HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-16 Min - Board TRUCKEE - DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 309
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 9S734
TELEPHONE S87-3896
A G E N D A
of the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
i
OCTOBER 16 , 1973
7 : 30 P.M.
1. Roll Call
2. Minutes of October 2 , 1973, and October 10 , 1973
3. Bills for Boards Approval
4. Environmental Hearing on Donner Creek
Well and Appurtenances
S . Long-Range Financial Forecast
MANAGERS REPORT
OCTOBER 16, 1973
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee-Donner
Public Utility District was called to order by President Roy Waters
at 7: 30 p.m. in the conference room.
ROLL CALL: H. Loehr, present ; D. Anderson, present ; N. Stone,
present ; R. Anderson, present ; R. Waters , present.
GUESTS PRESENT: Winifred Loehr, Charles Doskow, Fred Damavandi,
Dan Cook, John W. Cone, M. S. Hetzel , Pat Sutton,
Jeanne Sollen, and Jack Pearce.
EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Paulus, Kinzie
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, AND OCTOBER 10 , 1973
The president asked if there were any additions , corrections , or
omissions to the minutes of the regular meeting of October 2 , and
the special meeting of October 10 , 1973. It was moved by -Director
N. Stone and seconded by Director R. Anderson that the minutes be
approved as written. All aye ; motion carried.
BILLS FOR BOARDS APPROVAL
After questioning a few of the bills , it was moved by Director Loehr
and seconded by Director R. Anderson that the bills be paid. All
aye; motion carried.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING ON NORTHSIDE WELL AND APPURTENANCES
Roy Waters read a letter from Fire Marshal Reuben Maki which stated
that the proposed 400 , 000 gallon storage water tank would be connected
to the present ten-inch main on Donner Pass Road into Gateway and inter-
connect with the present 100 , 000 and 150 , 000 gallon tanks at Donner
Trails . He thought this new tank would improve the fire flow pump-
ing throughout the area of Truckee to Donner Trails .
Dan Cook presented a diagram of the tank and surrounding area. He
said there would be 23 trees removed in and around the area of the
tank. Approximately 130 yards of material will be excavated. The
old town tank will be eliminated. Rex Anderson asked why this was
going to be done . Mr. Cook said it was because of the high mainten-
ance on the tank and the loss of water in transporting across town
from the Southside well . He felt that someday we will not be able
to afford the loss of the water. The tank will be 42 feet high and
will be visible from the Sierra Meadows area. The tank will be
painted an off-green to match the forest as much as possible.
Mrs . Pat Sutton asked why we answered question A-1 with "no" . She
thought the water would be removed to supply Tahoe Donner which
would be a commercial endeavor for Dart. Nelson Stone explained to
her that water was not in the same catagory as rocks , oil , etc. The
water removed from this well would not be sold exclusively to Dart
Resorts , but rather to the Truckee area.
Mrs. Sutton asked why Question N-1 was answered with "no" . She
thought if we were increasing the water supply for future develop-
s- ment, we are also going to be increasing the volume of vehicular
traffic. She also asked why question N-3 was answered with "no".
She thought the Truckee Sanitary District would be affected by the
new well. Dan Cook told her that the Sanitary District has their
1980 plan which includes Tahoe Donner in their overall outlook in
the future. They are prepared to handle the overload.
Another Question Mrs. Sutton asked was why Question R-2 was answered
with "no" . She knew of people that were not going to complete their
home in Tahoe Donner until the water problem was resolved. She felt
the supply of water from this well would greatly affect Tahoe Donner.
Dan Cook explained to her that the current and future rate of pop-
ulation has been established for at least 36 months. The high pop-
ulation rate exists now and will continue to exist with a slight
decline should this facility not be built.
Page 172
Environmental .Hearing . . . continued Page Two October 16, 1973
Mrs . Sutton asked why the environmental assessment that is applicable
to this well is not applicable to the entire Tahoe Donner project.
She was told that the project was approved prior to the 1970 environ-
mental Quality Act went into affect. Also, she was informed that an
environmental impact report is being prepared at this time. She asked
why we were dealing with the well and the assessment on it apart
from the overall environmental impact report being done by Jones and
Stokes . Tom Paulus informed her that the impact report by Jones &
Stokes covers all areas . The well is something we can begin construct-
ing now prior to the coming winter months .
