South Lake Tahoe City Council
January 4, 2022

SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
AND

TAHOE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
FOR
2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMCORONAVIRUS RESPONSE ROUND 2 & 3 THIS AGREEMENT, entered this _____ day of __________, 2022 by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe (herein called the “Grantee”) and Tahoe Coalition For The Homeless (herein called the “Subrecipient”).

WHEREAS, the Grantee has applied for and been awarded funding from the United States Government under the CARES Act (Public Law No: 116-136) and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA) as amended and codified at Title 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 5301, et. seq., and Subpart 1 of the federal CDBG Regulations, found at Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 570.480 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee wishes to engage the Subrecipient to assist the Grantee in utilizing such funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto that; I. SCOPE OF SERVICE
A. Activities
The Subrecipient will be responsible for administering a CDBG Year 2020 Coronavirus Response Round 2/3 grant in a manner satisfactory to the Grantee and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such program will include the following activities eligible under the Community Development Block Grant program:

Rehabilitation of the Bears Den Inn (2250 Lake Tahoe Blvd) CDBG-CV 2 & 3 funding will support completion of all improvements listed in the Physical Needs Assessment (Attachment A) described for Tiers 1 and 3 as the minimum improvements necessary to satisfy current building code standards and allow Interim Housing with occupancies 30 days or longer. This work includes:
● Accessibility of parking, path of travel, and main lobby ● Renovations to equip two (2) units with accessible mobility features, of which at least one (1) will include accessible communication features ● Electrical upgrades necessary to install fire/life safety improvements ● Wired 10-year tamper-proof carbon monoxide and smoke detection combination units in all residential units, common spaces, and offices. ● Fire alarm panel and internal sprinkler system
As funding allows, additional items may be incorporated into the scope of work, including: items identified in Tier 2, general maintenance and repair work, and/or 148

improvements required for compliance with City SRO requirements. This may also include the joining of two (2) single rooms to meet square footage requirements under the SRO code, which would reduce the overall unit count by one (1) unit, from 22 to 21 units. Implementation of the rehabilitation will require preparation of construction plans by a licensed architect or engineer and construction completed by licensed contractors.

General Administration
Subrecipient will ensure completion of the activity described above in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Subrecipient will provide all project and contract management and administration associated with completion of the activity in a manner consistent with the funding source and will maintain documents and records necessary to demonstrate compliance. Subrecipient will provide the Grantee with documentation and information necessary to complete all grant reporting.

B. National Objectives
All activities funded with CDGB funds must meet one of the CDBG program’s National Objectives: benefit low- and moderate-income persons; aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or meet community development needs having a particular urgency, as defined in 24 CFR 570.208.

The Subrecipient certifies that the activity (ies) carried out under this Agreement will meet the low and moderate income persons National Objective by implementing rehabilitation efforts on property purchased with Homekey Program funds in order to provide long-term housing for persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness who are at high risk for serious illness and are impacted by COVID-19.

C. Levels of Accomplishment – Goals and Performance Measures The Subrecipient agrees to provide the following levels of program services:

Activity Total Units
Activity #1 Rehabilitation of property located at 2250 Lake Tahoe Blvd (Bears Den Inn) as described in Paragraph I.

Activity #2 Subrecipient will provide housing units for at least 21 lowincome persons experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of homelessness
D. Staffing
Subrecipient commits the following staffing to delivery of the described activity:
● Executive Director (currently Cheyenne Purrington)
● Director of Housing (currently Kimberly Peterson)
● Project Manager (currently Angela Clark)
● Maintenance Technician/Design Technician/Engineer (Richard Chilcott) ● Director of Administration (Jennifer Goode)
149

Subrecipient shall notify Grantee of any changes in the Key Personnel assigned or their general responsibilities under this project.

E. Performance Monitoring
The Grantee will monitor the performance of the Subrecipient against goals and performance standards as stated above. Substandard performance as determined by the Grantee will constitute noncompliance with this Agreement. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by the Subrecipient within a reasonable period of time after being notified by the Grantee, contract suspension or termination procedures will be initiated.

II. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Services of the Subrecipient shall start upon execution of this Agreement and end on October 28, 2023. The Scope of Service described in Paragraph I shall be completed in accordance with the following milestones:
• Within 120 days of execution: Design work procurement and contract(s) executed (Architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, etc.) • Within 180 days of execution: Construction work procurement and contract executed (general contractor and subs)
• Within 180 days from date of execution: Building Permit application submittal to City
• Within 400 days of execution: Commence construction
• Within 600 days of execution: Construction complete and final inspection sign off from City achieved
III. BUDGET
Line Item Amount:

Professional Services $88,000
Construction $351,900
General Administration $55,732
TOTAL $495,632
Any indirect costs charged must be consistent with the conditions of Paragraph VIII (C)(2) of this Agreement. In addition, the Grantee may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the Subrecipient shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the Grantee.

Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the Grantee and the Subrecipient.
150

IV. PAYMENT
It is expressly agreed and understood that the total amount to be paid by the Grantee under this Agreement shall not exceed $495,632. Drawdowns for the payment of eligible expenses shall be made against the line item budgets specified in Paragraph III herein and in accordance with performance milestones as specified in Paragraph II. It is agreed and understood that payment for work inconsistent with the performance milestones and scope of services described in this agreement shall not be provided.

Subrecipient shall submit quarterly progress reports to Grantee along with reimbursement requests which include a cover letter describing the reimbursement request as it relates to the scope of work and performance milestones along with an invoice, receipts, cancelled checks, and any other documentation necessary to support compliance with this agreement.

Grantee shall provide reimbursement payments to Subrecipient quarterly upon receipt and review of reimbursement requests. Grantee is not responsible for direct payment of any goods or services procured by the Subrecipient. Grantee reserves the right to deny a request or request additional documentation to verify eligibility of an expense.

Payment will not be provided if performance milestones have not been met. Payment will also not be provided if any reimbursement requests that Grantee has submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have been denied, until payment by HCD is resolved. Grantee shall make every effort to expeditiously resolve any reimbursement issues and communicate to Subrecipient the delay in reimbursement.

Expenses for general administration shall also be paid against the line-item budgets specified in Paragraph III and in accordance with performance.

Payments may be contingent upon certification of the Subrecipient’s financial management system in accordance with the standards specified in 24 CFR 84.21.

V. NOTICES
Notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered via mail (postage prepaid), commercial courier, or personal delivery or sent by facsimile or other electronic means. Any notice delivered or sent as aforesaid shall be effective on the date of delivery or sending. All notices and other written communications under this Agreement shall be addressed to the individuals in the capacities indicated below, unless otherwise modified by subsequent written notice.

Communication and details concerning this contract shall be directed to the following contract representatives:
151

Grantee Subrecipient
Joseph Irvin, City Manager Cheyenne Purrington, Executive Director City of South Lake Tahoe Tahoe Coalition For The Homeless 1901 Lisa Maloff Way PO Box 13514
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96151
(530) 542-6043 (530) 600-2822
VI. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
If the existing tenant (Heavenly Valley, Limited Partnership) fails to vacate the premises prior to June 1, 2022, such that Subrecipient fails to gain access to the premises to conduct the repair work, then this agreement will automatically terminate and no payments will be made to Subrecipient
VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. General Compliance
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with the requirements of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 570 (the U.S. Housing and Urban Development regulations concerning Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)) including subpart K of these regulations, except that (1) the Subrecipient does not assume the recipient’s environmental responsibilities described in 24 CFR 570.604 and (2) the Subrecipient does not assume the recipient’s responsibility for initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 52. The Subrecipient also agrees to comply with all other applicable Federal, state and local laws, regulations, and policies governing the funds provided under this contract.

The Subrecipient further agrees to utilize funds available under this Agreement to supplement rather than supplant funds otherwise available.

B. “Independent Contractor”
Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, or shall be construed in any manner, as creating or establishing the relationship of employer/employee between the parties. The Subrecipient shall at all times remain an “independent contractor” with respect to the services to be performed under this Agreement. The Grantee shall be exempt from payment of all Unemployment Compensation, FICA, retirement, life and/or medical insurance and Workers’ Compensation Insurance, as the Subrecipient is an independent contractor.

C. Hold Harmless
The Subrecipient shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the Grantee from any and all claims, actions, suits, charges and judgments whatsoever that arise out of the Subrecipient’s performance or nonperformance of the services or subject matter called for in this Agreement.
152

D. Workers’ Compensation
The Subrecipient shall provide Workers’ Compensation Insurance coverage for all of its employees involved in the performance of this Agreement.

E. Insurance & Bonding
The Subrecipient shall carry sufficient insurance coverage to protect contract assets from loss due to theft, fraud and/or undue physical damage, and as a minimum shall purchase a blanket fidelity bond covering all employees in an amount equal to cash advances from the Grantee.

The Subrecipient shall comply with the bonding and insurance requirements of 24 CFR

84.31 and 84.48, Bonding and Insurance.

F. Grantee Recognition
The Subrecipient shall ensure recognition of the role of the Grantee in providing services through this Agreement. All activities, facilities and items utilized pursuant to this Agreement shall be prominently labeled as to funding source. In addition, the Subrecipient will include a reference to the support provided herein in all publications made possible with funds made available under this Agreement.

G. Amendments
The Grantee or Subrecipient may amend this Agreement at any time provided that such amendments make specific reference to this Agreement, and are executed in writing, signed by a duly authorized representative of each organization, and approved by the Grantee’s governing body. Such amendments shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor relieve or release the Grantee or Subrecipient from its obligations under this Agreement.

The Grantee may, in its discretion, amend this Agreement to conform with Federal, state or local governmental guidelines, policies and available funding amounts, or for other reasons. If such amendments result in a change in the funding, the scope of services, or schedule of the activities to be undertaken as part of this Agreement, such modifications will be incorporated only by written amendment signed by both Grantee and Subrecipient.

H. Suspension or Termination
In accordance with 24 CFR 85.43, the Grantee may suspend or terminate this Agreement if the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any terms of this Agreement, which include (but are not limited to) the following:

1. Failure to comply with any of the rules, regulations or provisions referred to herein, or such statutes, regulations, executive orders, and HUD guidelines, policies or directives as may become applicable at any time; 153

2. Failure, for any reason, of the Subrecipient to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement;

3. Ineffective or improper use of funds provided under this Agreement; or

4. Submission by the Subrecipient to the Grantee reports that are incorrect or incomplete in any material respect.

In accordance with 24 CFR 85.44, this Agreement may also be terminated for convenience by either the Grantee or the Subrecipient, in whole or in part, by setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. However, if in the case of a partial termination, the Grantee determines that the remaining portion of the award will not accomplish the purpose for which the award was made, the Grantee may terminate the award in its entirety.

VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
A. Financial Management

1. Accounting Standards
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with 24 CFR 84.21−28 and agrees to adhere to the accounting principles and procedures required therein, utilize adequate internal controls, and maintain necessary source documentation for all costs incurred.

2. Cost Principles
The Subrecipient shall administer its program in conformance with OMB Circulars A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations.” These principles shall be applied for all costs incurred whether charged on a direct or indirect basis.

B. Documentation and Record Keeping

1. Records to be Maintained
The Subrecipient shall maintain all records required by the Federal regulations specified in 24 CFR 570.506, that are pertinent to the activities to be funded under this Agreement. Such records shall include but not be limited to:
a. Records providing a full description of each activity undertaken; b. Records demonstrating that each activity undertaken meets one of the National Objectives of the CDBG program;
c. Records required to determine the eligibility of activities; 154

d. Records required to document the acquisition, improvement, use or disposition of real property acquired or improved with CDBG assistance;
e. Records documenting compliance with the fair housing and equal opportunity components of the CDBG program;
f. Financial records as required by 24 CFR 570.502, and 24 CFR

84.21−28; and
g. Other records necessary to document compliance with Subpart K of 24 CFR Part 570.

2. Retention
The Subrecipient shall retain all financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the Agreement for a period of four (4) years. The retention period begins on the date of the submission of the Grantee’s annual performance and evaluation report to HUD in which the activities assisted under the Agreement are reported on for the final time. Notwithstanding the above, if there is litigation, claims, audits, negotiations or other actions that involve any of the records cited and that have started before the expiration of the four-year period, then such records must be retained until completion of the actions and resolution of all issues, or the expiration of the four-year period, whichever occurs later.

3. Client Data
The Subrecipient shall maintain client data demonstrating client eligibility for services provided. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, client name, address, income level or other basis for determining eligibility, and description of service provided. Such information shall be made available to Grantee monitors or their designees for review upon request.

4. Disclosure
The Subrecipient understands that client information collected under this contract is private and the use or disclosure of such information, when not directly connected with the administration of the Grantee’s or Subrecipient’s responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract, is prohibited by the law unless written consent is obtained from such person receiving service and, in the case of a minor, that of a responsible parent/guardian.

