infeasible and understood the technical committee to
substantiate this.
participant,
Another
holding
a
law
suit
condemnation of properties in stream environment
that
could not support the portion of the
s/he
for
zones,
inverse
reported
agreement
that
called for no construction in these zones in the first ten years.
The participant expects to continue litigation on this issue,
but
supports all other parts of the agreement.
The Governing Board has reviewed draft versions of the CBW's
recommended
Regional
changes
Plan.
to
They
the Goals
are
and Policies
expected
to
adopt
portion
these
of
the
changes
following a public comment period and public hearing in June 1986.
72
Part 3:
Was the Process Worth It?
73
I.
Discussion of the Consensus Building Process:
Achievements and Problems
Achievements
By
Lake
now it should be clear
Tahoe
was no easy task.
affected parties numerous,
the
parties
the
The
gains
The Consensus
resolution of
from
issues
were
press,
of
the process.
the
among
fact,
not
is
it
parties shared the following view
At
the gains mentioned here were
many
In
every issue.
in
the
Building Workshops did
least
particularly dissatisfied with the process,
However,
complex,
and the ideological differences
to note that not all
important
of
extreme.
complete
achieve
that solving planning problems
parties,
two
members
as previously
are
noted.
trends observable by
the TRPA
staff,
some
the
community
members and officials, and myself.
In
my
view,
the
valuable in Lake Tahoe,
conflicting
parties
achieved
some
future of
the Basin;
regional
plan,
in the CBW.
Consensus
if
are
noticeable
for no
improvements
Produced
an impasse.
that
improvements
The following are results
the
been
The
process
benefit
the quality of
the
the
for the participants
to
consensus building process.
a more stable agreement than previously achieved.
implementable regional plan.
support
has
that I would attribute
For the first time in TRPA history,
an
will
to
are personal gains
the problem-solving nature of
approach
other reasons than because the
no longer at
some are
and some
Building
the agency has attained
A broad range
the new regional plan because all
plan participated in developing it.
74
As
of interests now
those affected by
a result,
the
the litigants
involved in the injunction suit are expected to drop their cases.
Given the groups
group
initial level of disagreement on the issues, the
developed
substantial agreement.
Most
of
the
agreed that litigation of future issues is much less
CBW.
The parties are largely satisfied that their
parties
likely after
interests have
been met which has resulted in a more stable agreement.
However,
issue.
In
satisfy
two
One
the group was not able to reach consensus
fact,
the
commercial coverage
of the representatives of
member dropped out of
"t
of
suits,
but
CBW.
the
Also,
agreement
business
on every
did
not
community.
the litigants alleging a
Stream Environment Zones will not
drop
their
law
don't consider this a threat to the stability of the
full agreement.
As for future litigation, the
test of time will
provide more definite answers.
The
plan
is
also more stable because
issues
than
issues
unresolved.
greater
past agreements,
For instance,
consideration
planning
of
the
plans
leaving
economic
about
consequences
its
technical
inadequacies
of
the
Bailey
System
The technical committees' input into
in general,
by
Community input into the
will likely result in less local challenge
and ordinances.
agreement may,
of
for
The plan attempts to address property owner's
the
process
more
important
the new agreement calls
introducing individual lot evaluations.
planning
addresses
and regulatory fees and payments through the
committee report.
concerns
hopefully not
it
to
the
lend creedence to the plan even when
people disagree with findings because the plan is based on agreed
upon technical information.
In the past, people often challenged
75
TRPA
regulations
scientific
details
stating
that they did
and technical information.
of
not
include
adequate
The development
the new IPES system is a clear example of
of
the
technical
expertise improving the basis for decision making.
Process enabled
creation of new solutions
Through a procedure of jointly seeking new information,
CBW
created many new solutions to the historic problems at
Tahoe.
This
brainstorming
additional
process,
ideas
technical
called
before
joint
fact
evaluating
data was necessary,
finding,
them,
and
Lake
involved
deciding
using
when
technical
Parts
experts and TRPA staff to provide additional information.
of the whole agreement contain new ideas,
of new information generated at CBW.
for
evaluating
coverage
was
but only some came out
The IPES system's equations
for individual lots
technical consultants to the CBW.
for
the
future fee
less stringent due to the findings of
economic
analysis committee.
derived
the
system
commercial
Focusing on joint fact finding in
the process enlarged the factual and technical base available
parties.
by
The amount of coverage allowed
commercial buildings and the design of the
made
were
With more information,
to
the group was able to consider
more options and create new solutions.
In
many
discussing
The
idea
cases,
CBW
created
new
solutions
the needs and interests of all of
for
the
more
officials
simply
participants.
community plans resulted from discussion
local need for community control and TRPA's interest in
a
by
cooperative
atmosphere between
and residents.
the
agency
of
creating
and
Some parts of the agreement were
76
the
local
old
ideas
with
more
new planning strategies within them that
palatable,
individual
such
as parts of the IPES.
made
The idea
parcel evaluation system preceeded the CBW,
them
for
but
an
the
idea of a threshold line of allocations that would move from year
to year was new.
Many of
the new solutions
created by CBW can be
traced to the joint fact finding, creative nature of
the process.
Established a precedent for using consensus
approaches in future planning.
CBW
established
solving
believe
planning
that
the
in
building
as
a
precedent
Many in the Lake Tahoe
building is
the most
for
Basin
to
Many decision makers feel that because all members
of
are affected by planning
the
Basin is highly
effective
now
approach
community
everyone
disputes.
consensus
planning.
consensus
decisions
interdependent,
and
a
because
consensus
approach for contentious planning issues is best.
As
Master
a direct off-shoot of CBW,
the development
Plan will be attempted through consensus.
Consensus Committee has assembled three times
as of
of
Airport
A Master Plan
this writing.
The group has established groundrules, identified the key parties
and has selected a facilitator to manage their process.
Many other signals point to the ensuing use of consensus and
conflict
plan
management strategies
states
in the Basin.
that community plans are to be developed
TRPA and locals working in partnership.
conflict
developing
The new
resolution
ordinances
working with an
planning
the
whether
individual
owner seeking additional coverage to his/her property.
it is
with
TRPA staff will now use
strategies in future
or
regional
in
property
I
think
safe to say that planning in the Basin has been permanently
77
affected by the
introduction of this process.