At this time, Roy Waters asked if there were any further questions
from the audience or the board members . There were none. Mr. Waters
read Resolution 7323 which states the board has examined the environ-
mental assessment form and decided the well would not have a signifi-
cant affect on the environment. If the resolution is adopted, we
then record the resolution and assessment form with the County Clerk.
After a ten day period, a notice of determination is posted in the
District office and recorded with the County Clerk.
It was moved by Director Loehr and seconded by Director D. Anderson
that the board 'accept Resolution 7323 for adoption. ROLL CALL:
H'. Loehr, aye; D. Anderson, aye ; N. Stone, aye ; R. An erson, aye ;
R. Waters , aye. So moved.
LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL FORECAST
Mr. John W. Cone from Iona Consultants presented his proposal for
the long-range financial forecast. The minimum cost for the study
is $1, 500 which is the retaining fee . The total of the study is
$10,650 . This total cost is broken down into three groupings , and
then broken down further for each individual item within the group-
ings . This is so that the board can decide if they want any of the
items excluded from the study. The forecast would commence within
ten days after authorization and be completed within 90 days . Mr.
Cone further explained that he will use a computer to aid the con-
sultants .
Director N. Stone moved that we retain Ione Consultants to do the
long-range financial forecast. However, after discussion, his
motion died due to a lack of a second. It was decided to wait until
the board has a chance to meet with Jack McMinn from Bartle Wells.
He is scheduled to be present at the next regular meeting of November
6. After this meeting, the board will inform Mr. Cone one way or
the other to their decision.
MANAGERS REPORT
Tom Paulus asked the board members if they objected to a notice
being sent to the customers requesting that they shovel a path to
their meter during snowy conditions . The second notice told them
their meter had been estimated due to the meter being inaccessible,
and stated that the meter would be read the following month. The
board had no objections to these types of notices.
Dart Resorts has asked that we start putting power poles in on
Saturdays and will be billed for the overtime and general overhead
involved. The employees have agreed to work Saturdays until weather
does not allow it. Mr. Paulus read a letter he wrote to Dart confirm-
ing that Dart will pay for the overtime .
A representative of Colonial Life was in the office and would like
to add their insurance to our regular group plan. Mr. Paulus told
him that the district was not interested in entering into this , but
if the employees wanted the additional coverage, the district would
act as the collector for them. None of the directors had any object-
ions to this being done.
Mr. Noble Murray has hired another appraiser to help with the pro-
ject of appraising the PUD' s surplus land. Mr. Murray thinks the
study should be completed within two weeks .
Page 173
Managers Report" . . . continued Page Three October lb, 1973
Mr. Paulus presented an article from the CMUA Newsletter regarding a
suit against the City of Riverside by a labor union. The union is
sueing because the City of Riverside is not contracting their jobs
out to the union that are in excess of $3,500. Tom told the board
that he was going to write to the legal counsel for the City of
Riverside and get more details on the suit. He thought we would
write a protest on the suit on behalf of our District.
Karl Kuttle has been in the office . He has purchased property from
� Oscar Schumacher on West River Street. In 1971, a waterline was
installed on Mr. Schumacher' s property. There was an easement for
the waterline; however, when the line was installed, it was not
within the easement. At the time the line was put in, the westerly
boundaries were unknown. Since then, the property has been surveyed
by Cook Associates . Mr. Kuttle is aware of the discrepancy in the
location and at a future time a new easement will be prepared and
submitted to him for his signature .
Mr. Waters presented a copy of a letter from Mr. Paulus to the Donner
Memorial State Park regarding the installation of flood lights for
the memorial. We have promised to install lights for the memorial .
The board members - thought with the energy crisis the way it is , we
should no longer do this so as to conserve electricity. Mr. Paulus
said that after this , he will use more discretion.
There being no further business to come before the board, it was
moved by Director D. Anderson and seconded by Director R. Anderson
that the meeting be adjourned. All aye ; motion carried.
The regular meeting was adjourned by the president, Roy Waters , at
9 : 30 p.m.