5. Close-outs
The Subrecipient’s obligation to the Grantee shall not end until all close-out requirements are completed. Activities during this close-out period shall include, but are not limited to: making final payments, disposing of program assets 155

(including the return of all unused materials, equipment, unspent cash advances, program income balances, and accounts receivable to the Grantee), and determining the custodianship of records. Not withstanding the foregoing, the terms of this Agreement shall remain in effect during any period that the Subrecipient has control over CDBG funds, including program income.

6. Audits & Inspections
All Subrecipient records with respect to any matters covered by this Agreement shall be made available to the Grantee, grantor agency, and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, as often as deemed necessary, to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts of all relevant data. Any deficiencies noted in audit reports must be fully cleared by the Subrecipient within 30 days after receipt by the Subrecipient. Failure of the Subrecipient to comply with the above audit requirements will constitute a violation of this contract and may result in the withholding of future payments. The Subrecipient hereby agrees to have an annual agency audit conducted in accordance with current Grantee policy concerning subrecipient audits and OMB Circular A-133.

C. Reporting and Payment Procedures

1. Payment Procedures
The Grantee will pay to the Subrecipient funds available under this Agreement based upon information submitted by the Subrecipient and consistent with any approved budget and Grantee policy concerning payments. Payments will be made for eligible expenses actually incurred by the Subrecipient, and not to exceed actual cash requirements. In addition, the Grantee reserves the right to liquidate funds available under this contract for costs incurred by the Grantee on behalf of the Subrecipient.

2. Progress Reports
The Subrecipient shall submit quarterly Progress Reports to the Grantee in the form, content, and frequency as required by the Grantee.

D. Procurement

1. Compliance
The Subrecipient shall comply with current Grantee policy concerning the purchase of equipment and shall maintain inventory records of all non-expendable personal property as defined by such policy as may be procured with funds provided herein.

All program assets (unexpended program income, property, equipment, etc.) shall revert to the Grantee upon termination of this Agreement. 156

2. OMB Standards
Unless specified otherwise within this agreement, the Subrecipient shall procure all materials, property, or services in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR

84.40−48.

3. Travel
The Subrecipient shall obtain written approval from the Grantee for any travel outside the metropolitan area with funds provided under this Agreement.

E. Use and Reversion of Assets
The use and disposition of real property and equipment under this Agreement shall be in compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 84 and 24 CFR 570.502, 570.503, and 570.504, as applicable, which include but are not limited to the following:

1. The Subrecipient shall transfer to the Grantee any CDBG funds on hand and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of funds under this Agreement at the time of expiration, cancellation, or termination.

2. Real property under the Subrecipient’s control that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, with funds under this Agreement in excess of $25,000 shall be used to meet one of the CDBG National Objectives pursuant to 24 CFR 570.208 until five (5) years after expiration of this Agreement. If the Subrecipient fails to use CDBG-assisted real property in a manner that meets a CDBG National Objective for the prescribed period of time, the Subrecipient shall pay the Grantee an amount equal to the current fair market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Such payment shall constitute program income to the Grantee. The Subrecipient may retain real property acquired or improved under this Agreement after the expiration of the five-year period.

3. In all cases in which equipment acquired, in whole or in part, with funds under this Agreement is sold, the proceeds shall be program income (prorated to reflect the extent to that funds received under this Agreement were used to acquire the equipment). Equipment not needed by the Subrecipient for activities under this Agreement shall be (a) transferred to the Grantee for the CDBG program or (b) retained after compensating the Grantee [an amount equal to the current fair market value of the equipment less the percentage of non-CDBG funds used to acquire the equipment]. 157

IX. PERSONNEL & PARTICIPANT CONDITIONS
A. Civil Rights

1. Compliance
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with City and state civil rights ordinances and with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended, Section 104(b) and Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 11063, and Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Orders 11375, 11478, 12107 and 12086.

2. Nondiscrimination
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with the non-discrimination in employment and contracting opportunities laws, regulations, and executive orders referenced in 24 CFR 570.607, as revised by Executive Order 13279. The applicable nondiscrimination provisions in Section 109 of the HCDA are still applicable.

1. Land Covenants
This contract is subject to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P. L. 88-352) and 24 CFR 570.601 and 570.602. In regard to the sale, lease, or other transfer of land acquired, cleared or improved with assistance provided under this contract, the Subrecipient shall cause or require a covenant running with the land to be inserted in the deed or lease for such transfer, prohibiting discrimination as herein defined, in the sale, lease or rental, or in the use or occupancy of such land, or in any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, providing that the Grantee and the United States are beneficiaries of and entitled to enforce such covenants. The Subrecipient, in undertaking its obligation to carry out the program assisted hereunder, agrees to take such measures as are necessary to enforce such covenant, and will not itself so discriminate.

2. Section 504
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with all Federal regulations issued pursuant to compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), which prohibits discrimination against the individuals with disabilities or handicaps in any Federally assisted program. The Grantee shall provide the Subrecipient with any guidelines necessary for compliance with that portion of the regulations in force during the term of this Agreement.
158

B. Affirmative Action

1. Approved Plan
The Subrecipient agrees that it shall be committed to carry out pursuant to the Grantee’s specifications an Affirmative Action Program in keeping with the principles as provided in President’s Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1966. The Grantee shall provide Affirmative Action guidelines to the Subrecipient to assist in the formulation of such program. The Subrecipient shall submit a plan for an Affirmative Action Program for approval prior to the award of funds.

2. Women- and Minority-Owned Businesses (W/MBE)
The Subrecipient will use its best efforts to afford small businesses, minority business enterprises, and women’s business enterprises the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of this contract. As used in this contract, the terms “small business” means a business that meets the criteria set forth in section 3(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 632), and “minority and women’s business enterprise” means a business at least fifty-one (51) percent owned and controlled by minority group members or women. For the purpose of this definition, “minority group members” are Afro-Americans, Spanish-speaking, Spanish surnamed or Spanish-heritage Americans, AsianAmericans, and American Indians. The Subrecipient may rely on written representations by businesses regarding their status as minority and female business enterprises in lieu of an independent investigation.

3. Access to Records
The Subrecipient shall furnish and cause each of its own subrecipients or subcontractors to furnish all information and reports required hereunder and will permit access to its books, records and accounts by the Grantee, HUD or its agent, or other authorized Federal officials for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the rules, regulations and provisions stated herein.

4. Notifications
The Subrecipient will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency contracting officer, advising the labor union or worker’s representative of the Subrecipient’s commitments hereunder, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
159

5. Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) Statement
The Subrecipient will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, state that it is an Equal Opportunity or Affirmative Action employer.

6. Subcontract Provisions
The Subrecipient will include the provisions of Paragraphs X.A, Civil Rights, and B, Affirmative Action, in every subcontract or purchase order, specifically or by reference, so that such provisions will be binding upon each of its own subrecipients or subcontractors.

C. Employment Restrictions

1. Prohibited Activity
The Subrecipient is prohibited from using funds provided herein or personnel employed in the administration of the program for: political activities; inherently religious activities; lobbying; political patronage; and nepotism activities.

2. Labor Standards
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with the requirements of the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act as amended, the provisions of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) and all other applicable Federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to labor standards insofar as those acts apply to the performance of this Agreement. The Subrecipient agrees to comply with the Copeland Anti-Kick Back Act (18 U.S.C. 874 et seq.) and its implementing regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor at 29 CFR Part 5. The Subrecipient shall maintain documentation that demonstrates compliance with hour and wage requirements of this part. Such documentation shall be made available to the Grantee for review upon request.

The Subrecipient agrees that, except with respect to the rehabilitation or construction of residential property containing less than eight (8) units, all contractors engaged under contracts in excess of $2,000.00 for construction, renovation or repair work financed in whole or in part with assistance provided under this contract, shall comply with Federal requirements pertaining to such contracts and with the applicable requirements of the regulations of the Department of Labor, under 29 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5 and 7 governing the payment of wages and ratio of apprentices and trainees to journey workers; provided that, if wage rates higher than those required under the regulations are imposed by state or local law, nothing hereunder is intended to relieve the Subrecipient of its obligation, if any, to require payment of the higher wage. The Subrecipient shall cause or require to be 160

inserted in full, in all such contracts subject to such regulations, provisions meeting the requirements of this paragraph.

3. “Section 3” Clause
a. Compliance
Compliance with the provisions of Section 3 of the HUD Act of 1968, as amended, and as implemented by the regulations set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all applicable rules and orders issued hereunder prior to the execution of this contract, shall be a condition of the Federal financial assistance provided under this contract and binding upon the Grantee, the Subrecipient and any of the Subrecipient’s subrecipients and subcontractors. Failure to fulfill these requirements shall subject the Grantee, the Subrecipient and any of the Subrecipient’s subrecipients and subcontractors, their successors and assigns, to those sanctions specified by the Agreement through which Federal assistance is provided. The Subrecipient certifies and agrees that no contractual or other disability exists that would prevent compliance with these requirements.

The Subrecipient further agrees to comply with these “Section 3” requirements and to include the following language in all subcontracts executed under this Agreement:
“The work to be performed under this Agreement is a
project assisted under a program providing direct Federal financial assistance from HUD and is subject to the
requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1701).

Section 3 requires that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given to lowand very low-income residents of the project area, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be
awarded to business concerns that provide economic
opportunities for low- and very low-income persons
residing in the metropolitan area in which the project is located.”
The Subrecipient further agrees to ensure that opportunities for training and employment arising in connection with a housing rehabilitation (including reduction and abatement of lead-based paint hazards), housing construction, or other public construction project are given to low- and very low-income persons residing within the metropolitan area in which the CDBG-funded project is located; where feasible, priority should be given to low- and very low-income persons within the service area of the project or the neighborhood in which the project is located, and to low- and very lowincome participants in other HUD programs; and award contracts for work 161

undertaken in connection with a housing rehabilitation (including reduction and abatement of lead-based paint hazards), housing construction, or other public construction project to business concerns that provide economic opportunities for low- and very low-income persons residing within the metropolitan area in which the CDBG-funded project is located; where feasible, priority should be given to business concerns that provide economic opportunities to low- and very low-income residents within the service area or the neighborhood in which the project is located, and to lowand very low-income participants in other HUD programs.

The Subrecipient certifies and agrees that no contractual or other legal incapacity exists that would prevent compliance with these requirements. b. Notifications
The Subrecipient agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising said labor organization or worker’s representative of its commitments under this Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment or training.
c. Subcontracts
The Subrecipient will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract and will take appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of regulations issued by the grantor agency.

The Subrecipient will not subcontract with any entity where it has notice or knowledge that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CFR Part 135 and will not let any subcontract unless the entity has first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply with the requirements of these regulations.

D. Conduct

1. Assignability
The Subrecipient shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Grantee thereto; provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due to the Subrecipient from the Grantee under this contract may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the Grantee.
162

2. Subcontracts
a. Approvals
The Subrecipient shall not enter into any subcontracts with any agency or individual in the performance of this contract without the written consent of the Grantee prior to the execution of such agreement.
b. Monitoring
The Subrecipient will monitor all subcontracted services on a regular basis to assure contract compliance. Results of monitoring efforts shall be summarized in written reports and supported with documented evidence of follow-up actions taken to correct areas of noncompliance. c. Content
The Subrecipient shall cause all of the provisions of this contract in its entirety to be included in and made a part of any subcontract executed in the performance of this Agreement.
d. Selection Process
The Subrecipient shall undertake to ensure that all subcontracts let in the performance of this Agreement shall be awarded on a fair and open competition basis in accordance with applicable procurement requirements.

Executed copies of all subcontracts shall be forwarded to the Grantee along with documentation concerning the selection process.

3. Hatch Act
The Subrecipient agrees that no funds provided, nor personnel employed under this Agreement, shall be in any way or to any extent engaged in the conduct of political activities in violation of Chapter 15 of Title V of the U.S.C.

4. Conflict of Interest
The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of 24 CFR 84.42 and 570.611, which include (but are not limited to) the following:
a. The Subrecipient shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct that shall govern the performance of its officers, employees or agents engaged in the award and administration of contracts supported by Federal funds.
163

b. No employee, officer or agent of the Subrecipient shall participate in the selection, or in the award, or administration of, a contract supported by Federal funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved.
c. No covered persons who exercise or have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG-assisted activities, or who are in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest in any contract, or have a financial interest in any contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect to the CDBGassisted activity, or with respect to the proceeds from the CDBGassisted activity, either for themselves or those with whom they have business or immediate family ties, during their tenure or for a period of one (1) year thereafter. For purposes of this paragraph, a “covered person” includes any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the Grantee, the Subrecipient, or any designated public agency.

5. Lobbying
The Subrecipient hereby certifies that:
a. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; b. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions; and
c. It will require that the language of paragraph (d) of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all Subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly:
164

d. Lobbying Certification
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.

Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S.C. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

6. Copyright
If this contract results in any copyrightable material or inventions, the Grantee and/or grantor agency reserves the right to royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use and to authorize others to use, the work or materials for governmental purposes.