The following achievements I consider personal gains for
the
participants in CBW.
Affected parties are more educated on the issues.
parties in CBW suggested spoke in interviews that
All
their understanding of the issues by participating
increased
the
they
CBW.
The
fact-finding and information-sharing
techniques
base.
by the facilitator helped develop a shared knowledge
used
These
now
parties,
knowledgable
about
to be involved in future planning tasks.
data
current
information on planning issues in the Basin,
in
and
are better equipped
The Airport Master Plan
is a good example.
consensus group will address the difficult issues
A
the
use and development of the Lake Tahoe airport.
around
Many of
members of the new consensus group were members of CBW.
the
They are
now trained in problem solving and consensus building techniques.
Many of the members believe that these skills combined with their
background
on
the larger planning issues will
group in developing creative,
assist
the
new
constructive agreements concerning
the Airport.
Parties' negotiation skills improved.
All
parties' improved their negotiating skills.
articulated
underlying
than posiitons.
past
issues by focusing on
interests
rather
This enabled them to discover common ground, get
their historic disagreements,
new agreements.
The group
Almost all parties
78
and work together to
agreed that these
design
abilities
contributed
to the improved quality -of the plan and will
enable
them to be more effective problem solvers in the future.
Several
strategies
enabled
instance,
them
to get agreements
they
negotiation
wanted.
study by recognizing the common interest
All
but two
Consensus
as
one
process.
misunderstandings
parties
stated
of the
Hostile
among
all
strongest
behavior,
improved.
communication
benefits
polarized
were common among parties prior to
unanimously that people now at least
one another's views.
improved
patterns
parties sited parties' improved
relationships
to
the
views
and
CBW.
All
understood
In some cases relationships between parties
dramatically.
One member states
that as a
result
consensus,
parties
pick up the
telephone to discuss an issue rather than file a
suit.
For
in the Basin in a stable economy.
Parties relationships and communication
and
new
the property rights groups negotiated for the economic
feasibility
people
parties also stated that learning
This
of
with a planning complaint are more likely to
is a major accomplishment in a region fraught
law
with
courtroom dispute.
Misperceptions
and
changed dramatically.
people,
accepting
legitimate.
level
of
Some
Parties now recognize their opponents
each
other's
views
as
trust exists between most members
the issues,
different,
have
as
but
parties suggested that a significantly higher
community as a whole.
all
stereotyped views between parties
but
of CBW
and
in
the
Opponents do not necessarily now agree on
they also do not presume
specifically intend to undermine their needs.
79
that other parties
Evidence of
improved communication and greater understanding
of all points of view is plentiful
in the minutes of
time went on, previously hostile parties made
components
As
suggestions on plan
that specifically addressed the interests of opposing
parties.
Attacking statements and name-calling virtually ceased
by the third month of the CBW.
emerge.
issues
the CBW.
"Parties
and
process,"
A
tone of mutual respect began to
were developing a mutual understanding of
getting individual needs and interests
according
to Bill Morgan
met
in
(letter to Governing
the
the
Board,
Opposing parties sat next to each other early on
October, 1985).
and the facilitator considered it a major step the day one member
of
the environmental group offered coffee to a
member.
in the Basin,
Given the history of
and the fact that many of
live and work together,
must
rights
Parties began suggesting solutions by noting that others
may have different perspectives.
conflict
property
tremendous
these
parties
this was considered by many to
the most important achievement of
be
the process.
Process allowed discussion of the values beneath controversies.
At the heart of much of the controversy over planning in the
Basin were significant differences
rights
the
in personal values.
advocates simply did not believe a government agency
right to regulate to the point of devaluing their
Environmentalists
in
everyone.
restrict
The
property
resulting
owners
question
and
of how
developers
environment had to be addressed in each component of
80
the
activities
much
to
had
property.
the Basin believed that protection of
scenic qualities of the Basin required regulating the
of
Property
TRPA
protect
can
the
the regional
plan.
By understanding each other's interests and values,
considering differing needs in discussions,
and by
parties were able to
civilly generate alternative planning approaches.
Problems
In discussing the CBW process,
the
problems
attributable
discussion
with
to
the
the
process
process.
it is critical to
as
well
Information
as
in
achievements
the
comes from interviews with participants,
observations of the minutes and the process.
highlight
following
my personal
Problems with
the
process included:
o
It
took
many
hours over many
months
to
reach
some
agreement
and, even then,
not all of the
issues were
addressed that were originally placed on the agenda.
o
The
technique of small group meetings allowed three
four parties to dominate the process.
o
The facilitator was not active enough in the process.
o
There
were
some
communication
problems
community and the Governing Board.
o
State
officials
from
inadequately involved.
o
Not
every interested party was able to participate
the process.
California
and
with
Nevada
or
the
were
in
Time
The
deadline
CBW took much longer than
The
original
of the end of October 1985 was unrealistic according to
many participants.
The Governing Board voted to extend
of CBW until December 1985.
and
anticipated.
This deadline was still unreasonable
TRPA sought a grant from the Hewlett Foundation to
the process through May 1986.
support
continue
What took so long?
Educating all the parties to the same level of knowledge
81
on
all of the
issues took alot of time.
Parties received packets of
technical
information in advance of meetings,
but many
parties
mentioned that it was extraordinarily time consuming to bring all
to a common level of knowledge on the
members
also
many
There were
issues.
issues to cover and new material to digest
for
each
issue.
The
parties
learned
new
negotiation
and
communication
Previously, parties
skills.
This training expended many hours.
attacked
each other personally and for their views and many
never
worked in a problem solving arena.
negotiation,
focused
facilitator
on
adjusting
stage of
parties'
about each other and their behavior toward each
thinking
Much
the
In the first
other.
spent deflating
time throughout the process was
of his
had
emotion from issues in order to direct the group's energy
the
toward
resolving the critical issues.
parties
Many
the
discussing
the
minute
time
that too much
details
of
each
was
issue.
consumed
legal
The
leaving
loose
Others felt this concern was carried to the extreme
and at
representatives
ends.
mentioned
in
the
process
insisted on not
expense of addressing all the issues.