BY• -�4?
f`
ROY WATE PRE IDENT OF THE BOARD
ERRIL N INZ E, aZECORDING SF(qRETARY
ow .
I
Page 174
RESOLUTION NO. 7323
of the
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT,
having completed a preliminary assessment on the project
referred to as North Side Well , tank and augmentation fac-
ilities have found that the project has an insignificant
effect on the environment, do hereby declare a negative
declaration with this resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Board of Directors of said District this 16th day of
October , 1973, by the following roll call vote :
AYES: H. Loehr D. Anderson N. Stone ,
R. Anderson R. Waters
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE ,
TRUCKEE-DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT
BY
W7RS, PRESIDENT OF THE
BOARD
ATTEST: /(
v �
CLERK TH RE OF
i
Page 175
TRUCKEE—DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Nevada County 5
Truckee, California
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT F ORti
NAME OF APPLICANT OR PROJECT: North Side well , Tank and
Augmentation Facilities
DATE OF ASSESSMENT: _ October 3 , 1973
ASSESSMENT FORMS COMPLETED BY: Cook Associates , Engineering
Consultants
ASSESSMENT FORMS CHECKED BY: E . T. Paulus,, M a n a,(}e r
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
The consultant and manager have completed the study of
the stated project and concluded that there vvill not be
a significant effect and a negative declaration will be
prepared. This statement and the assessment forms com-
pletion is in conjunction with the amended 1970 Local
Guidelines implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act as specified in Section 28 .
10/1/73
Draft
_1- Page 176
ENVIRONMENTAL MENTAL ASSESSMENT
I BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Summarily describe the proposed project including the names
of all participating entities and associated or ancillary
improvements or actions.
The proposed project consists of a rotary bored water
well , deep well turbine pump , related electrical works ,
a 400 , 000 gallon steel storage tank to replace the
existing defective 100 , 000 gallon wood town tank and
certain relief facilities within the distribution
1's tern.
The fac:illties will be owned and operated by the Truckee-
Donner Public Utility District .
B. Describe the environmental setting of the project area,
including the boundaries of the area and distinguishing
natural and man-made characteristics which may be signi-
ficantly affected by the proposed action. (This section
should include a description cf the project' s immediate
vicinity and, if applicable , the relevant characteristics
of the impacted regional environment. Short and long-tern.
impacts should be considered. )
The project area lies North of the community of Truckee
contiguous to the North right of way line of Interstate
80 and West of the Forest Service facilities (old head-
quarters) . The area is typical of the Sierra Nevada
Mountain environment at the elevation of 5 ,960 feet above
sea level . The project site is sloping and wooded with
mature conifers .
The proposed facilities replace existing man made fac-
ilities on the site. There is a helicopter landing
pad adjacent to the East and a massive freeway cut
section to the South of the District owned property upon
which the work is proposed.
,.- - 2-
iC
:e
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
1
O r.
Please answer the following questions by placing a check in the
appropriate space. (The sponsoring agency should be able to
explain or substantiate its response to every question.)
YES NO N.A.
A. Impacts on the Natural Environment
1. Will the proposed project result
in the removal of a natural
resource for commercial purposes
(including rock, sand, gravel, oil,
trees or minerals) ?
2. Will the project involve grading
in excess of 100 cubic yards?
3. Will the proposed project involve
the use of off-the-road vehicles
of any kind (such as trail bikes) ?
B. Wildlife and Vegetation
1. Will the project significantly
affect fish, wildlife, reptiles
or plant life?
2. Is the project site adjacent to,
or does it include, a habitat,
food source, water source, nesting
,.... place or breeding place for a rare
or endangered fish or wildlife
species?
3. Is the project located inside or
adjacent to a fish or wildlife
refuge or reserve?
4 . Are there any rare or endangered
species of plant life in the
project area?
•
- 3-
YES NO N.A.
C. Water Resources o
1. Will the project entail the signi-
ficant acquisition of water from
wells or surface sources?
4
2 . Is the project in an area of
groundwater or surface water
overdraft?
3 . Is the project in an area of
unfavorable salt balance?
4 . Is the project in an aree of
prescribed rights on groundwater?
D. Pollution, Hazards or Nuisance
1. Will septic tanks be utilized
for sewage disposal?