7. Religious Activities
The Subrecipient agrees that funds provided under this Agreement will not be utilized for inherently religious activities prohibited by 24 CFR 570.200(j), such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.

X. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
A. Air and Water
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with the following requirements insofar as they apply to the performance of this Agreement:
- Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. , 7401, et seq.;
- Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C., 1251, et seq., as amended, 1318 relating to inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other requirements specified in said Section 114 and Section 308, and all regulations and guidelines issued thereunder; - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations pursuant to 40 CFR Part 50, as amended.

B. Flood Disaster Protection
In accordance with the requirements of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001), the Subrecipient shall assure that for activities located in an area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards, flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program is obtained and maintained as 165

a condition of financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes (including rehabilitation).

C. Lead-Based Paint
The Subrecipient agrees that any construction or rehabilitation of residential structures with assistance provided under this Agreement shall be subject to HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulations at 24 CFR 570.608, and 24 CFR Part 35, Subpart B. Such regulations pertain to all CDBG-assisted housing and require that all owners, prospective owners, and tenants of properties constructed prior to 1978 be properly notified that such properties may include lead-based paint. Such notification shall point out the hazards of lead-based paint and explain the symptoms, treatment and precautions that should be taken when dealing with lead-based paint poisoning and the advisability and availability of blood lead level screening for children under seven. The notice should also point out that if lead-based paint is found on the property, abatement measures may be undertaken. The regulations further require that, depending on the amount of Federal funds applied to a property, paint testing, risk assessment, treatment and/or abatement may be conducted.

D. Historic Preservation
The Subrecipient agrees to comply with the Historic Preservation requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470) and the procedures set forth in 36 CFR Part 800, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for Protection of Historic Properties, insofar as they apply to the performance of this agreement.

In general, this requires concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer for all rehabilitation and demolition of historic properties that are fifty years old or older or that are included on a Federal, state, or local historic property list.

XI. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect.

XII. SECTION HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS
The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement.

XIII. WAIVER
The Grantee’s failure to act with respect to a breach by the Subrecipient does not waive its right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches. The failure of the Grantee to exercise or enforce any right or provision shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision.
166

XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Grantee and the Subrecipient for the use of funds received under this Agreement and it supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between the Grantee and the Subrecipient with respect to this Agreement.

Date
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this contract as of the date first written above.
[Grantee] [Subrecipient]
By_______________________________________By___________________________ Devin Middlebrook, Mayor Cheyenne Purrington, Executive Director

Attest_______________________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:

Fed. I. D. #___________________________
______________________________________________
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
167
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 8.

Agenda Item: Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) FY 2022-2023 Executive Summary: In an effort to balance its budget, the State of California adopted Assembly Bill (AB)x1 26 on June 28, 2011, amended by AB 1484 on June 27, 2012, which suspended all new redevelopment activities except for limited specified activities as of that date and dissolved redevelopment agencies on February 1, 2012. The Successor Agency Board is required by state law to annually pass a resolution approving the ROPS.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Acting as the South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency Board, pass a Resolution approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 for the fiscal period commencing July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023.

Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director (530) 542-7431 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report ROPS 2022-2023.docx
02-Resolution STRSA ROPS 2022-2023.docx
03-ROPS 2022-2023 (Exhibit A to Resolution).pdf
168
Council Agenda Report- January 4, 2022 Page | 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to South Tahoe
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Title: Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), FY 2022-2023 Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Financial Services Manager (530) 542-7431 Background:

In an effort to balance its budget, the State of California adopted Assembly Bill (AB)x1 26 on June 28, 2011, amended by AB 1484 on June 27, 2012, which suspended all new redevelopment activities except for limited specified activities as of that date and dissolved redevelopment agencies on February 1, 2012.

The suspension provisions prohibited all redevelopment agencies from a wide range of activities, including incurring new indebtedness or obligations, entering into or modifying agreements or contracts, acquiring or disposing of real property, taking actions to adopt or amend redevelopment plans and other similar actions, except actions required by law or to carry out existing enforceable obligations, as defined in ABx1 26.

Certain assets of the Redevelopment Agency were to be distributed to a Housing Successor and all remaining Redevelopment Agency assets and liabilities were to be distributed to a Successor Agency.

The City elected to become the Successor Agency. The Redevelopment Agency’s remaining assets were distributed to and liabilities were assumed by the Successor Agency and are recorded in the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Private-Purpose Trust Fund (Fund 725) Issue and Discussion:

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177(m)(1), Successor Agencies are required to prepare Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (“ROPS”) prior to each twelve-month fiscal period. The ROPS is then ratified by the Oversight Board and subsequently submitted to the County Auditor and State Department of Finance. ROPS 2022-2023 is due February 1, 2022.

Financial Implications:

The preparation and approval of this ROPS will allow the Successor Agency to continue to pay enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency and is required by the Health and Safety Code section 34177.

Policy Implications:

None.
169
STRSA Resolution 2022-XXX January 4, 2022 Page 1 of 2
STRSA Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency
January 4, 2022
Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 2022-23) pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 for the fiscal period commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023

BACKGROUND
A. Health and Safety Code Section 34177(m)(1) provides that before each twelve-month fiscal period, successor agencies to former redevelopment agencies must prepare a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS”) for the enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agency in accordance with the requirements of Section 34177 and submit the ROPS to the Oversight Board and the County Auditor’s Office for approval and subsequently submit it to the California Department of Finance for review and post on the Sponsoring or Successor Agency’s website.

B. The South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency completed the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the following period commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023.

C. In accordance with Health and Safety Code section 34177, a ROPS shall not be deemed valid until the ROPS is submitted to and duly approved by the Oversight Board.

D. The Board of Directors for the South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency desires to adopt this resolution approving the attached ROPS in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 34177 to provide the County Auditor and the Department of Finance with debt payment obligations over a sufficient time period to allow appropriate agencies to understand the long term debt obligations of the Successor Agency.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors for the South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency, hereby finds, determines, resolves and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this resolution.

2. The Resolution is adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177.

3. The Board hereby approves the ROPS substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference.

4. The officers and staff of the Successor Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution, including, but not limited to, submitting the ROPS to the 170
STRSA Resolution 2022-XXX January 4, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Oversight Board for approval, the Controller’s Office and the Department of Finance and posting on the Successor Agency’s Internet Web Site.

Adopted by the Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency a duly noticed meeting held on January 4, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________ Date:___________
Devin Middlebrook, Agency Chair
Attest:
______________________________
Susan Blankenship, Agency Secretary
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council
171
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Summary Filed for the July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Period Successor Agency: South Lake Tahoe
County: El Dorado
Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable
Obligations (ROPS Detail)
22-23A Total
(July -
December)
22-23B Total
(January -
June)
ROPS 22-23
Total
A Enforceable Obligations Funded as Follows (B+C+D) $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 25,000 B Bond Proceeds - - -
C Reserve Balance - - -
D Other Funds 12,500 12,500 25,000
E Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) (F+G) $ 3,955,829 $ 1,205,453 $ 5,161,282 F RPTTF 3,925,829 1,175,453 5,101,282
G Administrative RPTTF 30,000 30,000 60,000
H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E) $ 3,968,329 $ 1,217,953 $ 5,186,282 Certification of Oversight Board Chairman:

Name Title
Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety
code, I hereby certify that the above is a true and
accurate Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for
the above named successor agency. /s/
Signature Date
172
South Lake Tahoe
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - ROPS Detail July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Item
# Project Name Obligation Type
Agreement
Execution
Date
Agreement
Termination
Date
Payee Description Project
Area
Total
Outstanding
Obligation
Retired
ROPS
22-23
Total
ROPS 22-23A (Jul - Dec)
22-23A
Total
ROPS 22-23B (Jan - Jun)
22-23B
Total
Fund Sources Fund Sources
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds
RPTTF
Admin
RPTTF
$92,334,064 $5,186,282 $- $- $12,500 $3,925,829 $30,000 $3,968,329 $- $- $12,500 $1,175,453 $30,000 $1,217,953 6 Contracted
Financial
Services
Fees 10/01/
1999
10/01/2037 Bank of
New York
Mellon,
Willdan,
Fraser &
Associates
Trustee
Services,
arbitrage
rebate
calculations,
continuing
disclosure
reports, pass
through
calculations
Park
Avenue
Area
#1
10,000 N $10,000 - - 5,000 - - $5,000 - - 5,000 - - $5,000 7 Contracted
Legal Services
Admin
Costs
10/01/
2007
10/01/2037 Richards,
Watson and
Gershon
Redevelopment
Dissolution
Legal Costs
Park
Avenue
Area
#1
15,000 N $15,000 - - 7,500 - - $7,500 - - 7,500 - - $7,500 21 Administrative
Costs
Admin
Costs
01/01/
2014
10/01/2037 City of
South Lake
Tahoe
Costs to
Administer
Successor
Agency
(internal debt
administration,
accounting
financial
reporting, legal
and banking
fees
60,000 N $60,000 - - - - 30,000 $30,000 - - - - 30,000 $30,000 25 Supplemental
Educational
Revenue
Augmentation
Fund loan
SERAF/
ERAF
03/01/
2011
10/01/2037 City of
South Lake
Tahoe LowModerate
Income
Housing
Fund
Supplemental
Educational
Revenue
Augmentation
Fund Loan
426,210 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
26 City General
Fund loan to
the
Redevelopment
Agency for
Completion of
Park Avenue
Project
City/
County
Loan
(Prior 06/
28/11),
Cash
exchange
03/14/
2004
10/01/2037 City of
South Lake
Tahoe
General
Fund
Park Avenue
Project
Completion
costs loan
Park
Avenue
Area
#1
5,276,219 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
27 2014 Bonds 12/08/ 10/01/2034 Bondholders Refunding of Park 35,304,866 N $1,745,094 - - - 1,249,235 - $1,249,235 - - - 495,859 - $495,859 173

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Item
# Project Name Obligation Type
Agreement
Execution
Date
Agreement
Termination
Date
Payee Description Project
Area
Total
Outstanding
Obligation
Retired
ROPS
22-23
Total
ROPS 22-23A (Jul - Dec)
22-23A
Total
ROPS 22-23B (Jan - Jun)
22-23B
Total
Fund Sources Fund Sources
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin RPTTF
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds
RPTTF
Admin
RPTTF
Redevelopment
Project Area
No. 1 Series A
Notes
Issued
After 12/
31/10
2014 paid by
Trustee
(Bank of
New York
Mellon)
1999, 2003,
and 2004
Refunding
Revenue
Bonds to fund
non-housing
projects
Avenue
Area
#1
28 2015
Redevelopment
Project Area
No. 1 Series A
Notes
Bonds
Issued
After 12/
31/10
09/16/
2015
10/01/2035 Bondholders
paid by
Trustee
(Bank of
New York
Mellon)
Refunding of
2005
Refunding
Revenue
Bonds to fund
non-housing
projects
Park
Avenue
Area
27,058,791 N $2,425,694 - - - 2,032,847 - $2,032,847 - - - 392,847 - $392,847 29 2017 Loan
Agreements
(securing
Authority's
2017
Refunding
Revenue Bond)
Bonds
Issued
After 12/
31/10
09/01/
2017
10/01/2037 Bondholders
paid by
Trustee
(Bank of
New York
Mellon)
Refunding of
2007 RDA
Notes sercuring
bonds to fund
non-housing
projects
24,182,978 N $930,494 - - - 643,747 - $643,747 - - - 286,747 - $286,747 174
South Lake Tahoe
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Report of Cash Balances July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.

A B C D E F G H
ROPS 19-20 Cash Balances
(07/01/19 - 06/30/20)
Fund Sources
Comments
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF
Bonds issued
on or before
12/31/10
Bonds issued
on or after
01/01/11
Prior ROPS
RPTTF and
Reserve
Balances retained
for future
period(s)
Rent, grants,
interest, etc.

Non-Admin
and Admin
1 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 07/01/19)
RPTTF amount should exclude "A" period distribution
amount.
5,264,390
2 Revenue/Income (Actual 06/30/20)
RPTTF amount should tie to the ROPS 19-20 total
distribution from the County Auditor-Controller
3 Expenditures for ROPS 19-20 Enforceable Obligations
(Actual 06/30/20)
842,212 4,243,507
4 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Actual 06/30/20) RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts
distributed as reserve for future period(s)
5 ROPS 19-20 RPTTF Prior Period Adjustment
RPTTF amount should tie to the Agency's ROPS 19-20 PPA
form submitted to the CAC
No entry required
6 Ending Actual Available Cash Balance (06/30/20)
C to F = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4), G = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4 - 5)
$5,264,390 $- $- $(842,212) $(4,243,507)
175
South Lake Tahoe
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - Notes July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023
Item # Notes/Comments
6 7
21 25
26 27
28 29
176
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 9.