The
parties
net
became
in
participate
organizations
Shorezone
result of the lengthened schedule
frustrated
all
could
with the process.
sessions
not
simply
afford for them
to
that
Some
could
they
or
many
not
their
participate
(the
representative dropped out of the process in September
and rejoined the group for a couple of
members
because
was
were
the final meetings).
not paid for their time in the
82
workshops
in
Most
the
first
place.
By the end of the meetings,
some were anxious, and the
parties were
final issues had to be
tired,
tied up quickly
in order to achieve closure.
Small Groups
One
technique that saved a significant amount of
breaking
the
agreements.
larger
When
group
into
small
these groups were
groups
time
to
able to work
was
formulate
independently
time was saved, but the technique also resulted in some problems.
Even
though
interested
CBW- members
were
in any of the small group sessions,
participate
commit
all
to
all the sessions in the later
invited
M0ost
months.
to
not-J
co
The
arose that the few parties able to attend all meetings
problem
dominated
the process and the agreements.
Some
parties
parties.
the
resented
the perceived power
of
these
few
A pattern of dominance by a these few parties began at
third meeting.
caucus
private
expressed
ten minute break turned into a three hour
during
a
scheduled
to
was
the larger group.
mentioned
time.
Parties
and those
caucusing
meeting
extreme dissatisfaction with this
apologized
problem
A
However,
in later meetings
concern about
and
in
small
this
group
sessions.
Facilitator
The
facilitator
played
a
relatively
directing the progress of meetings.
selected
ensure
as
a process manager,
adherence
to
substantive intervenor.
an
passive
process,
create
rather
than
Bill Morgan wanted parties to learn
83
in
Geoff Ball was specifically
one who would help
agreed upon
role
and
a
to
work effectively together as much as to develop an regional plan.
Ball
was expected to intervene less as
time went on and to
step
away from substantive discussions.
Ball followed this formula.
at
the outset
meetings.
process
and intervened with suggestions on process
He
strategized
process design.
with Bill Morgan and others
during
on
the
In the course of meetings, Ball made suggestions
for redirecting discussion.
asked
He led discussions on
He often interpreted statements
for further clarification from parties.
He kept
or
parties
committed to the process, and saw that groundrules were followed,
but
only ocassionally made substantive comments
and suggestions.
This role had advantages and disadvantages.
Many
parties felt they would have preferred a
facilitator
Basin.
with more knowledge of
Two
more
active
the planning problems in
the
members commented that Ball allowed discussions
get off track in into too much detail.
to
Some felt that with more
substantive knowledge, a facilitator would have been more able to
keep discussions
Many
could
from straying from the point.
parties
felt that the
have been remedied by the facilitator;
dominated
nature
by
of
three or
four
participants.
rarely
feeling
process.
mentioned
problem
namely that it was
The
participatory
the meetings was threatened in early meetings by
private caucus mentioned earlier.
should
previously
if
Several representatives
ever in many of the sessions.
One member
intimidated by the legal representatives
the
spoke
spoke
of
throughout
the
Some felt the imbalance in discussions could have
and
have
been corrected by Ball by drawing out some
other participants.
84
of
the
Interaction with the Community and Governing Board
CBW was the most interactive and broad-based planning effort
in
the
Basin to date.
accused
of
being
However,
an elitist group
the
group
was
convening
ocassionally
privately.
The
meetings were open to the public, but historic levels of distrust
extended well beyond the
did
CBW to the whole of the Basin.
People
not believe their interests were being represented and
did not trust the process.
they
Interaction with the community about
the plan as it was developing was attempted.
CBW members
tried
to stay in touch with their constituencies and supervisors.
much
of the press continued to be unfavorable,
and
But,
communities
did not always trust or favorably receive what resulted.
For
instance,
a
guest editorial article appeared
Tahoe Daily Tribune on Friday,
concern
would
for
leave
article
the CBW's
"no
February 28,
"politically expedient
solution" for cleaning
pointed out a number of
programs
of
comment
on
the
consensus
anticipated,
but
not
the
1986,
up
in
which showed
compromise"
Lake
the
that
Tahoe.
The
concerns about current and
past
TRPA and the two states,
agreement.
adequately
but
offered
This
addressed
little
problem
was
through
outreach
the Governing Board had final power over CBW
results,
programs and community education.
Since
the CBW's interaction with the Governing Board was
Governing
Board reviewed all consensus meeting minutes and
joint meetings with the
Governing
critical.
consensus group on a regular basis.
Board- also reviewed CBW documents and made
regularly.
85
The
held
The
revisions
CBW
The
change
abreast of
these changes.
that
of
would
Board
Governing
and
would be wasted.
Ultimately, of
discussions
CBW
CBW members were
changes
make
agreement that would not be supported by CBW.
All
the
in
the time spent
course, CBW hoped the Governing
would support the entire document and adopt it as the
regional
Briefing
plan.
presentations
this
staff
They knew the Governing Board
After the hours spent,
being present.
concerned
Board
single
a
TRPA
the
possibly appreciate the breadth
not
without
of
members were aware of the need to keep Governing Board
consensus
could
Bill Morgan,
the 1984 Plan.
in
members
many hours over the text
struggled
area,
technical
and
committees
staff at Governing Board meetings assisted
by
but
from
the Governing Board's
final acceptance
new
of
in
the
agreement remained a threat to CBW throughout the process.
State Involvement
CBW
appeared
membership
representatives.
to
be
dominated
by
California
Nevada state government did not have as large a
regulatory budget as California and did not have the quantity
For instance, the 208
environmental regulations California did.
Water
which affects
Quality Plan,
the entire Basin,
is
enforced by the California Lahontan Water Quality Board.
developed
in
California.
members.
largely
adequately
Nevada
This
Other
that
was
mentioned
parties
concerned
about
represented
the CBW
claimed
property
by
the
advocates.