2 . Are sewerage facilities available
that meet RXgQCB requirements?
' to/
3. Is the project alsafety hazard
to people, animals or property?
E. Geological and Seismic Fazards
1. Will the project involve con-
struction or development on
slopes of 15% or greater? V/
2 . Is the project to be located in _
an area of soil instability
(such as landslide, severe
erosion, or subsidence) ? +,
3. Is the project site located on, •
or adjacent to a known earth-
quake fault?
-4-
• M 5
1
44
"t
wY
YES NO N.A.
F. Flood Hazards
1. Is the proposed project located
within an area subject to flooding?
2. Does the proposed project involve
a natural drainage channel,
�-- streambed or designated flood-
way?
G. Noise
1. Is the project expected to result
in the generation of noise levels
in excess of that currently
existing in the area?
a. During construction? 10/
b. After construction? PFOOO
2. Will the completed project be
subject to high noise levels?
Ho Airp_o_t
1. Is the project located within the
flight path of an airport?
I. Air Quality
1. Will the project create dust, /
fumes, smoke or odors? ✓_.
a. During construction? _._..
b. After construction?
2. Will the completed project be
subjected to dust, fumes, smoke
or odors? �-
3. Will the project involve the
burning of any materials, including
brush, trees and construction
materials?
mate r
a. During construction?
b. After construction? �.
4 . Will the project result in a signi-
ficant change in the quality of any
portion of the county' s or region's
air resources?
_ 5_
•
•
of
z
•rl •r1.-1
. N
� 3 o•rl � 44 �a � +� r-i N 4 Ua
0 44-H a� a (d
04
a� a� 0 u �44 cn � `� ° +� aMi a � � U 44 a�i $4 �
U td N .� 4j rd•ri >r-i•rl •rq �' M 44 -4) U o U Sri
`D
CT .� cU r-1 r—� r-i (d M N +f O �.: •r♦ '� rd Ri ,t7•rl•� •r-I r-1 C, O ,
o� � � 0 oN � � a�� o .ro U)r-IQa0U � O > oa .�� �
•r-I U
4) r2% Q� •ri U) U•rl 0 U U� 'J r-1 a3 0 o U �' V I4
Use U� 3 U �-IN U 0 P M M4J a) U a�� > ba) 0 •
O.rl Q) N'U N id.-i td N p O O O N N O V .O O U � �+' U •n O U
O }a O rd� 04 td O � O U O -0 0 0 P4 0�rd 0 x > n a I
a•rl a, � a 0 r 4 a 0 04 o cn N to N b� �4-) �0
cd p
cntn 44 U) to RiNO OOP+ 'tu � o � W 0UN o
� .�, .1.�•r♦ o � .�4-Irocn a� +� � �+U �d �w � +Jo.,..l � � � � �3 � U Oa� � .N � O
+� -ri b p N 0 O r-i•ri 4-► A O 0� 't� � vo1 �� � �•� 14 � a tP cn p H �
� .+.�ri r� U U Ni r-1 4 � O to �-rl H 4j N r-1 o 0 H O
r--1 fd 1d r-I � U td r-1 b�-N U r—1 r-4 4J (d N r-I �d 0 �„� �;44 N w N $4 N rO p o 0-r•i �
0 •r� •rl � cd w •r-1•r'1 R1 U r-1 .� �•� o 1 • • 4-) r1� O O
.4 : •4-� -.� >~ rd a� 3U q4) �A U 3U $4 � a� �•r` 0v0 � 0 McdO AU w
4-) N
rti S i .ri r4 W r4 N c4
l
. i
YES NO N.A.
N. Impacts on Services and Facilities_
1. Will the project result in notice-
able changes in vehicular traffic
patterns or volumes (including
horses and bicycles) ?
2. Will the project require the
.� extension of existing public
utility lines?
3 . Will the proposed project require
public services from an agency,
district or public utility which
is currently operating at or near /
capacity?
O. Displacement of Housing or Employment
1. Will the project require the
relocation of people or business?
2. Will the project cause a signi-
ficant reduction in housing supply? _
P. Archeological and Historical Sites
1. Does the project site involve a
known historical or archeological
site?