Agenda Item: Ordinance - Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments (First Reading) Executive Summary: The City of South Lake Tahoe is proposing to amend the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan (B/AT CP) to allow for additional building height for public or quasi-public buildings and lower roof pitch requirements for buildings that require flatter roofs to span large interior spaces proposed within the 56-acres project area of the B/AT CP Town Center District #4. The amendments will be considered pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances, which allows local governments to adopt conforming Community Plans that contain policies and development ordinances that are consistent with and further the goals and policies of the TRPA Regional Plan.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: 1) Pass a Motion finding that the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plans Initial Study/Negative Declaration/Initial Environmental Checklist adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed ordinance and that no further environmental analysis is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, 2) Pass a Motion to hold a first reading (by title only) of an ordinance amending the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan to allow additional height up to 42 feet, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirement for public and quasi-public facilities located in the 56-acre project area, and refer second reading and adoption to the January 18, 2022 meeting.

Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager 9530) 542-7472 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Ordinance - Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments 02-Location Map.pdf
03-AB 52 Tribal Consultation.pdf
04-Proof of Mailing.pdf
05-Tribune Proof of Publication.pdf
06-Response to Comments.docx
07-Proof of Mailing PC Dec 16 2021.pdf
08-Tahoe Daily Tribune Affadavit.pdf
09-Planning Commission Resolution 2021-18 Bijou Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment.pdf 10-Proof of Mailing City Council Meetings.pdf
11-Tribune Proof of Publication 20211217.pdf
177
12-Ordinance-Bijou Al Tahoe Community PlanAmendments
178
Council Agenda Report January 4, 2022 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Title: Ordinance – Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments to allow additional height up to 42 feet, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements for public and quasi-public facilities located in the 56-acres project area (First Reading) Location: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan District #4, 56-acres (Multiple APNs) Responsible Staff Members: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager (530) 542-7405 Background:

The City of South Lake Tahoe is proposing to amend the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan (B/AT CP) to allow for additional building height for public or quasi-public buildings and lower roof pitch requirements for buildings that require flatter roofs to span large interior spaces proposed within the 56-acres project area of the B/AT CP Town Center District #4 (see Attachment 02). The amendments will be considered pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances, which allows local governments to adopt conforming Community Plans that contain policies and development ordinances that are consistent with and further the goals and policies of the TRPA Regional Plan.

Issue and Discussion:

Purpose and Need
The B/AT CP was adopted by the City in 1995. As required by the TRPA Regional Plan, the B/AT CP includes specific design standards to ensure development is compatible with the natural environment and contributes to the character and quality of the built environment.

District 4 of the B/AT CP is a “centralized public service district” where a large concentration of public and institutional uses are located. These include a recreation center, campground, sheriff’s station, police station, jail, middle school, ice arena, county offices, forest service offices, and the community college. The B/AT CP established four zoning districts, as well as design and development standards for each district. A special standard for this district allows TRPA to address height issues at the community college site on an individual project basis. The TRPA interprets this to include deviation from the community plan’s roof pitch standard, which requires that roofs have a pitch between 7:12 and 12:12. Because of the unique design characteristics required for large institutional spaces, most of the roof pitches at the college are lower than 7:12.

However, this standard is only applicable to buildings located on the campus of the community 179
Council Agenda Report January 4, 2022 Page 2 of 5
college. All other buildings/structures within District #4 would be required to have a minimum roof pitch of 7:12.

The City is proposing to construct a new multi-generational recreation center (recreation center) within District #4 and the 56-acress project area. The recreation center will be located south of Lake Tahoe Boulevard adjacent to the existing El Dorado County Library. The new recreation center will house a swimming pool, lazy river, a gymnasium, indoor track, office and meeting spaces, and a commercial-grade kitchen. The proposed design incorporates shed-style architecture, using lowpitched roofs with clerestory windows. This design was selected to provide solar access to the interior of the building, which can help reduce energy demands from lighting and heating and to also span large spaces (i.e., swimming pool, gymnasium). The proposed design is similar to many of the structures on the community college campus; however, the project cannot be approved as proposed due to TRPA height standard and the community plan standard that requires a minimum 7:12 roof pitch.

The proposed recreation center was designed for the functionality of services, energy efficiency, and its compatibility to the surrounding neighborhood and to ensure consistency with TRPA’s scenic threshold standard. A strict adherence to the standard would cause a greater scenic impact and energy demand due to additional building height and greater volume. A roof pitch of 7:12 would result in exceeding TRPA’s maximum height standard of 42 feet and create a greater volume of conditioned space that would be more visually intrusive and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. High roof pitches result in a larger interior volume than needed which must be conditioned and maintained resulting in increased energy consumption and operation costs, which is contrary to the City’s long-term sustainability goals. Additionally, high roof pitches increase construction costs due to additional building material necessitated by the roof pitch requirement without any added functionality and is inconsistent with environmental and community sustainability goals.

The proposed amendment would only apply to public and quasi-public structures that are located in the 56-acres project area. The objective of this action is to 1) revise the height standards in the B/AT CP District 4, specific to the 56-acres area to align with Section 37.5, which allows additional height for public services and recreation facilities, 2) encourage redevelopment in the 56-acres project area for large public or quasi-public land uses/buildings that typically require shed roofs based on their larger size, and 3) encourage high-quality designs that achieve the City’s long term sustainability and environmental goals.

Initial Study
To evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment, the City contracted with Hauge Bruck Associates to prepare an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft IS/ND provides an analysis of the potential for the project to result in significant environmental impacts. Areas of analysis include aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, 180
Council Agenda Report January 4, 2022 Page 3 of 5
recreation, transportation and traffic, utility and services systems, and additional mandatory findings of significance related to potential cumulative impacts. The analysis demonstrates that the project either has no impacts or has less than significant impacts in all of these areas and staff is recommending a Negative Declaration (ND) be adopted for the proposed amendment.

Tribal Consultation
Pursuant to state law, the City has completed requirements for consultation with Native American tribes under Assembly Bill 52 and the CEQA Guidelines (see Attachment 03). The City received a comment from the United Auburn Indian Community acknowledging the proposed project and deferring to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. No other comments were received. Staff sent a notice to Chairman Serrell Smokey and Darrel Cruz, Cultural Resources Director of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. At this time, no comments have been received from the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.

Public Comment Period and Public Noticing
The Draft IS/ND has been sent, along with a Notice of Preparation and Notice of Completion, to the California State Clearinghouse for distribution to state and regional agencies for review. The IS/ND is also available at City offices (1052 Tata Lane) and online at https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/16271/Project-Summary-Page-Bijou-Al-TahoeCommunity-Plan-Amendment-20211026. The public review and comment period began October 22, 2021 and ended on November 22, 2021. A Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent, advertising the review period and the public hearing date, was mailed to all affected property owners within 300 feet on October 27, 2021 and published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on October 29, 2021.

The City received seven public comments on the Initial Study Negative Declaration. Six comments were from members of the public and one comment was from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). All comments from the public stated their opposition to the proposed amendment primary on the following grounds: scenic impacts, historic resource impacts, CEQA project segmentation and conflict of interest issues. TRPA comments primarily focused on editorial edits, project description clarification, and additional analysis in support of the proposed amendment.

See Attachment 06, for comments and responses to comments prepared for the IS/ND.

A public notice was sent to all affected property owners on December 3, 2021 providing the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting to consider the B/ATCP amendments and IS/ND and was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on December 3, 2021 (see Attachment 07 & 08). 181
Council Agenda Report January 4, 2022 Page 4 of 5
On December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, receive public comment, deliberated and passed Resolution 2021-18 recommending the City Council adopt the IS/ND and the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments (see Attachment 09).

A public notice was sent to all affected property owners on December 17, 2021 providing the date and time of the City Council meeting to consider the B/ATCP amendments and IS/ND and was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on December 17, 2021 (see Attachment 10 and 11).

Environmental Considerations:

See “Issue and Discussion” section above.

Financial Implications:

None
Recommendation:

City staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion finding that the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments Initial Study/Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments and that no further environmental analysis is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; and pass a Motion to hold a first reading (by title only) of an Ordinance (see Attachment 12) amending the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan, and refer second reading and adoption to the January 18, 2022 meeting.

Policy Implications:

City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The proposed amendment to the B/AT CP is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan.
56-acress project area is currently designated as recreation in the City’s General Plan.

Recreation land use designation is defined as follows:

This designation provides for outdoor recreation areas, active and passive recreational uses, habitat protection, and public/quasi-public uses. This designation is applied to areas with existing and proposed outdoor recreation and areas without overriding environmental constraints.

The Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan include the following goals and policies to encourage development, redevelopment, and upgrades to existing development. 182
Council Agenda Report January 4, 2022 Page 5 of 5
Goal LU-2 : To focus future commercial, multi-family residential, tourist, civic, and social gathering space development in community plan area in order to maximize incentives and create transit,- bicycle-, and pedestrian-oriented places that serve the needs of both residents and visitors.

Policy LU-2.1: Community Plan Redevelopment, Expansion, and Upgrade The City shall encourage public and private investment in the expansion and upgrade of commercial and tourist accommodation projects within the Tahoe Valley, Bijou/Al Tahoe, and Stateline/Ski Run community plan areas and use appropriate financing tools, such as redevelopment, to achieve economic and land use goals, as determined proper to achieve this objective.

Policy LU-2.2: Community Plan Preparation, Adoption, and Implementation The City shall periodically update and implement the four Community Plans as a way to focus development commodities and revitalization efforts.

Policy LU-2.5: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Area
The City shall encourage the creation of a viable residential neighborhood with appropriate neighborhood amenities and compatible high quality family-oriented recreation and public facilities including government offices.

Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan
The B/AT CP was adopted by the City and states that the area “ ..should serve as a family oriented and recreation center, as well as the Town Center for the local Community. To accomplish this goal, policies must encourage diversification of recreational and commercial attractions to create the high quality development expected in a family oriented resort area.” The proposed amendments will further the goals of the B/AT CP by encouraging the redevelopment of an infill site with high quality recreation opportunities with development that complements the overall natural setting.

The proposed amendments are consistent with the B/AT CP “Town Center” designation, encouraging the relocation of city, county, state, and federal offices to the district and expanding recreational activities within the district and immediate surrounding areas.

In addition, the proposed B/AT CP amendment is consistent with the following policy:

Policy A: Establish four unique, separate districts.

Town Center District. Areas currently described as Campground by the Lake, South Tahoe Middle School, John Boulevard areas and Lake Tahoe Community College shall be combined to accommodate the following uses: Commercial (public service support orientation, or receiving area for transfer of SEZ/Scenic Corridor), Public Service, Recreation, and designation as a “Special Events Area.”
183
ATTACHMENT 02
56-Acre
184
ATTACHMENT 02
185
ATTACHMENT 03
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
Proof of Service by Mail
(required as per SLT Municipal Code Section 6.55.640
SUBJECT: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments
ADDRESS: 56-Acres (Bounded by Rufus Allen, Lake Tahoe Blvd, and Lyon Avenue
APN: 026-50-003, -004, -005, -006

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF EL DORADO )

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE )
I am an employee of the City of South Lake Tahoe, Development Services Department.

I, John Hitchcock, served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail.

I declare, under penalty or perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on 10/27/2021 , at Service Center .
(Date) Development Service Department
Services Center
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
Signature
Attachments: 1. Legal Notice

2. Boundary Map

3. Property List
ATTACHMENT 04
198

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY /NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BIJOU/AL

TAHOE COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT
The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) is seeking public comments on a proposed amendment to the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan (B/ATCP). The City of South Lake Tahoe proposes two amendments to the B/ATCP. The City of South Lake Tahoe proposes two amendments to the B/ATCP, specifically:

1. Increase allowable building height – current B/ATCP building height limits are defined by Table 37.4.1-1 and Section 37.5 (Additional Height for Certain Buildings) of the TRPA Code and only permit up to 42 feet for structures with greater than 10:12 roof pitches, and on slopes of greater than 24 percent across the building site. The Code does not permit structures of 42 feet in height that have flat roofs and are located within a TRPA-designated scenic highway corridor. The proposed amendment would permit building heights up to 42 feet for public or quasi-public structures in the 56-acre project area if TRPA Code Section 37.7 findings 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 can be made (Code findings reprinted below). Height limits for B/ATCP areas outside of the 56-acre project area would remain unchanged.

2. Eliminate minimum roof pitch for public and quasi-public buildings located in the 56-acre project area – current roof pitch standards require a minimum of 7:12 roof pitches in B/ATCP District 4. The proposed amendment would permit flat roofs for public or quasi-public buildings within the 56-acre project area and reduce minimum roof pitch requirements to 5:12 for the rest of B/ATCP District 4 (Town Center).

The amended plan will serve as a mutual plan for the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA by providing direction for how the applicable area shall be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land use objectives. The development standards and the specific policies referenced in the amendments are the land use standards intended to administer and regulate development within the 56-acre project area of the B/ATCP.