86
process
by
was
several
that
of
Nevada
rights
California
largely
A sense
dominated
grudging
residents
issues
and
property
by
Nevada
were
were
rights
One individual outside the CBW, but intimately involved with
the Basin,
suggested that more communication with high officials
in both state governments would have assisted the CBW in the
run.
The
Attorney
representatives;
states,
with
Generals
no
their
were
legislative
large
the
only
members
influence
becoming better
concerns.
state
Possible
government
participated.
through
representation and TRPA budget allocations,
from
state
long
The
Governing
Board
would have benefited
acquainted with region's current issues
long term political benefits to
legislators- involvement
include
and
increasing
reducing
hostility
between Nevada and California state governments and enlisting the
support
of
the
particularly
another
states
the
agreement.
This
would
useful in Nevada since Nevada is likely to
pull-out
reconvene
in
bill
regardless
of
the
outcome
be
develop
when
they
in January 1987.
Unrepresented Interests
Several
CBW.
Basin
interest groups were not represented
Laborers and service
in
industry workers were represented only
by local governments and may have had a different perspective
the
issues.
dominated
were
The
planning
represented
environmentalist
environmental
interests
of
property
concerns in the Basin.
only
the
by
the
Also
Attorney
remarked that there was not
representation
owners
has
always
non-residents
Generals.
adequate
given the national
on
value
One
national
of
the
scenic resources of Lake Tahoe.
In closing, I would like to add that several of the problems
87
with
the
process
can be tied to compromises
design.
The
excessive
thorough
discussion
relationships.
allowed
the
extensive
The
group
amount
of
of
time
certain issues and the
to gain "ownership"
the
consuming.
Better communication
question
allow
for
of
but
this
process.
More
community
learning just 16 points of
with
communities would have been desireable,
The
process
improvement
passive,
the
in
but 16 participants was a cumbersome
number and considerable time was spent
and
of
did
by additional members of the
might have been beneficial,
view on every issue.
spent
facilitator's role was
participation
made
is
almost never how
constituencies
but
to
also
design
time
the
perfect process, but rather, what trade-offs are acceptable given
the need to reach a wise,
fair and implementable agreement
limited time, money and energy.
88
with
Assessing the Plan
II.
In
plan
assessing the quality and effectiveness of
resulting
Answers to
from
the CBW,
I will examine
the
six
regional
indicators.
the following questions will be addressed according to
parties' perspectives:
o
Were all parties' interests satisfied in the plan?
o
Is the plan- clear and specific enough?
o
Is the plan better
o
Does
the
than previous plans?
plan address the most
important issues
in
the
region?
o
Does
o
Does the
My
from
1986
to
the
plan secure mutually beneficial solutions?
agreement secure the commitment of
interpretation of
the parties?
the parties' perspectives are
derived
their answers to a questionaire I administered in
(prior to completion of the CBW).
all questions.
responded
I also relied on CBW minutes or other
statements for answers.
Again,
nature
public
responses are grouped according
to the categories used previously.
confidential
Not all parties
February
This allows me to protect the
of the information I
received,
but
risks
overgeneralization.
Interests Satisfied
One
indicator
of
the
quality of plan is
satisfication of all participants with the plan.
the
degree
One participant
from the Development and Property Rights group did not support
section of
the agreement
but
signed
did
Environmental
off
of
a
(the Stream Environment Zone agreement),
on
the
rest
of
the
agreement.
An
Protection and Limited Development advocate voiced
89
dissatisfaction with the entire document,
the
entire
agreement.
but also signed off on
This representative felt that
the
final
document ignored the mandate in the Bi-state compact by not being
restrictive enough, regarding development.
Another
stopped
Development
participating
and
Property
Rights
in the process when the
representative
results
commercial economic feasibility study were reported.
interpreted
the
study
results as saying
that
CBW
felt
the study essentially
the
supported
agreement
with a few minor modifications.
commercial
the
was
plan
interpreted
a main concern for
the
this
The rest of
the
Since
member
commercial
feasibility of
and
study results differently than
the
This member
agreements in the plan were economically infeasible.
the
of
the
the
member
CBW,
this
member could not continue to support the consensus process.
Other
plan,
members did not like particular aspects of the
but
their dissatisfaction did not impede their
participation.
A
group
a
wanted
allocations.
group
different
distribution
of
continued
Commission
construction
The member of the Development and Property
mentioned
meeting
member of the Local Environmental
previously
announced at
that the case brought before
the
final
final
Rights
consensus
the courts alleging inverse
condemnation of properties in stream environment zones would
be
dropped.
this
law
suit
This
is significant in that the group hoped
would be dropped as a -result of
the
not
that
consensus
agreement.
All but one of the CBW participants were satisfied with
plan.
Some were dissatisfied with portions of
gained enough in other areas to support
90
the
the agreement, but
the full document.
Clarity and Specificity
Clarity and specificity of the regional plan is
indicator
clear
of
and
its potential effectiveness.
concise
an important
The plan should
in its direction so as not
to
be
be
open
to
interpretation or abuse.
The member of the Development and Property Rights group that
dropped
out
enough
of
regarding
Environmental
might
the process thought the plan
be
clear,
Commission
open
but
statement.
protection
of
property
was
rights.
it
specific
The
representatives stated that
to misinterpretation in places and
that
not
served
its
purpose
State and federal agencies
as
a
Local
the
plan
not
totally
broad
policy
all stated that the
plan
was clear regarding their respective regulatory requirements.
sum, all but
two parties
In
felt the plan gave adequate direction to
the TRPA for developing implementing ordinances.
Improvement over Past Plans
Another
indicator
of the quality of the agreement
comparison of this plan to previous plans.
felt
that
is
the
One environmentalist
the previous settlement negotiation plan
(which
was
considered
environmentally-oriented)
agreement.
This member felt that the California Attorney General
and
the
better than
all Development and Property Rights
remaining Environment and Limited Development
Local
Agency
the
CBW
League should have continued their law suits.