Q. Visual Impact
1. Is the site for the proposed
project adjacent to a designated
or planned scenic highway or within
a scenic corridor? Jz
2. Will the project obstruct scenic
views from existing residential
areas, public lands, or public
roads?
3. Does the project involve the con-
struction of buildings or struc-
tures in excess of three stories
or 36 feet in height? ..._.
. 4 . Is the project within 500 feet of
an existing or proposed public
facility?
�- - 7
F✓� �,.o N.o o o �, H, cD a o tr ,��' � �'�,N t°j ° t 0:j 0
H,N a s � � N. � � FJ• o �F• o ed Fa N N*�i ��4 N•cD
�l m H fin ~ an �aNn � N
(D F... a F-� ct t'i H ct M FJ Fes• a
oar 00 �'� �'cD �c� tt °o0L � Mrtomd mo a t* (Daft ft roc
�+ ar* c• cD rnrt � •� � oa 0m as w a M• aa � FJ• H•
~'rt �' cD a n tfi(D cD 0 � En H rt Or N•ct H� � ct (D •J cn M 0 n cn H.a � r0 (D
o cD o cD n n n n Fr• o n �•fro • f� cD n o n rt rtto
oro cDab mated rd cncn��c o � �•n �� orb oro wfr � o �n
0 GH,n afrn wffin w 3tj •� N w � •� dF�a00 •Q rfi Cn cno (D (Dcnn
o N• cD ct a d 0 m o rt n a o 0
0 0 0 F� o •� 0 0• •� cD o• o 0 o �. c ro •� o rt- o v n L.J. o o a
F-� �L-,• a rt Lj. W. r.t,m n N• a o Z b 'b �n 0 N n ��! LQ 0 0
LOn N(D0 °�0 °�c�i o r •�0 0 nnr• H 00 oft rtM0roomft
fi 0 ct 0 ct 0 (p N Q+tD FJ ct t-h ct �1+ o hi •N H(n
4 n t rt 19 (D J 1 0 0 ::rcD :1 ct m H m hd o(D cD i a s N-
0rt0 a0 00 00 En N.;s� r r r+ to o• rt o H CO o 0 ortno `� m
duo n H" 0 � Or0 � w 0 a 0 � a�,. cnF� 0FJa : ern
00 a/ K C 0 0) rt A) H' OA F✓ �n ~ �] °t► �b 0 4 � r� ui "n 1u°.)j
J a N He W \1 ca � � & r
t✓•rt' � b lid ct o � � rt a N• �C �, cD cn C
ct o a :3'0 0 (D (D rt H. cn n G � 'b 0 0 �
64 0 � `Q co o t7 & a C n m C 0 cn M o FJ
•J £ n Nct rt ".� :' 0 � ON (D P o b' mF-+4 "p� ctQ.°�l <nK (C�
H. a n m � CD a 0 _0 ° N : 0 (D C a FJ n rr
�ti a 0 ct rt C2 0 to N• (D F✓• ct H.a F✓•Or N•of
m 0 U n (D
H.
lz
I Ni\ l 1\ 1\ 1\ 0
z
l •
!i
�r
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS
Pleas
e identifyby section letter and number those questions
answered yes in the Environmental Assessment Checklist.
Respond with a description of the tentative significance and
magnitude of these effects on the natural and social environ-
ment.,
A- 2
C- 1
E- 1
G- la '
M- ? - See narrative description attached.
Q- 1 Q- 3 Q-4 - 7c - 7d -7
Entire Section R
-9-
NARR
ATi -F DISCUSSIONS TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS
DFTER'I NED BY THE ATTACHED QUESTIONNAIRE
IMP. (-T ON a, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Quest ion A
Due to the fairly steep side slope conditions at the site , it is
aiti ipated that the earthwork involved will exceed 100 cubic yards .
WAT I-'R R KS 0 U R E
,t,ie.s t i of C 1
T� >re tail, be a draw on the ground water reservoir in the amount,
of S00 acre feet per annum. The aquifer in quest .i }n
is quite La rye in area and has a substantial , however as -vet ,
t( rzjlIv eterr.i.ned volume . The proposed dray from this 1-::c1lity
i s riot iaroe enough with respect
to the total volume within t.ie
IL er to create a )roblem that may effect others utilizi-nt, t, ��
.c i1quifer .