The City has prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed amendment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines. The IS/ND is being circulated for public review and comment pursuant to Section 15073 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The 30-day comment period begins on Friday, October 22, 2021 and ends on November 22, 2021. Comments should be submitted by email to [email protected] or by mail to:

John Hitchcock
City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Division
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 18, 2021 and December 16, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. The Planning Commission agenda packet for this item will be available three days prior to the hearing at www.cityofslt.us/114/PlanningCommission. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA.

The IS/ND may be viewed and downloaded at the Planning Division web page: www.cityofslt.us/1059/Proposed-AreaPlan-Amendments. If you require additional information, please contact John Hitchcock at (530) 542-7472. A copy of the IS/ND is available for public review at 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, California. 199
Written public comments received 72 hours prior to the meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any open session item will be made available for public inspection within the Agenda posted on the City’s Website.

Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate any person needing special assistance to participate in this meeting. Contact the City Clerk at (530) 542-6005 in advance of the meeting for assistance [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II and Brown Act Government Code Sections 54953.2, 54954.1, 54954.2, and 54957.5]. 56-Acre
200
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 1/3
© 2015 ParcelQuest www.parcelquest.com (888) 217-8999
91 90
1334.29 ft 95
3735 36 92 93
31 88 53 94
4 4789
4643 87
45 713.03 ft 40 115567
38424139 158
32 155 48
49 3334 101405
101
106.49 ft
59 565854 100101710281221 2241.93 ft 99
60 57 109120 98 51 110119 97
621 52 111 102 118 621 123
634 103 124117
634
66 65 106 112116
113115 96 114
68 69 125 70 1213.92 ft 50 131841849
126
67 139147 127
146 128 153145
76 129 140151 55 141152
74737271 130 150144
75 131 141243 154
80 132
79 78 131331631731435
77 1272.54 ft 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2425
828384 1
17 16 15 14 13 122627
2 3
18 19 20 21 2223282930 8586
4 100 m  Map data ©2021
201
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 025-010-
007-000
1201 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD

HAMILTON MICHAEL R TR & NANCY EIMER TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8213
2 EDX 025-010-
062-000

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
3 EDX 025-010-
063-000
3030 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7810
4 EDX 025-010-
065-000
1066 LYONS AVE LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
5 EDX 025-930-
001-000
1001 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

ANDERSEN KAREN D TR & MCMURRAY

CHRISTINA S

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
6 EDX 025-930-
002-000
1011 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

URBAN LELAINE INGRAM TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
7 EDX 025-930-
003-000
1019 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

INGRAM M LEILANI SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
8 EDX 025-930-
004-000
1023 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

STUART RICHARD C ETAL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
9 EDX 025-930-
005-000
1029 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

TALBURT JEAN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
10 EDX 025-930-
006-000
1043 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

BONTI LISA A & JENNINGS CHERYL J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
11 EDX 025-930-
007-000
1053 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

HERMANT LADONNA G SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
12 EDX 025-930-
008-000
1056 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

GUSTAFSON KEITH R & LENNOX LISA J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
13 EDX 025-930-
009-000
1048 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

SMITH HOWARD & KAREN BERG SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
14 EDX 025-930-
010-000
1036 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

SOETH WILLIAM NORMAN TR & W TAHOE
TRUST 5/23/16

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
15 EDX 025-930-
011-000
1028 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

DE TARR DARCY SUC CO TR & TARR MARTIN

SUC CO TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
16 EDX 025-930-
012-000
1020 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

LEWIS JAMES R & DOUGLAS W SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
17 EDX 025-930-
013-000

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
18 EDX 025-930-
014-000
1011 TROUT CREEK
AVE

OLWELL JEFFREY B SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
19 EDX 025-930-
015-000
1019 TROUT CREEK
AVE

LAWRIE DEAN C & PEGGY DENEEN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207

202
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
20 EDX 025-930-
016-000
1023 TROUT CREEK
AVE

SIMONS STEVEN R & SHIRLEY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
21 EDX 025-930-
017-000
1029 TROUT CREEK
AVE

STAHMER ROBERT T TR & JUANITA TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
22 EDX 025-930-
018-000
1049 TROUT CREEK
AVE

BRADFORD ERNEST E TR & JUDY M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
23 EDX 025-930-
019-000
1053 TROUT CREEK
AVE

MERCER DAVID F & CHRISTINE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
24 EDX 025-930-
028-000
1065 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

IRVINE EARNEST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
25 EDX 025-930-
029-000
1069 LOS ANGELES
AVE

BONTI DAVID E CO TR & PATRICIA L CO TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8209

203
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
26 EDX 025-930-
030-000
1062 LOS

ANGELES BLVD

STINE SUSAN M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
27 EDX 025-930-
031-000
1068 LOS

ANGELES BLVD

WHITE GARY & IRENE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
28 EDX 025-930-
032-000
1059 TROUT

CREEK AVE

PALMER EVAN & LINNARD PALMER LUANNE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
29 EDX 025-930-
033-000
1065 TROUT

CREEK AVE

WEBB CURTIS L & LYNN M & MOORE JOHN J TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
30 EDX 025-930-
034-000
1069 TROUT

CREEK AVE
ALDINGER SALLY L TR & 2004 REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
31 EDX 026-040-
003-000

RICCI RISMO & ALFIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
32 EDX 026-040-
005-000

LAUSCHE ALBERT (DECD) SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
33 EDX 026-040-
006-000

ANDERSON KENNETH & DELORES H SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
34 EDX 026-040-
007-000

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
35 EDX 026-043-
009-000
985 LAKEVIEW
AVE 1

DUBNER MARGUERITE TR & SURVIVORS TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7970
36 EDX 026-043-
015-000
999 LAKEVIEW
AVE

BEACHCOMBER INN VACATION & MEMBERSHIP

ASSOC-TRUSTE

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7970
37 EDX 026-043-
017-000
981 LAKEVIEW
AVE

CERESKE WILLIAM H JR CO TR & JEANETTE A CO
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7970
38 EDX 026-046-
005-000
977 MERCED AVE GOLDING GEORGIA M TR & FAM TRUST OF
5/29/97

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7936
39 EDX 026-046-
007-000
993 MERCED AVE FOSTER RICHARD AHL TR & JG&EA RV INTRO

VIVOS TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7936
40 EDX 026-046-
008-000
3171 HARRISON
AVE
TSAI MARGARET Y TR & TRUST 3/4/1992 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
41 EDX 026-046-
009-000
989 MERCED AVE STERKEL DENNIS L TR & D L FAM REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7936
42 EDX 026-046-
010-000
981 MERCED AVE GAINES MARY D TR & CREDIT TRUST 7/30/03 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7936
43 EDX 026-046-
011-000
980 LAKEVIEW
AVE

WALL TRENT M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
44 EDX 026-046-
014-000
988 LAKEVIEW
AVE

PHILLIPS DAVID & MARIA ISABEL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968

204
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
45 EDX 026-046-
015-000
976 LAKEVIEW
AVE

BROCATO DOMINIC & MCCREADY ROBERT A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7968
46 EDX 026-046-
016-000
978 LAKEVIEW
AVE 1

SMITH STEVE A & ANNE M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7965
47 EDX 026-046-
018-000
992 LAKEVIEW
AVE

AMIRI SERIO TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
48 EDX 026-049-
001-000
968 MERCED AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7938
49 EDX 026-049-
002-000
993 SAN JOSE AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7944
50 EDX 026-050-
003-000
1170 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8210

205
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
51 EDX 026-050-004-
000
1176 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
8211
52 EDX 026-050-005-
000
3050 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD
COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7810
53 EDX 026-050-006-
000
1004 LAKEVIEW AVE COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 2555
54 EDX 026-080-001-
000
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
55 EDX 026-080-002-
000
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
56 EDX 026-083-003-
000
984 SAN JOSE AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7942
57 EDX 026-083-005-
000
3131 HARRISON AVE WILLIAMS RONALD S TR & JACQUELINE
H TR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7924
58 EDX 026-083-007-
000
3135 HARRISON AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7923
59 EDX 026-083-009-
000
972 SAN JOSE AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7942
60 EDX 026-083-010-
000
979 ALAMEDA AVE WILLIAMS RONALD S TR & JACQUELINE
H TR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7949
62 EDX 026-086-006-
000
3121 HARRISON AVE TDL ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
62 EDX 026-086-006-
000
3121 HARRISON AVE TDL ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
64 EDX 026-086-011-
000
3115 HARRISON AVE MCKEEN MICHAEL S & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
64 EDX 026-086-011-
000
3115 HARRISON AVE MCKEEN MICHAEL S & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
65 EDX 026-086-012-
000
CEFALU JOHN N & JUDY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
66 EDX 026-086-013-
000
3111 HARRISON AVE CEFALU JOHN N TR & JUDY A TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
67 EDX 026-089-006-
000
3092 RIVERSIDE AVE
3 KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7822
68 EDX 026-089-007-
000
3101 HARRISON AVE KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7929

206
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
69 EDX 026-089-009-
000
972 TALLAC AVE A KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7995
70 EDX 026-089-010-
000
3091 HARRISON AVE
97 KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7979
71 EDX 026-113-007-
000
3069 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7803
72 EDX 026-113-008-
000
981 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
73 EDX 026-113-009-
000
977 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
74 EDX 026-113-010-
000
973 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
75 EDX 026-113-011-
000
969 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838

207
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
76 EDX 026-113-
014-000
3079 HARRISON
AVE

THE PRESS PROJECT CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7976
77 EDX 026-114-
022-000
3045 HARRISON
AVE

MCKEEN MICHAEL S TR & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7926
78 EDX 026-114-
023-000
3053 HARRISON
AVE

OAKLAND HILLS TENNIS CLUB, INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7957
79 EDX 026-114-
026-000
966 MODESTO
AVE

COBRAE DARREN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7836
80 EDX 026-114-
027-000
3059 HARRISON
AVE

CALI COFFEE CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7926
81 EDX 026-200-
008-000

AL TAHOE CO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
82 EDX 026-241-
008-000
963 LOS ANGELES
AVE

MALLATT MARKLEY L & MCMAHON MALLATT

DEBORAH MARY

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7841
83 EDX 026-241-
009-000
973 LOS ANGELES
AVE

GENASCI PATRICIA D SURV TR & REV TRUST OF
9/24/98

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7841
84 EDX 026-241-
010-000
3043 HARRISON
AVE

WANZER JOHN LEWIS & GAYLE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8271
85 EDX 026-242-
007-000
970 LOS ANGELES
AVE

BENEDEK GABRIEL & LE TRANG SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7840
86 EDX 026-242-
008-000
974 LOS ANGELES
AVE

GEORGE CARL F & ROSEMARY VIRGINIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7840
87 EDX 026-290-
001-000
3181 HARRISON
AVE

ROSENBAUM DAVID H II TR & DAVID H II RV
TRUST

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
88 EDX 026-290-
002-000
996 LAKEVIEW
AVE

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
89 EDX 026-290-
003-000

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
90 EDX 027-010-
014-000
3291 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
91 EDX 027-010-
017-000
3311 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7927
92 EDX 027-170-
002-000
3284 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7906
93 EDX 027-170-
009-000
1030 FREMONT
AVE

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8135

208
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
94 EDX 027-170-
012-000
1050 FREMONT
AVE

ESOTERIC HOLDINGS TX LTD PTNSP SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8135
95 EDX 027-170-
015-000
3300 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7910
96 EDX 027-221-
001-000
1108 CRAIG AVE MARTINEZ JOHN L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
97 EDX 027-221-
005-000
1084 CRAIG AVE GRASTEIT CRAIG R SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8145
98 EDX 027-221-
006-000
1080 CRAIG AVE BARTOLI WIBLE PATRICIA TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8145
99 EDX 027-221-
007-000
1079 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

SILVA M LORRIE TR & JAMES E TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251
100 EDX 027-221-
008-000
1071 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

BONOTTO VINCENT CHARLES TR & PAMELA D
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251

209
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
101 EDX 027-221-
009-000
3293 DEER PARK
AVE

GIUFFRA CHARLES E TR & FAM TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
102 EDX 027-221-
034-000
1088 CRAIG AVE CRIVELLI WILLIAM H & RHONDA L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8145
103 EDX 027-221-
035-000
1095 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD

HOLDEN ERIC D SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251
104 EDX 027-221-
039-000
3301 DEER PARK
AVE

DENISON RICHARD TR & KATHLEEN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
105 EDX 027-221-
040-000
3303 DEER PARK
AVE

YARWASKY FRANK A & CAROLYN J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
106 EDX 027-221-
047-000
1100 CRAIG AVE ORR WILLIAM DAVID SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8145
107 EDX 027-222-
001-000
1071 CRAIG AVE GARCIA LUIS M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
108 EDX 027-222-
002-000
3298 DEER PARK
AVE