On the whole,
the
was
Environmental
members,
significant
and
Commission members,
the
improvement
TRPA
staff
members,
the State and
felt
over the previous
91
members,
this
plans.
plan
Even
the
Federal
was
a
those
disagreeing
needs
with parts of the plan thought
it better served
of the Basin and that it was improved with respect
the
to
the
is
the
issues most important to their constituencies.
Important Issues
Another
degree
to
indicator
of
the quality of the
which parties felt the document
important
addressed
the
in the Development group felt
plan did address the most important issues
This member
said
for
the
that certain property rights issues
given sufficient consideration in the plan.
region.
were
For this person,
most pressing issue in the region is the economic decline of
Basin.
This
address
the
person
issue
suggested that while
and
agreements,
critical
unresolved.
For
made progress
the CBW attempted
the
the plan does not fully address
of environmental restrictions.
for
This party felt that a
business
developers and would only exacerbate the decline of the
of the Environmental Protection
statement
critical
Limited
most
of
This member made a general
that the plan did not address the most environmentally
issues since it "evaded the Compact."
Two parties
was
economy.
and
group members felt that the plan addressed
the critical issues facing the Basin.
the
absorbing
coverage rule was economically impossible for most
Development
to
left
capability to or responsibility
one
the
commercial development problems were
the costs
but
the
plan
owner's
All
not
community
instance,
in
property
50%
most
issues in the region.
All but one of the respondents
the
outcome
suggested that the plan as a political
a good starting point for regulation.
92
In their
solution
view,
the
resulting
ordinances would shape the real direction of
in
the Basin,
to
begin
but that agreeable Goals and Policies were needed
work on such ordinances.
suggested
planning
that
remedial
One
transporation
of
these
work
and
respondents
stream
zone
restoration were inadequately addressed.
One
representative
transportation
also
political
create
and
as
the
stated that the real degradation problems
Agencies
member
of Local Environmental Commissions
system would not be addressed in the plan.
felt
issues.
that the plan
Another
in
assessed during
Local
California,
primarily
for the amount of
but
indicated
that
Government
important
plan
water
might
legally
this
would
representatives all
felt
that
the
be
plan
State and federal agencies
thought the plan addressed the most important
representative
This
the development of the ordinances.
addressed the most important issues.
also
resolved
member thought that the
excessive water demands
available
such
issues.
One
stated that the Goals and Policies were set forth
in much greater detail than expected.
Mutually Beneficial New Solutions
As
mentioned
section,
to
the process discussion
the quality of
secure
of
the
previous
group employed creative problem solving techniques
develop new solutions.
examine
to
the
in
With this
indicator,
I
attempt
to
the plan by assessing whether it attempts
solutions that parties felt were
beneficial
to
all
participants.
For example, consider the development of Community
Plans.
This
solution
control
(Local Government's and Property Rights and
allowed
93
an increase in
local
planning
Development
group's
interest)
while retaining TRPA's
protect the environmental
Limited
Development
integrity of
regulatory
the Basin
group's interest).
power
to
(Environment and
This represents
a
new
solution created to satisfy all parties' interests.
Another example is the design of
the IPES system.
With full
CBW participation in the design of this system, environmentalists
were able direct the technical committee to design a system
that
advocates
were
sensitive
protected
lots while property rights
able to see that properties appropriate for construction would be
The new IPES system is a more accurate and
allowed construction.
lot evaluation system that satisfies both development
verifiable
and environmental interests.
Other new solutions are the land bank idea,
every
allowing
could
the Basin
an
never
and
This
solution
second
build on their properties regardless
opportunity
of their
feasibility
land
Under the new system, everyone in the Basin has
to
environmentally
group's
the
allocation,
receive a
building
allocation,
though
property owner may not receive approval to construct if a
is
for
the community perception that some property owners were
classification.
the
in
economic feasibility study.
commercial
addressed
parcel
provisions
Authorization
sensitive.
of
an
study satisfied the Development and Property
a
parcel
economic
Rights
need for additional technical information while allowing
for tentative agreement on coverage of commercial properties.
CBW did seek at least some mutually beneficial
with more time could have perhaps achieved more.
94
solutions and
Commitments
The final indicator of the quality and effectiveness of
regional
the
the
plan is the.degree to which it produced commitment from
parties involved in its development.
The parties suspended
bringing any new law suits while participating in the CBW.
indicated a commitment to the process and an intent to
with each other in good faith.
to
be
negotiate
The injunction suit is expected
dropped with the adoption of the new regional
mentioned,
the
case
This
involving property in
plan.
stream
As
environment
zones will not be dropped.
As for future commitments to the agreement,
CBW
felt
that
future law suits on the issues
agreement
were
unlikely.
written
agreement
However,
in
not
contents
of a document they developed,
members
members
of the CBW could sue the
stated that they
but it
TRPA
seems
expected
the
sign
preventing them from bringing suits.
that
group
settled
the group did
possible
Many
most members of
It
for
a
is
the
unlikely.
individuals
to
continue to turn to the courts for compensation of property value
losses.
Conclusion
The
plan
is
Agency thus far.
extent
possible,
viewed by many as the best
produced
by
the
It does not address every issue to the greatest
but after fifteen years and ten
months,
many
felt it was time to get a plan "on line" and make adjustments
the future.
accomodated
in
The TRPA and environmental litigants felt they had
development interests as much as possible and
not further adjust the content of the plan to
95
could
retain the support
of
the Property Rights and Development member
To the remaining members,
improvement
groups
find
the plan seems
over past plans.
satisfaction
It is
fair
suggesting that it is a fair agreement,
96
out.
and a significant
important to note that
and dissatifaction
of all sides.
that dropped
with
the
all
result
addressing the interests
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
to
Yes:
Getting
Houghton Mifflin
and William Ury,
Roger
Fisher,
Giving In,
Without
Agreement
Negotiating
Co.,
Boston,
1981.
Fifth Annual Report,
Byron,
R.,
and Earl R.
Charles
Goldman,
CA,
July
15,
Group,
Davis,
1984,
Tahoe
Research
Water
Year
1985.
A Descriptive History of Land
Wesley and Paul Sabatier,
Ingram,
of
Institute
Tahoe,
and
Water Quality Planning at Lake
Use
Governmental Affairs, Davis, CA, 1984.