�Ni� SIi:SMTC; {AWARD
a t ion
rc)�. slope at the proposE site e..`e�'Cls the 1 p e r c t�!, < <�rhl —
tr:t � for special con Side ra i )n Special -onsicieration
- .i t ion
i:: planting , bent i ►�` and
s p i annec: t or <'.1ope stabi l � ..
r�ro ���r r��ina�;�� are
envis.zoned Zn the '_ ;,rel�ar� Lion pr. to
I I
accommot ate the installation of the ahuk.-c. noted facilities .
uE t ion G- 1
i�L.II- ink the course of the wei l contruction and during the co A,r:;c,
of the tank erection , there will be construction noise associated
with the install r
ations . The noise will effect the esident i
c� Lousing
area of the U . S . Forest Service and the ad i oining single family
re
�ident . she construction hours will be limited to times when the
- 10-
Noise . . . continued (Question G-1)
noise should be otherwise unoffensive to the majority of the pop- ,
ulation, the noise will be masked by the continuous traffic noise `
associated with Interstate 80, which passes between the site and
the population center.
IMPACT 4N LAND USE
Question M- '
The proposed facilities will serve existing services and approved
subdivided lots with a supplemental source of water. While subjec-
tive , it is true that with the above noted sources additional home
construction could be anticipated when compared to that which would
be available if no water supply was provided. The facilities
contemplated herein are to serve existing needs and new installations
that have been prior approved by the Nevada County Planning and
other control agencies . (SEE EXHIBIT 11111)
VISUAL IMPAur
Question - 1
The proposed installation is contiguous to Interstate 80 . The
proposed site and the facilities proposed to be constructed on the
site , however, are not visible from any of the traffic lanes along
Interstate 80 . Interstate 8U passes through a rather large cut
adjoining the site and therefore precludes visual observance of the
works anticipated at this location.
Question Q- 3
The proposed tank will be located approximately midway on a property
and will be approximately 42 feet in height . The height of the
adjoining trees are approximately the same height and will shield
the tank from West, North, and East views . There are no height
restrictions applied to the general area by the various counties
-11-
Visual Impact . . . continued (Question Q- )
A'
or state control agencies .
Question Q- 4
The proposed installation is adjacent to the Forest Service Equip-
ment. yard . Across the southeast corner of the site there is located a
k
iV
a ublic sanitary sewerage facility and public power facilities are
P
adjacent to the site as well .
Question Q- 7d
The facilities proposed herein when completed will become a part
and partial of the District ' s operational permit as issued by the
California Department of Public Health.
Question QI
An encroachment permit may be required from the Department of
Public Works .
GROWTH INDUCING FEATURES
Question R- 1
The proposed project will not increase the current rate of economic
growth in the area . The current economic rate of growth within the
Truckee Region is very high at this time . The proposed facilities
1 wi 1 however, allow the current rate to be maintained within the
�
limps
set down by the Nevada County Planning Commission and other
,
control agencies .
Question R- 2
The proposed project will not increase the current rate of popu-
lation growth within the area. Maintenance of the existing popu-
lation growth however, will be assisted by the facilities considered
herein.
Question R- 3
The proposed facilities will provide needed service to existing
and already pp ad approved developments . To that extent , the facilities
-12-
Growth inducing Features . . . continued (Question R-3)
proposed herein will provide for a larger population to be served
with the necessities of the living process .
Question R- 4
The proposed facilities will eliminate a possible future limita-
tion on the groi�th within the Truckee region.
K
- 13-
x
EXHIBIT
HISTORY OF APPROVALS FOR TAHOE DONNER
's
County Approval
General Flan Amendment (Public Hearing before both the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors)
Tentative Nlap Approval
I'lanr: ing Commission Approval March 23 , 1970
�1a ReQ-_crdation eel
Complet
Date Recorded Construction
TJr; ; + 1 , , . . • , , . . Apr 13 , 1971 99%
0,
Unit 2 . . . . . . . . .