ROGERS JAMES E & JAMES E & WILLIS

HARRIET E TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
109 EDX 027-222-
003-000
1081 CRAIG AVE JONES ALLISON SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
110 EDX 027-222-
004-000
1085 CRAIG AVE BENTZ RUGENE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
111 EDX 027-222-
005-000
1087 CRAIG AVE BENTZ/IVERS MARGO TR & M REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
112 EDX 027-222-
007-000
1101 CRAIG AVE WAGGONER STACY TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
113 EDX 027-222-
008-000
1103 CRAIG AVE WAGGONER STACY LYNN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
114 EDX 027-222-
009-000
3295 PICKETT AVE BREWSTER STEVEN LANE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
115 EDX 027-222-
010-000
1108 JUNIPER AVE DOG BLUE PROPERTIES CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
116 EDX 027-222-
011-000
1100 JUNIPER AVE FAIRES DAVID C TR & ANN MARIE TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
117 EDX 027-222-
012-000
1096 JUNIPER AVE VOGT BRUCE L JR TR & LINDA M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
118 EDX 027-222-
013-000
1092 JUNIPER AVE FLOOD BAILEY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8118

210
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
119 EDX 027-222-
014-000
1084 JUNIPER AVE BENNIS CAROL LYNNE & TERESSA LYNNE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
120 EDX 027-222-
015-000
1082 JUNIPER AVE BROWN GEORGE DOUGLAS & CATHERINE

CARDINALE TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8118
121 EDX 027-222-
017-000
3306 DEER PARK
AVE

ROMERO DAVID A & LITTLEJOHN JOCELYN

TEN EYCK

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
122 EDX 027-222-
018-000
3302 DEER PARK
AVE

DENNEY CRAIG S TR & FRIDLAND VALERIE M
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
123 EDX 027-222-
019-000
1091 CRAIG AVE HOLMAN DIANE B & RICHARD A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
124 EDX 027-222-
020-000
1095 CRAIG AVE CLAYTON CONNLEY N & ROBIN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
125 EDX 027-231-
001-000
3282 PICKETT AVE RUSH PATRICK & CONSTANCE M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8101

211
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
126 EDX 027-231-
002-000
1120 CRAIG AVE BEBOUT ALEXANDER J JR TR & A J JR LIV REV TRUST

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
127 EDX 027-231-
003-000
1124 CRAIG AVE GILMAN PEGGY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
128 EDX 027-231-
004-000
1128 CRAIG AVE ALVARADO GILBERT G & LYNNA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
129 EDX 027-231-
005-000
1132 CRAIG AVE BLACK JAN P TR & DIANE L TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
130 EDX 027-231-
006-000
1144 CRAIG AVE CANTFIL WENDY DIANE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
131 EDX 027-231-
007-000
1148 CRAIG AVE DOHERTY HUGH TR & ANNE TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
132 EDX 027-231-
008-000
1150 CRAIG AVE WIESENFELD WILLIAM WARREN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
133 EDX 027-231-
009-000
3292 CAPE

HORN RD
SMITH JUDITH M TR & REV TRUST OF 6/28/1999 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8156
134 EDX 027-231-
011-000
3300 CAPE

HORN RD

SALLE CHARLES A & PATRICIA A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8140
135 EDX 027-231-
012-000
3302 CAPE

HORN RD

LANGFORD LAURIE & JANINE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8140
136 EDX 027-231-
038-000
3294 CAPE

HORN RD

CHIN WARREN Y & ARDEN L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8156
137 EDX 027-231-
039-000
3298 CAPE

HORN RD

MUNGUIA KIMBERLY & JOSE LUIZ SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8156
138 EDX 027-232-
001-000
1117 CRAIG AVE
1 DOBSON RHONDA R & MARK S SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
139 EDX 027-232-
002-000
1125 CRAIG AVE NG DENNIS K TR & JENNIFER C TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148
140 EDX 027-232-
005-000
1135 CRAIG AVE WILLIAMS RICHARD STANLEY JR TR & MAUREEN

MCEVOY TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
141 EDX 027-232-
006-000
1139 CRAIG AVE ROBERSON STUART & DIANA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148
142 EDX 027-232-
008-000
3305 CAPE

HORN RD

JONES WARREN A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
143 EDX 027-232-
009-000
1144 JUNIPER
AVE

HAMILTON RICHARD R TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119

212
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
144 EDX 027-232-
010-000
1142 JUNIPER
AVE

HANDSAKER-TURK MARLA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
145 EDX 027-232-
012-000
1130 JUNIPER
AVE

SPEARS TERRY R TR & LYLA K TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
146 EDX 027-232-
013-000
1122 JUNIPER
AVE

REID LAURENCE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
147 EDX 027-232-
014-000
1120 JUNIPER
AVE

CHALPIN GREGORY C TR & TRUST OF
10/20/1998

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
148 EDX 027-232-
015-000
3300 PICKETT
AVE

WILKINSON CHAD EVAN TR & KYMBERLEE

ANNETTE TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8101
149 EDX 027-232-
016-000
1116 JUNIPER
AVE

MAGRUDER DANIELLE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
150 EDX 027-232-
017-000
1143 CRAIG AVE SEN ARINDAM & BISWAS SATHI TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148

213
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/2
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
151 EDX 027-232-019-
000
1134 JUNIPER AVE HAVEN PATRICK & GILBOY CHERILYN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8119
152 EDX 027-232-020-
000
1138 JUNIPER AVE CUELLAR SERVANDO & HENDERSON

NICHOLE

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
153 EDX 027-232-023-
000
1127 CRAIG AVE ARMLIN CHARLOTTE P SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
154 EDX 027-232-024-
000
1147 CRAIG AVE TAYLOR JODIE L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
155 EDX 027-381-004-
000
3302 TREEHAVEN
CT
RUSSO HORACE & EMILY HILL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
156 EDX 027-660-001-
000
3305 TREEHAVEN
CT 1
BATKIN WILLIAM SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
157 EDX 027-660-002-
000
3305 TREEHAVEN
CT 2
BATKIN WILLIAM SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
158 EDX 027-660-005-
000

SANO D CHRISTOPHER & DONALD

CHRISTOPHER
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

214

MICHAEL R & NANCY EIMER

HAMILTON
33152 VIA MAYOR
SAN JUAN CAPISTRA CA 92675-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 911
MARYSVILLE CA 95901

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT
PO BOX 1279
HAYFORK CA 96041-1279

LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DIST
337 PLACERVILLE DR
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

KAREN D & MCMURRAY

CHRISTINA S ANDERSEN
PO BOX 928
NEWCASTLE CA 95658

LELAINE INGRAM URBAN
1011 LOS ANGELES AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

INGRAM M LEILANI
5613 DIVOT PL
LAS VEGAS NV 89130

RICHARD C STUART
2470 PALMIRA PL
SAN RAMON CA 94583

JEAN TALBURT
5662 DRAKES DR
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94505-9372

LISA A & JENNINGS CHERYL J
BONTI
3218 MAX CT
CARMICHAEL CA 95608-3776

LADONNA G HERMANT
356 OMNI DR
SPARKS NV 89441-7266

KEITH R & LENNOX LISA J

GUSTAFSON
4961 8TH AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95816

HOWARD & KAREN BERG SMITH
2408 MCGARVEY AVE
REDWOOD CITY CA 94061-1335

SOETH WILLIAM NORMAN TR &
W TAHOE TRUST 5/23/16
20809 WOODLAND CV
GARDEN RIDGE TX 78266

DE TARR DARCY SUC CO TR &

TARR MARTIN SUC CO TR
26 VICTORIA RD
BURLINGAME CA 94010-2957

JAMES R & DOUGLAS W LEWIS
33 HARVEST DR
OAKLEY CA 94561-4315

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT
7787 GREENRIDGE WAY
FAIR OAKS CA 95628

JEFFREY B OLWELL
2731 LAND PARK DR
SACRAMENTO CA 95818

DEAN C & PEGGY DENEEN
LAWRIE
102 MCDERBY CT
FOLSOM CA 95630-2256

STEVEN R & SHIRLEY A SIMONS
211 ST FRANCIS WY
RIO VISTA CA 94571

ROBERT T & JUANITA STAHMER
845 PEAR AVE
SUNNYVALE CA 94087

ERNEST E & JUDY M BRADFORD
4720 HIXON CIR
CARMICHAEL CA 95608-8024

DAVID F & CHRISTINE A
MERCER
730 EDWARDO AVE
BEN LOMOND CA 95005-9406

EARNEST IRVINE
758 CHANNING AVE
PALO ALTO CA 94301

BONTI DAVID E CO TR &

PATRICIA L CO TR
5713 ASHBROOK LN
ORANGEVALE CA 95662-5525

SUSAN M STINE
581 39TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95816-3934

GARY & IRENE WHITE
1505 PEPPERTREE CT
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95691-

EVAN & LINNARD PALMER

LUANNE PALMER
382 IRWIN ST
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-5120

CURTIS L & LYNN M WEBB
105 COBB CT
FOLSOM CA 95630
ALDINGER SALLY L TR & 2004

REV TRUST
PO BOX 1279
HAYFORK CA 96041
215

RISMO & ALFIA RICCI
RON RICCI 3604 ARDEN CREEK
SACRAMENTO CA 95864

ALBERT LAUSCHE
PO BOX 878
ROUGH AND READY CA 95975

KENNETH & DELORES H

ANDERSON
1501 SECRET RAVINE PKWY # 820
ROSEVILLE CA 95661-6008

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

DUBNER MARGUERITE TR &

SURVIVORS TRUST
4412 STRIPED MAPLE CT
CONCORD CA 94521-4329

BEACHCOMBER INN VACATION
& MEMBERSHIP ASSOC-TRUSTE
999 LAKEVIEW AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CERESKE WILLIAM H JR CO TR
& JEANETTE A CO TR
1193 S KINGFISHER WAY
BOISE ID 83709-1237

GOLDING GEORGIA M TR & FAM
TRUST OF 5/29/97
PO BOX 563
SANTA MARGARITA CA 93453

RICHARD AHL & JG FOSTER
9275 APPLE RIDGE LN
SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9623

TSAI MARGARET Y TR & TRUST
3/4/1992
43502 MODENA DR
TEMECULA CA 92592-9235

STERKEL DENNIS L TR & D L

FAM REV TRUST
1343 BERWICK DR
MORRO BAY CA 93442-1809

GAINES MARY D TR & CREDIT
TRUST 7/30/03
3502 SCHOONER DR
STOCKTON CA 95219-4566

TRENT M WALL
14868 GUADALUPE DR
RANCHO MURIETA CA 95683

DAVID & MARIA ISABEL

PHILLIPS
4146 MARSTON LANE
SANTA CLARA CA 95054

DOMINIC & MCCREADY ROBERT

A BROCATO
20430 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070-5935

STEVE A & ANNE M SMITH
PO BOX 89
MONTARA CA 94037

SERIO AMIRI
11040 BOLLINGER CANYON RD
SAN RAMON CA 94582

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

RONALD S & JACQUELINE H

WILLIAMS
2315 LUPINE TRL
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

RONALD S & JACQUELINE H

WILLIAMS
2315 LUPINE TRL
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
216

TDL ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOX 18834
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

TDL ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOX 18834
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JOHN N & JUDY A CEFALU
753 LAKEVIEW AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

JOHN N & JUDY A CEFALU
3100 NEVADA AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
16010 VALLEY VISTA BLVD
ENCINO CA 91436-3457

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

THE PRESS PROJECT CA LLC
3079 HARRISON AVE STE 12
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

OAKLAND HILLS TENNIS CLUB,
INC
5475 REDWOOD RD
OAKLAND CA 94619

DARREN COBRAE
966 MODESTO AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CALI COFFEE CA LLC
1509 WALKUP RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

AL TAHOE CO

ADDRESS UNKNOWN

ADDRESS

MARKLEY L & MCMAHON MALL

ATT DEBORAH MARY MALLATT
PO BOX 17074
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

GENASCI PATRICIA D SURV TR
& REV TRUST OF 9/24/98
973 LOS ANGELES AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

JOHN LEWIS & GAYLE WANZER
3043 HARRISON AVE APT B
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

GABRIEL & LE TRANG BENEDEK
755 MORSE ST
SAN JOSE CA 95126

CARL F & ROSEMARY VIRGINIA
GEORGE
PO BOX 1024
GRASS VALLEY CA 95945

ROSENBAUM DAVID H II TR &

DAVID H II RV TRUST
6705 GLEN SPRINGS CT
LOUISVILLE KY 40222

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC
1473 RIFLE RANGE RD
EL CERRITO CA 94530-2506

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC
1473 RIFLE RANGE RD
EL CERRITO CA 94530

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
217

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

ESOTERIC HOLDINGS TX LTD
PTNSP
PO BOX 171077
ARLINGTON TX 76003

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JOHN L MARTINEZ
486 PEAR AVE APT 102
VENTURA CA 93004

CRAIG R GRASTEIT
PO BOX 13164
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