Martens, Tom, Lake Tahoe --
An Update, League to Save Lake Tahoe,
July 1, 1985.
Ozawa,
Connie and Lawrence Susskind, "Mediating Science-Intensive
Management,
Journal of Policy Analysis and
Disputes,"
Policy
V.5, no.1, 1985.
The Devil
and Susan McLaughlin,
Susan Hunter,
Paul,
Sabatier,
Shift:
Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents, University
of California, Davis, 1985.
Douglas R.,
Strong,
An Environmental History, University
Tahoe:
of Nebraska Press, 1984.
Susskind, Lawrence, and Scott McCreary, "Techniques for Resolving
APA
Coastal Resource Management Desputes Through Negotiation,"
Journal, Summer 1985.
States
United
District
Court
for
the
Eastern
District
of
CA No.
84-
California, No. Civ. S-84-0561-EJG, June 15, 1984.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
2450, May 15,
1985.
United States District Court,
District of Nevada,
CV-R-257-ECR,
May 10, 1985.
Tahoe
Regional
Planning Agency,
Public
Law
,
Tahoe
Regional Planning Compact, 1970.
,
Public
Law
95-551,
94
Stat.
3233,
Tahoe
Regional
Planning Act, 1980.
Environmental Threshold Carrying
,
Resolution No. 82-11:
Capacities for the Lake Tahoe Region, 1982.
,
Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin, Final Draft,
November 1983.
97
Bibliography
Page 2
Tahoe
Regional
,
Planning Agency,
Press Release, March 3,
1985.
Governing Body, Regular Meeting Minutes, 1985-86.
,_
Consensus
Building Workshop Minutes
and Group
Memory
Notes, July 1985-April 1986.
,
Plan,
Draft Revisions to Goals and
February 1986.
Policies of
Supplement Environmental
,
Draft
Adoption of a Regional Plan for the Lake
the Regional
Impact Statement for
Tahoe
Basin,
April
1986.
,
Evaluation
of TRPA's Proposed
Commercial
Regulations,
Economic
Techical
Committee to
the
Coverage
Consensus
Building Workshops, April, 1986.
Tahoe
Sierra
Preservation
Council,
letter to
TRPA
Governing
Board, January 17, 1986.
Urban Land Institute and Lincoln Institute for Land Policy,
Lake
Tahoe:
An Evaluation of Governmental, Planning, Environmental,
and Infrastructure Financing Issues in the Tahoe Basin, 1985.
Urban
Land
Institute,
Report on the
Growth Management, January 1986.
Conference
on
Community
Western
Federal
Regional
Council,
Lake
Tahoe
Environmental
Assessment, Interagency Task Force, December 1979.
98
Appendix A:
Consensus Building Workshop Interview Guide
Consensus Building
Workshop
Interview
Guide-Page
1
Date
Name
Organization
-Introduce; MIT Planning; studying mediation and c.b.
-Documenting whole process; history for context
-Document will, of course, be shared with and can be used by parties
-Interested in highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the process
and the outcome... tho this'is just one part of report
-Want to talk about your perspective; Not looking for any particular
answer; nothing said will be specifically attributed to any party
-Will start with some general questions, then questions to get
at specific aspects of plan or process
General-1.
When consensus building began, what were your major interests for
Have
What did you want to come away from this process with?
the plan?
How? Why?
your interests changed since then?
2.
What were two of your most important expectations for
What did you expect the group to be able to achieve?
Technical
Decision
this process?
Making--
3. Did the refinements made to the regional plan through conse'nsus
Give an example.
require the use of technical information?
4.
What
participate
with this
level of technical knowledge was required
(layperson...expert)
in this
process?
level?
of you to
Were you comfortable,
Consensus Building Workshop
Int-erview Guide-Page
2
5.
Did it get easier, harder or remain the same to be
Why?
technical discussions as time went on?
involved in
6.
Was the process in general effective or ineffective for discussing
the technical aspects of the plan?
Efficiency of the Process-7.
How would you characterize the level
in terms of your time and money spent?
8.
How might this level
required in litigation?
of
efficiency of
the process
of efficiency compare with the expense and time
9.
Speaking now about your own expectations, was consensus building
faster, slower or the same as you expected?
More or less expensive?
10.
Did the process (getting through the issues)
Why?
or stay the same as time went on?
get faster, slower
Parties-11.
Have your relationships with any of the participating parties been
effected
by being in the CBW? Communication effected?
In what ways?
Consensus Building
Work:shop
Interview
Guide-Fage'3
12.
In your perception, have other parties' relationships or
communication changed as a result of participating in CBW? In what
ways?
1..
(If there have been any changes, ask:) Do you think these changes
will favorably or unfavorably' effect future planning and decision making
in Lake Tahoe?
14.
Did the consensus building group's ability to
together decline or improve through the process?
discuss issues
In what ways?
The Plan-15.
(Some objective questions about the Plan:) Are the
Policies as currently stated specific enough to provide
to all effected parties?
The ordinances that have been
16.
Does
Goals and
clear guidance
completed?
In your opinion, what are the most pressing issues for the region?
the plan adequately or inadequately address these issues?
17.
In what ways do the plans produced
interests?
In what ways do they?
so far not
satisfy your
18. 'Did consensus bring out any new solutions to planning problems
the region?
If so, which are new?
If not, why not?
in
Consensus Building Workshop
Durability of
Interview Guide-Pace 4
the Plan--
19.
Are there any parties who should be participating in this process
who have not been involved?
Any parties involved who should not have
been?
20.
Has this
likelihood
for future litigation
consensus?
Do you think the parties will
drop
changed since starting
their
current suits?
21. Do you think the regional planning process will be different
future as a result
of consensus?
If so, in what ways?
in the
22.
Will there be an ongoing consensus group to work on future issues
or. advise the TRPA?
Closing-What were
23.
Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the process.
the most significant strengths of the process?
The most significant
weaknesses?
24.
Is the regional plan as currently drafted better or worse than
the plan that would have resulted without consensus?