May 1 1 100In
Un ]' t . 0040 August 11 ,_1 1 800
U n t.t 4 . . . . . . . . . Novem er J , 1 950
s 3 � 1 boa
[ nit 5 . . • . . . . . . u u t
it b May , 1 Z 8S
Au ust ?� 19�2 J
t -� 8S '
�_J n 1 t, r _ `
Uni t 8 Mar
'snit 9 September 1973 30°
it l �� . . . , . . . . �. II,
Tultir 5 , 1973
1n
S0
0.
Unit I 1 . . . . - January 3 ,� ] 973 -_ 60
1C.
•
11 , stricts Dates
r� e ry i ce ;iarch 19 1970
1 . - reenlent �ti'] t�i Z rLIckec' I'Miner t i) r : pater
y� Truckee . ,.e : power s e -vice i c e June 1 19�0
rc. eric nt with Jon;ler .
t �, ani.tar re : sewage dis .May 8 , 1970
C . Ag�-r,t m e a t w i t h T r i z c _
Amenities
All a7mon,-i t.i es have been completed w th the exceptions o the
c_aml�aro;,t�. and full seeding of the golf course .
STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND
Bank Balance - 10-2- 73 44, 339. 06
Deposits 43 ,687. 72
Approved Billings 20 ,117. 39
Dept. of H.R.D. 855 . 01
Wayne Brown, Sheriff 10 . 00
Sierra Pacific Power Company 389658 . 64
Sierra Drilling & Water 49000 . 00
Delta Lines 10 . 35
Truckee Hdwe. & Rental 1 water pump, misc. 632 . 29
U. S. Post Office 200 . 00
FICA Q payroll 41830 . 38
Crown Life L.T. disability 108 . 64
IBEW 82 . 00
Internal Revenue 11991 . 10 (71,495. 80)
PAYROLL 10-15- 73 DT OT STANDBY GROSS NET
Lopez 26. 60 79 . 84 66 . 50 758. 14 609 . 04
Silva 107. 30 _ 736 . 50 623. 70
Reynolds 64. 87 66 . 50 716 . 57 586 . 57
Paulus 697 . 43 555 . 03
Sharp 93. 76 35 . 16 691 . 48 498 . 22
Grow 79 . 84 611 . 84 506 . 84
Straub 87. 00 597 . 40 434. 35
Krajewski 575 . 00 438. 06
Connell 97. 44 48. 72 544. 32 387. 24
Morgan 24. 15 453. 75 332 . 47
Lopez, T. 351 . 12 263 . 57
Craig 327 . 36 246 . 04
Kinzie 16 . 91 300 . 27 224. 90
Kirchner 249 . 92 190 . 60 (5 ,896 . 63)
543. 79 133. 00 -
Bank Balance - 10-16- 73 10 ,634. 35
BILLS FOR BOARDS APPROVAL
i
Directors 500 . 00
Paul Chamberlain 100 . 00
George Cattan 258 . 75
Bud' s Electric lites (Tom' s office) 182 . 16
Bruning Division map copier 26 . 25
Emery Air Freight underground parts 40 .69
Gordon H. Huber copy machine 107. 44
Hydro-Search ground water study (Lkwld) 4, 316. 50
Sangamo Electric Co. meters 565 . 96
Safety Equipment Co. hard hat 15 . 41
Sunrise Lab. water test 10 . 00
Specialty Oxygen welding supplies 4. 34
Sacrament Util. Supply water inventory 79 . 50
U. S. Rentals compressor parts 31 . 01
U. S. Leasing mailing machine 25 . 26
RTE 4,339 . 64
Cal Gas rental house 8 . 59
Cook Associates Lakeworld billing 749 . 42
Walt' s Exxon Service backhoe diesel 26 . 96
Wedco electric inv. 728 . 49
Tahoe Truckee Agency insurance 11178 . 00
Murray, Burns , & Kienlen Lakeworld 21% 597 . 39
Martin McDonough $1,441. 35 - Dart 11935 . 10
Joe ' s Truckee Auto Repair 146 . 71
Atlantic Richfield gas & diesel 331. 23
A. Carlisle office supplies 59. 36
Graybar electric supplies 2 , 525 . 83
Maydwell & Hartzell electric supplies 67 . 10
Margraf Explosives 82 . 19
U.P.A. International tape & tools 152 . 49 (21 ,191. 77)
Balance after payment of above (10,557. 42)
Page 177