WIBLE PATRICIA BARTOLI
42710 42ND STREET WEST
LANCASTER CA 93536

SILVA M & JAMES E LORRIE
MARCEAU 178 BAYLINE CIR
FOLSOM CA 95630-8075

VINCENT CHARLES & PAMELA D

BONOTTO
3406 TWIN OAKS DR
NAPA CA 94558-5228

GIUFFRA CHARLES E TR & FAM
TRUST
3957 E PELTIER RD
ACAMPO CA 95220-9539

WILLIAM H & RHONDA L

CRIVELLI
7160 GRANDVILLE AVE
DOS PALOS CA 93620-9473

ERIC D HOLDEN
1092 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RICHARD & KATHLEEN DENISON
PO BOX 128
DUNNIGAN CA 95937

FRANK A & CAROLYN J

YARWASKY
1229 SPRINGTIME DR
GARDNERVILLE NV 89460-9602

WILLIAM DAVID ORR
PO BOX 562907
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

LUIS M GARCIA
1071 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JAMES E & JAMES E ROGERS
2736 MISSION AVE
CARMICHAEL CA 95608

ALLISON JONES
1081 CRAIG AVENUE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RUGENE BENTZ
6343 LANDMARK RD
STOCKTON CA 95215

BENTZ/IVERS MARGO TR & M

REV TRUST
4750 LAGORIO RD
STOCKTON CA 95215-1811

STACY WAGGONER
5590 SAUNDERS AVE
LOOMIS CA 95650

STACY LYNN WAGGONER
5590 SAUNDERS AVE
LOOMIS CA 95650

STEVEN LANE BREWSTER
PO BOX 796
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

DOG BLUE PROPERTIES CA LLC
4901 PARK RD
BENICIA CA 94510

DAVID C & ANN MARIE FAIRES
2017 RICHMOND ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-0433

BRUCE L & LINDA M VOGT
403 LIGHTHOUSE AVE
PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950-2814

BAILEY FLOOD
51 CALDWELL PL APT 3
SPRINGFIELD NJ 07081

CAROL LYNNE & TERESSA

LYNNE BENNIS
1620 10TH ST
MINDEN NV 89423

GEORGE DOUGLAS & CATH

ERINE CARDINALE BROWN
PO BOX 16456
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
218

DAVID A & LITTLEJOHN J

OCELYN TEN EYCK ROMERO
3531 J ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95816-5423

CRAIG S & FRIDLAND VALERIE

M DENNEY
2760 STARR MEADOWS LOOP
RENO NV 89519-7357

DIANE B & RICHARD A HOLMAN
266 KING ST
REDWOOD CITY CA 94062-1942

CONNLEY N & ROBIN CLAYTON
PO BOX 24
EL NIDO CA 95317

PATRICK & CONSTANCE M RUSH
3909 EDGEVALE CT
FAIR OAKS CA 95628

BEBOUT ALEXANDER J JR TR &

A J JR LIV REV TRUST
1120 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

PEGGY GILMAN
6252 CHESAPEAKE CIR
STOCKTON CA 95219

GILBERT G & LYNNA

ALVARADO
668 MISTY RIDGE CIR
FOLSOM CA 95630

JAN P & DIANE L BLACK
35001 GRAPE AVE
YUCAIPA CA 92399-2937

WENDY DIANE CANTFIL
15631 SW 12TH ST
PEMBROKE PINES FL 33027-2238

HUGH & ANNE DOHERTY
PO BOX 2800
EL GRANADA CA 94018

WILLIAM WARREN WIESENFELD
1420 CURCI DR UNIT 412
SAN JOSE CA 95126-3983

SMITH JUDITH M TR & REV
TRUST OF 6/28/1999
1356 SAN CLEMENTE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95831-2866

CHARLES A & PATRICIA A SALLE
2343 MAXIMILIAN DR
CAMPBELL CA 95008-3817

LAURIE & JANINE LANGFORD
20 DUFFY CT
PLEASANT HILL CA 94523-1708

WARREN Y & ARDEN L CHIN
2723 WESTGATE AVE
SAN JOSE CA 95125-4123

KIMBERLY & JOSE LUIZ

MUNGUIA
9690 STABLEGATE RD
WILTON CA 95693-9216

RHONDA R & MARK S DOBSON
2225 MORRO DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

DENNIS K & JENNIFER C NG
752 HOLBROOK PL
SUNNYVALE CA 94087-1802

RICHARD STANLEY & MAUREEN

MCEVOY WILLIAMS
18396 PURDUE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070-4713

STUART & DIANA ROBERSON
438 CAPRI DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

WARREN A JONES
3985 MCKINLEY BLVD
SACRAMENTO CA 95819

RICHARD R HAMILTON
PO BOX 445
RIO VISTA CA 94571

MARLA HANDSAKER-TURK
1142 JUNIPER AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

TERRY R & LYLA K SPEARS
237 E GLASGOW AVE
STOCKTON CA 95210

LAURENCE A REID
11769 LAKESORE SOUTH
AUBURN CA 95602

CHALPIN GREGORY C TR &
TRUST OF 10/20/1998
4413 NORTH PARK DR
SACRAMENTO CA 95821-4301

CHAD EVAN & KYMBERLEE

ANNETTE WILKINSON
PO BOX 1684
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

DANIELLE MAGRUDER
1210 MALCOLM DIXON RD
EL DORADO HILLS CA 95762

ARINDAM & BISWAS SATHI SEN
1143 CRAIG AVENUE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
219

PATRICK & GILBOY CHERILYN
HAVEN
PO BOX 592
KENTFIELD CA 94904

SERVANDO & HENDERSON

NICHOLE CUELLAR
1702 GROVE ST #2
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117

CHARLOTTE P ARMLIN
2758 BENT TREE CT
FAIRFIELD CA 94534

JODIE L TAYLOR
1147 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

HORACE & EMILY HILL RUSSO
2994 COLTON RD
PEBBLE BEACH CA 93953-2943

WILLIAM BATKIN
3305 TREEHAVEN DR #1
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

WILLIAM BATKIN
3305 TREEHAVEN DRIVE #1
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

SANO D CHRISTOPHER
3305 TREEHAVEN DR #3
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
220
Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment - Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT 05
221
Commenter Comment Response to Comments
Edwin Bustillos (see Comment #1) The commenter objected to the B/ATCP IS/ND conclusions.

The commenter stated that amendment would
result in a flat-roof industrial building next to a
federally sanctioned highway and review
under the state and National Historic
Preservation Acts is required due to the Pony
Express Trail.

The commenter further stated that the city
was segmenting the CEQA analysis because
the impacts of the proposed facility were not
analyzed in the EIS.

Comment noted: As stated in the IS/ND under
aesthetics (5.4.3-2, page 29), US 50 is not an
officially designated state scenic highway in
the project area, though it is listed as an
eligible route. The proposed amendment
would result in the development of a project
located next to US 50; however, it will be
located south of US 50 and setback from the
highway 140 feet and will not impact Lake
Tahoe's views.

Per the Pony Express EA submitted by the
commenter, there are few historic remains of
the actual Pony Express Trail because the
solitary rides left little physical trace of their
passage. Also, the trail alignment often
changed from week to week so a precise
location has not been mapped in the Lake
Tahoe Basin. It is true that numerous historic
sites are associated with the trail, including
within the Lake Tahoe Basin. However, none
of these mapped historical sites (i.e., Friday
Station, Pony Express Rider statue, and the
Lincoln Highway/Lake Tahoe) are located in
the project area.

The city has not segmented the
environmental analysis. The IS/ND was
prepared to analyze the impacts of the
proposed Community Plan amendment to
allow additional height and lower roof pitches
for public and quasi-public facilities in the 56-
acre project area – no amendment to the list
of allowed land uses is proposed. The
analysis concluded that implementing the
design standards of the Bijou/Al Tahoe
222
Community Plan, the City Code, and the
TRPA Code for any future project would not
have a significant effect on the environment.

Nevertheless, pursuant to the CEQA
guidelines, project-level analysis would be
required for any future project within the
amendment area.

Granville Fortescue (see Comment #2) The commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments due to impacts to the
scenic shoreline and states there are better
locations for the recreation center or
buildings.

Comment noted: As stated in the IS/ND under
aesthetics (5.4.3, pages 24-33), the proposed
amendments would either have a less than
significant impact or no impact provided that
future project’s implement the design
standards of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community
Plan and the requirements of the City and
TRPA Codes.

Any future project would be required to
implement the design standards of the
B/ATCP, and be in compliance with TRPA and
City requirements to ensure no significant
impact to scenic vistas would occur as these
standards offset the potential impacts of
additional height.

The TRPA and City requirements include
preserving the maximum number of trees,
shrubs, boulders and other natural amenities
on site. Standards also require architectural
treatments that limit box forms and create
variations in elevations and facades to blend
with the natural landscape. The standards also
require the use of earthtone colors and the use
of natural and natural-appearing materials.

Moreover, due to the existing major conifers
located within the 56-acres project area south
of US 50, any proposed project would not be
allowed to extend above the forest canopy,
223
reducing the visibility of future structures from
Lake Tahoe viewpoints.

Therefore, implementation of these design
measures along with making TRPA findings for
additional height for future projects within the
amendment area would not result in a
significant impact on scenic vistas, scenic
quality, or community character when viewed
from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public
recreation areas, or the water of Lake Tahoe.

The city conducted a robust master planning
process that identified the northern portion of
56-acres project area as suitable for
development. As stated above, no significant
impacts were identified, if standards of the
B/ATCP, City Code and TRPA Code are
implemented. Moreover, a project-level
analysis would be required for any future
project within the amendment area.

Paul Thorpe (see Comment #3) The commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments. However, the
commenter did not raise any environmental
issues with the proposed amendment.

Comment noted. This comment does not
address environmental issues and does not
require a response under 14 Cal. Code Regs.
section 15204(a).

Richard Smothers (see Comment #4) Commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments IS/ND. However, the commenter
did not raise any environmental issues with
the proposed amendment.

The commenter states that Director of
Development Services, Hilary Roverud, had a
conflict of interest.

Comment noted. This comment does not
address environmental issues and does not
require a response under 14 Cal. Code Regs.
section 15204(a).

The City notes for the record that
Development Services Director Hilary
Roverud received formal advice from the Fair
Political Practices Commission and has not
224
participated in governmental decisions on this
project.

Saundra Edwards (see Comment #5) Commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments IS/ND and states that it is
deficient and does not consider impacts to the
Pony Express Trail, the Lincoln Highway, the
TRPA designated scenic corridor, or the
California State Scenic Highway.

The commenter states that Director of
Development Services Hilary Roverud, and
Councilmember Middlebrook, have a conflict
of interest.

Comment noted: Please see response to
comment number 1 regarding potential
impacts to historic resources.

As stated in the IS/ND under aesthetics
(5.4.3-2, page 29), US 50 is not an officially
designated state scenic highway in the project
area, though it is listed as an eligible route.

The IS/ND did consider the impacts on TRPA
scenic corridor (5. 4.3-5, page 30) and
concluded that the proposed amendment
would have less than significant impact on the
environment.

The comments alleging conflicts of interest do
not address environmental issues and do not
require a response under 14 Cal. Code Regs.
section 15204(a). The City notes for the
record that Development Services Director
Hilary Roverud received formal advice from
the Fair Political Practices Commission and
has not participated in governmental
decisions on this project. Additionally,
Councilmember Middlebrook confirmed with
the Fair Political Practices Commission that
his income from the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency does not create a financial conflict of
interest under the Political Reform Act,
Government Code section 82030.

TRPA (see Comment #6) TRPA staff provided comments and
suggested editorial changes for ease of
readability and clarity and requested
The B/ATCP IS/ND was edited to incorporate
TRPA suggested edits. Analysis in the
aesthetics section (5.4.3-1, pages 25-29) was
225
additional analysis for impacts on scenic
vistas.
expanded to include additional analysis on the
proposed amendments' potential impact on
existing scenic vistas. Though additional
analysis for scenic vistas was provided based
on the TRPA comments, conclusions of the
B/ATCP Draft IS/ND were not changed.
226

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
Proof of Service by Mail
(required as per SLT Municipal Code Section 6.55.640
SUBJECT: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments
ADDRESS: 56-Acres (Bounded by Rufus Allen, Lake Tahoe Blvd, and Lyon Avenue
APN: 026-50-003, -004, -005, -006

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF EL DORADO )

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE )
I am an employee of the City of South Lake Tahoe, Development Services Department.

I, John Hitchcock, served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail.