Consensus Building Workshop
Interview Guide-Fage 5
Appendix B:
Agreements on Complete Plan
9/19/85
AGREEMENTS ON COMPLETE PLAN
ISSUE
What elements or parts of the TRPA Regional Plan are required?
EXPLANATION The working group concluded that a complete Plan and certain other
essential parts should be adopted prior to implementation of the Regional Plan.
the items denoted byant"X" onthe chart must be adopted to
It is agreed all
constitute a complete package. To the extent that TRPA is unable to complete
any particular required item it is agreed that an appropriate interim strategy
will be developed to deal with that item until it is completed. Agreeing on the
outline does not imply agreement on the content of any item.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION AS AGREED UPON BY THE WORKING GROUP IS AS FOLLOWS:
A.
1.
There should be a clear statement in one place that identifies what
constitutes the "Plan".
2.
There are items that belong in the Plan and items that are necessary
to fully implement the Plan but are not in the Plan. The working
* group did not attempt to determine which items fall into which cate-gory. It is agreed the items listed with an "X" under "package" are
required to be completed and adopted prior to Plan implementation or
the commencement of project review under the Plan.
3.
The following chart should be used as the framework for the Plan and
related items.
Required
Package
Regional Goals and Policies Document
1.
2.
Land
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Use Element
Land Use ---------------------------Housing ----------------------------Noise ------------------------------Natural Hazards --------------------Air Quality ------------------------Water Quality ----------------------Community Design --------------------
Transportation Element
a.
Mass Transportation ---------------Transportation System Management b.
Regional Highway System -----------c.
Nonmotorized -----------------------d.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Desirable
Not
Required
Status*
Adopted 4/84
X
X
X
X
Some items that had been previously adopted may require revisions as a result of additional recommendations of the consensus working group or the APC or others.
*
- 1
Desirable
Required
Package
e.
f.
3.
4.
Status
x
x
Adopted 4/84
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Adopted 4/84
Conservation Element
a.
b.
c.
d.
Vegetation ------------------------Wildlife --------------------------Fisheries -------------------------Soils------------------------------
f.
Shorezone --------------------------
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Scenic----------------------------Open Space ------------------------Stream Environment Zone-----------Cultural --------------------------Energy -----------------------------
Recreation Element
a.
Dispersed Recreation--------------b.
Developed Recreation---------------
c.
Urban Recreation-------------------
5.
Public Service and Facilities Element --
6.
Implementation Element.
a.
b.
c.
d.
B.
Aviation and Waterborne----------Transportation Related------------
Not
Required
Institutional---------------------Development and Implementation ---Priorities ------------------------Financing -------------------------Monitoring and Evaluation----------
X
I
x
x
x
x
(
x
x
x
x
x
Plan Area Statements and Maps (180± PAS)
1.
2.
PAS and Map
Washoe County-------------------------------South Lake Tahoe----------------------------El Dorado County----------------------------Placer County-------------------------------Douglas County------------------------------400/2000 scale base maps (the PAS will crossreference the maps)
Land capability/SEZ--------------------Plan Area Statemenits-------------------Shorezone Tolerance and Pier Head-------
Governing Board
Approved for
Drafting
x
x
x
x
x
I
System Requires
Graphic Work
Adopted 4/84
Needs Update
Adopted 4/84
x
x
x
(CIP------------------------------------
X
storical-----------------------------SEZ Restoration------------------------Public Facilities-----------------------Wildlife Habitat-----------------------Transportation Corridors---------------Fish Habitat ----------------------------2-
x
X
X
x
x
x
Needs Update
Adopted 4/84
Staff Draft
Requires New Map
Adopted 4/84
Adopted 4/84
Adopted 4/84
Required
Package
Special Interest Species --------------Species & Sensitive Uncommon Plants ---Stream Habitat Quality --------------- --
C.
Desirable
Not
Required
Status
Adopted 4/84
Adopted 4/84
Adopted 4/84
X
X
X
Code of Ordinances
1.
2.
General Provisions (Chapter 1)
a.
Findings ---------------------------
b.
c.
Applicability --------------------Definitions -----------------------
X
X
X
d.
e.
Activities Exempt from Agency
Review -------------------------Activities Exempt from Agency EIS -
X
X
f.
Projects Requiring Governing
g.
Board Review -------------------Expiration of TRPA Approvals ------
h.
Findings for Approval -------------
i.
Variance ---------------------------
j.
Enforcement -----------------------
* k.
Nuisance ---------------------------
Land
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Use Provisions (Chapter 2)
Plan Areas -----------------------Land Capability ------------------Land Use Standards*
Coverage -----------------------Height -------------------------Noise ---------------------------Density ------------------------BMP's ---------------------------Prohibition in SEZ's -----------Outdoor Advertising ------------Relationship to Design Review
Guidelines ---------------------Scenic ----------------------------Historical Preservation ----------Nonconformity ---------------------
Subdivision Provisions (Chapter 3)
Applicability --------------------a.
Prohibition of New Subdivisions --b.
c.
Limitations
Subdivisions -------------------Conversions --------------------Lot Line Adjustments -----------Lot Consolidations --------------
d.
Protection of Purchasers ----------
e.
Subdivision Standards -------------
Draft APC Review
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
APC Approved Draft
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Staff Draft
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
* May include more items that are now found in design review guidelines.
-
3 -
I
Required
Package
4.
Shorezone Provisions
(Chapter 4)
x
Draft APC
Review
b.
Shorezone Tolerance Districts-----
c.
Permitted Uses--------------------Development Standards in the
x
x
I
f.
g.
h.
7.
Status
a.
e.
6.
Required
Findings ---------------------------
d.
5.
Desirable
Not
Backshore------------------------
x
Development Standards Lakeward of
High Water-----------------------
x
Nonconformity---------------------Motion and Discharge Limitations
from Boats----------------------Mitigation Fee---------------------
Grading Provisions (Chapter 5)
Special Information Report--------a.
Inspections-----------------------b.
Construction/Inspection Schedule -c.
Winterization---------------------eds
e.
Standards for Grading and Filling Standards for Grading and Filling f.
Vegetation Protection-------------g.
Objects of Antiquity--------------h.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Resource Management Provisions (Chapter 6)
a.
Tree Removal----------------------Prescribed Burning Programs-------b.
Livestock Grazing-----------------c.
Remedial Vegetation Management
d.
Vegetation Protection-------------e.
Landscaping-----------------------f.
Revegetation----------------------g.
Wildlife Resources----------------h.
Fish Resources -------------------i.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Water Quality and Water Resource Provisions
(Chapter 7)
Water Pollution Control-----------a.
Discharge Limits----------------Runoff Controls-----------------Snow Disposal-------------------Salt and Abrasive Controls------Sewage Spills-------------------Pesticide Use-------------------Water Quality Mitigation----------b.
Water Supply and Conservation-----c.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-4-
I
Governing Board
Approved Draft
Governing Board
Approved Draft
I
APC Approved Draft
Needs Work
APC Approved Draft
Required
Package
8.
9.
Air Quality/Transportation Provisions(Chapter 8)
Inspection and Maintenance -------a.
b.
c.
d.
Gas Heaters ----------------------Wood Heaters ---------------------Open Burning ----------------------
e.
f.
g.
Stationary Source Review ---------Traffic Mitigation Program -------Aviation Facilities ---------------
h.
Diesel Vehicles -------------------
Growth Management Provisions
Status
APC Approved Draft
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Needs Work
APC Approved Draft
x
(Chapter 9)
a.
Allocation of Development ---------
b.
c.
Transfer of Development Rights ---Phasing of Development ------------
d.
Single Family Dwelling Review
e.
Redevelopment ---------------------
System --------------------------
D.
Desirable
Not
Required
x
x
x
Draft APC Review
x
x
Other Regulations
1.
Design Review Guidelines*
Site Design ----------------------a.
Building, Height, Bulk and Scale -b.
c.
Grading and Drainage -------------d.
Landscaping ----------------------Lighting --------------------------e.
Signing ---------------------------f.
Parking ---------------------------g.
Scenic Highway -------------------h.
Snow ------------------------------i.
Energy ----------------------------j.
Scenic Quality -------------------k.
1.
Shorezone -------------------------
m.
n.
Historical -----------------------Individual Uses -------------------
Staff Draft
J
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I
Requires Final
Staff Draft
2.
Best Management Practices
a.
3.
Revised Handbook ------------------
x
Staff Draft
Rules and Regulations of Practice and
Procedure General ---------------------------a.
b.
c.
d.
Governing Board Meeting -----------Adoption of Rules ----------------Adoption of Plans and Ordinances --
e.
Project Review --------------------
* Certain items may be
land use ordinance Standards.
- 5 -
x
x
x
x
x
Adopted 2/81
I
Needs Update
Desirable
Required
Package
4.
E.
f.
g.
h.
EIS Procedures--------------------APC ------------------------------Conflict of Interest---------------
i.
Miscellaneous----------------------
Not
Required
Status
Needs Update
x
x
x
x
Adopted 2/81
1
Adopted 1/73
Administrative Policies and Procedures
Implementing Programs
1.
Monitoring and Evaluation---------------
Requires Final
x
Staff Draft
2.
Capital Improvement Program
a.
b.
Water Quality---------------------SEZ Restoration--------------------
c.
Transportation---------------------
d.
Coordination-----------------------
x
x
x
Needs Update
Requires Final
Staff Draft
X
3. &Memoranda of Understanding
4.
5.
Needs Revision
USFS-------------------------------
b.
c.
Project Review Agencies-----------Implementation Agencies------------
x
x
d.
Monitoring Agencies----------------
x
Special Programs
a.
Inspection and Maintenance Program-
x
x
x
b.
Wood Heater Program----------------
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Gas Heater Program----------------Fish Habitat Improvement Program -Scenic Restoration Program--------BMP Installation------------------Education and Enforcement---------Restoration of Denuded Areas-------
x
x
x
x
x
Public Service Facility Program---------
x
Environmental Documentation for Regional Plan
G.
X
a.
I
Requires Final
Staff Draft
I
Requires Final
Staff Draft
I
Further Study
Staff Draft
Requires Final
Staff Draft
x
EIS 4/84
Supplemental Planning Work
1.
Research
Instream Flow Study---------------a.
Atmosphere Deposition Study------b.
Piers and Fisheries Study---------c.
Node Study------------------------d.
-6-
x
x
x
x
In Progress
In Progress
Draft RFP
In Progress
Desirable
Required
Package
2.
e.
f.
List of Exchange Properties ------Scenic Roadways and Shoreline
Criteria ------------------------
g.
Historic Site Review --------------
Not
Required
X
Status
Requires Final
Staff Draft
X
X
Program Integration
a.
Mapping
small scale Regional Plan maps
In Progress
wall maps -------------------aerial photos ----------------
X
X
X
parcel map update ------------
b.
Data Base
(
X
X
reformatting -----------------
land capability revisions ---permit input ----------------lot evaluation input --------PAS/zoning input ------------maintenance/updating --------Printing/Documents
X
X
X
X
S-Regional Plan graphics -------
X
Awaits Plan
X
X
In Progress
c.
Print Code, Design Review, BMP
PAS, Goals and Policies Plan
EIS ---------------------------
d.
3.
Transportation Modeling -----------
I
Other Planning Duties
California Transportation Plan ----
X
X
X
Requires Update
Requires Update
Requires Final
Staff Draft
Specific Plans
Airport ---------------------Ski Areas --------------------
X
X
In Progress
Requires Final
Staff Draft
a.
b.
c.
Federal 208 Water Quality Plan ---Federal Air Quality Plan ----------
d.
5 Year Recreation Plan -------
PAS Specific Plan -----------e.
f.
Environmental Education -----------
g.
h.
Project Review Assistance ---------
1.
Socio-economic Assesment ----------
j.
Ordinance and Regulations Drafting
Intern Program --------------------
TDA Fund Management ---------------
and Review ----------------------
-
7 -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
RFP in Progress
Requires Final
Staff Draft
I
In Progress
RFP in Progress