I declare, under penalty or perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on 10/3/2021 , at Service Center .
(Date) Development Service Department
Services Center
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
Signature
Attachments: 1. Legal Notice

2. Boundary Map

3. Property List
227

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code: the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on December 16, 2021 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe Airport, to consider the following
Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and Initial Study/Negative Declaration/Initial Environmental Checklist Summary: The City of South Lake Tahoe is proposing to amend the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan/Specific Plan to allow additional height up to 42 feet with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirement for public and quasi-public facilities located in the 56-acre project area (John Hitchcock, [email protected],530.542.7472) All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on the projects or may write their comments to the City Planning Division. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the application in court, you may be limited to raising only those items you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. Any written correspondences should be directed to the South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission, 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Staff reports will be available three days prior to the hearing and can be downloaded from the City of South Lake Tahoe website (https://www.cityofslt.us/84/Watch-City-CouncilPlanning-Commission-Me). For any questions, please contact the the staff planner listed above. 228
229
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 1/3
© 2015 ParcelQuest www.parcelquest.com (888) 217-8999
91 90
1334.29 ft 95
3735 36 92 93
31 88 53 94
4 4789
4643 87
45 713.03 ft 40 115567
38424139 158
32 155 48
49 3334 101405
101
106.49 ft
59 565854 100101710281221 2241.93 ft 99
60 57 109120 98 51 110119 97
621 52 111 102 118 621 123
634 103 124117
634
66 65 106 112116
113115 96 114
68 69 125 70 1213.92 ft 50 131841849
126
67 139147 127
146 128 153145
76 129 140151 55 141152
74737271 130 150144
75 131 141243 154
80 132
79 78 131331631731435
77 1272.54 ft 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2425
828384 1
17 16 15 14 13 122627
2 3
18 19 20 21 2223282930 8586
4 100 m  Map data ©2021
230
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 025-010-
007-000
1201 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD

HAMILTON MICHAEL R TR & NANCY EIMER TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8213
2 EDX 025-010-
062-000

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
3 EDX 025-010-
063-000
3030 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7810
4 EDX 025-010-
065-000
1066 LYONS AVE LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
5 EDX 025-930-
001-000
1001 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

ANDERSEN KAREN D TR & MCMURRAY

CHRISTINA S

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
6 EDX 025-930-
002-000
1011 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

URBAN LELAINE INGRAM TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
7 EDX 025-930-
003-000
1019 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

INGRAM M LEILANI SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
8 EDX 025-930-
004-000
1023 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

STUART RICHARD C ETAL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
9 EDX 025-930-
005-000
1029 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

TALBURT JEAN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
10 EDX 025-930-
006-000
1043 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

BONTI LISA A & JENNINGS CHERYL J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
11 EDX 025-930-
007-000
1053 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

HERMANT LADONNA G SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
12 EDX 025-930-
008-000
1056 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

GUSTAFSON KEITH R & LENNOX LISA J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
13 EDX 025-930-
009-000
1048 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

SMITH HOWARD & KAREN BERG SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
14 EDX 025-930-
010-000
1036 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

SOETH WILLIAM NORMAN TR & W TAHOE
TRUST 5/23/16

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
15 EDX 025-930-
011-000
1028 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

DE TARR DARCY SUC CO TR & TARR MARTIN

SUC CO TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
16 EDX 025-930-
012-000
1020 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

LEWIS JAMES R & DOUGLAS W SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
17 EDX 025-930-
013-000

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
18 EDX 025-930-
014-000
1011 TROUT CREEK
AVE

OLWELL JEFFREY B SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
19 EDX 025-930-
015-000
1019 TROUT CREEK
AVE

LAWRIE DEAN C & PEGGY DENEEN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207

231
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
20 EDX 025-930-
016-000
1023 TROUT CREEK
AVE

SIMONS STEVEN R & SHIRLEY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
21 EDX 025-930-
017-000
1029 TROUT CREEK
AVE

STAHMER ROBERT T TR & JUANITA TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
22 EDX 025-930-
018-000
1049 TROUT CREEK
AVE

BRADFORD ERNEST E TR & JUDY M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
23 EDX 025-930-
019-000
1053 TROUT CREEK
AVE

MERCER DAVID F & CHRISTINE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
24 EDX 025-930-
028-000
1065 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

IRVINE EARNEST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
25 EDX 025-930-
029-000
1069 LOS ANGELES
AVE

BONTI DAVID E CO TR & PATRICIA L CO TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8209

232
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
26 EDX 025-930-
030-000
1062 LOS

ANGELES BLVD

STINE SUSAN M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
27 EDX 025-930-
031-000
1068 LOS

ANGELES BLVD

WHITE GARY & IRENE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
28 EDX 025-930-
032-000
1059 TROUT

CREEK AVE

PALMER EVAN & LINNARD PALMER LUANNE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
29 EDX 025-930-
033-000
1065 TROUT

CREEK AVE

WEBB CURTIS L & LYNN M & MOORE JOHN J TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
30 EDX 025-930-
034-000
1069 TROUT

CREEK AVE
ALDINGER SALLY L TR & 2004 REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
31 EDX 026-040-
003-000

RICCI RISMO & ALFIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
32 EDX 026-040-
005-000

LAUSCHE ALBERT (DECD) SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
33 EDX 026-040-
006-000

ANDERSON KENNETH & DELORES H SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
34 EDX 026-040-
007-000

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
35 EDX 026-043-
009-000
985 LAKEVIEW
AVE 1

DUBNER MARGUERITE TR & SURVIVORS TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7970
36 EDX 026-043-
015-000
999 LAKEVIEW
AVE

BEACHCOMBER INN VACATION & MEMBERSHIP

ASSOC-TRUSTE

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7970
37 EDX 026-043-
017-000
981 LAKEVIEW
AVE

CERESKE WILLIAM H JR CO TR & JEANETTE A CO
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7970
38 EDX 026-046-
005-000
977 MERCED AVE GOLDING GEORGIA M TR & FAM TRUST OF
5/29/97

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7936
39 EDX 026-046-
007-000
993 MERCED AVE FOSTER RICHARD AHL TR & JG&EA RV INTRO

VIVOS TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7936
40 EDX 026-046-
008-000
3171 HARRISON
AVE
TSAI MARGARET Y TR & TRUST 3/4/1992 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
41 EDX 026-046-
009-000
989 MERCED AVE STERKEL DENNIS L TR & D L FAM REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7936
42 EDX 026-046-
010-000
981 MERCED AVE GAINES MARY D TR & CREDIT TRUST 7/30/03 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7936
43 EDX 026-046-
011-000
980 LAKEVIEW
AVE

WALL TRENT M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
44 EDX 026-046-
014-000
988 LAKEVIEW
AVE

PHILLIPS DAVID & MARIA ISABEL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968

233
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
45 EDX 026-046-
015-000
976 LAKEVIEW
AVE

BROCATO DOMINIC & MCCREADY ROBERT A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7968
46 EDX 026-046-
016-000
978 LAKEVIEW
AVE 1

SMITH STEVE A & ANNE M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7965
47 EDX 026-046-
018-000
992 LAKEVIEW
AVE

AMIRI SERIO TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
48 EDX 026-049-
001-000
968 MERCED AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7938
49 EDX 026-049-
002-000
993 SAN JOSE AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7944
50 EDX 026-050-
003-000
1170 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8210

234
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
51 EDX 026-050-004-
000
1176 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
8211
52 EDX 026-050-005-
000
3050 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD
COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7810
53 EDX 026-050-006-
000
1004 LAKEVIEW AVE COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 2555
54 EDX 026-080-001-
000
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
55 EDX 026-080-002-
000
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
56 EDX 026-083-003-
000
984 SAN JOSE AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7942
57 EDX 026-083-005-
000
3131 HARRISON AVE WILLIAMS RONALD S TR & JACQUELINE
H TR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7924
58 EDX 026-083-007-
000
3135 HARRISON AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7923
59 EDX 026-083-009-
000
972 SAN JOSE AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7942
60 EDX 026-083-010-
000
979 ALAMEDA AVE WILLIAMS RONALD S TR & JACQUELINE
H TR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7949
62 EDX 026-086-006-
000
3121 HARRISON AVE TDL ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
62 EDX 026-086-006-
000
3121 HARRISON AVE TDL ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
64 EDX 026-086-011-
000
3115 HARRISON AVE MCKEEN MICHAEL S & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
64 EDX 026-086-011-
000
3115 HARRISON AVE MCKEEN MICHAEL S & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
65 EDX 026-086-012-
000
CEFALU JOHN N & JUDY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
66 EDX 026-086-013-
000
3111 HARRISON AVE CEFALU JOHN N TR & JUDY A TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
67 EDX 026-089-006-
000
3092 RIVERSIDE AVE
3 KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7822
68 EDX 026-089-007-
000
3101 HARRISON AVE KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7929

235
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
69 EDX 026-089-009-
000
972 TALLAC AVE A KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7995
70 EDX 026-089-010-
000
3091 HARRISON AVE
97 KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7979
71 EDX 026-113-007-
000
3069 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7803
72 EDX 026-113-008-
000
981 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
73 EDX 026-113-009-
000
977 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
74 EDX 026-113-010-
000
973 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
75 EDX 026-113-011-
000
969 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838

236
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
76 EDX 026-113-
014-000
3079 HARRISON
AVE

THE PRESS PROJECT CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7976
77 EDX 026-114-
022-000
3045 HARRISON
AVE

MCKEEN MICHAEL S TR & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7926
78 EDX 026-114-
023-000
3053 HARRISON
AVE

OAKLAND HILLS TENNIS CLUB, INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7957
79 EDX 026-114-
026-000
966 MODESTO
AVE

COBRAE DARREN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7836
80 EDX 026-114-
027-000
3059 HARRISON
AVE

CALI COFFEE CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7926
81 EDX 026-200-
008-000

AL TAHOE CO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
82 EDX 026-241-
008-000
963 LOS ANGELES
AVE

MALLATT MARKLEY L & MCMAHON MALLATT

DEBORAH MARY

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7841
83 EDX 026-241-
009-000
973 LOS ANGELES
AVE

GENASCI PATRICIA D SURV TR & REV TRUST OF
9/24/98

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7841
84 EDX 026-241-
010-000
3043 HARRISON
AVE

WANZER JOHN LEWIS & GAYLE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8271
85 EDX 026-242-
007-000
970 LOS ANGELES
AVE

BENEDEK GABRIEL & LE TRANG SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7840
86 EDX 026-242-
008-000
974 LOS ANGELES
AVE

GEORGE CARL F & ROSEMARY VIRGINIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7840
87 EDX 026-290-
001-000
3181 HARRISON
AVE

ROSENBAUM DAVID H II TR & DAVID H II RV
TRUST

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
88 EDX 026-290-
002-000
996 LAKEVIEW
AVE

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
89 EDX 026-290-
003-000

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
90 EDX 027-010-
014-000
3291 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
91 EDX 027-010-
017-000
3311 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7927
92 EDX 027-170-
002-000
3284 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7906
93 EDX 027-170-
009-000
1030 FREMONT
AVE

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8135

237
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
94 EDX 027-170-
012-000
1050 FREMONT
AVE

ESOTERIC HOLDINGS TX LTD PTNSP SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8135
95 EDX 027-170-
015-000
3300 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7910
96 EDX 027-221-
001-000
1108 CRAIG AVE MARTINEZ JOHN L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
97 EDX 027-221-
005-000
1084 CRAIG AVE GRASTEIT CRAIG R SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8145
98 EDX 027-221-
006-000
1080 CRAIG AVE BARTOLI WIBLE PATRICIA TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8145
99 EDX 027-221-
007-000
1079 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

SILVA M LORRIE TR & JAMES E TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251
100 EDX 027-221-
008-000
1071 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

BONOTTO VINCENT CHARLES TR & PAMELA D
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251

238
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
101 EDX 027-221-
009-000
3293 DEER PARK
AVE

GIUFFRA CHARLES E TR & FAM TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
102 EDX 027-221-
034-000
1088 CRAIG AVE CRIVELLI WILLIAM H & RHONDA L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8145
103 EDX 027-221-
035-000
1095 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD

HOLDEN ERIC D SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251
104 EDX 027-221-
039-000
3301 DEER PARK
AVE

DENISON RICHARD TR & KATHLEEN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
105 EDX 027-221-
040-000
3303 DEER PARK
AVE

YARWASKY FRANK A & CAROLYN J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
106 EDX 027-221-
047-000
1100 CRAIG AVE ORR WILLIAM DAVID SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8145
107 EDX 027-222-
001-000
1071 CRAIG AVE GARCIA LUIS M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
108 EDX 027-222-
002-000
3298 DEER PARK
AVE

ROGERS JAMES E & JAMES E & WILLIS

HARRIET E TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
109 EDX 027-222-
003-000
1081 CRAIG AVE JONES ALLISON SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
110 EDX 027-222-
004-000
1085 CRAIG AVE BENTZ RUGENE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
111 EDX 027-222-
005-000
1087 CRAIG AVE BENTZ/IVERS MARGO TR & M REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
112 EDX 027-222-
007-000
1101 CRAIG AVE WAGGONER STACY TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
113 EDX 027-222-
008-000
1103 CRAIG AVE WAGGONER STACY LYNN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
114 EDX 027-222-
009-000
3295 PICKETT AVE BREWSTER STEVEN LANE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
115 EDX 027-222-
010-000
1108 JUNIPER AVE DOG BLUE PROPERTIES CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
116 EDX 027-222-
011-000
1100 JUNIPER AVE FAIRES DAVID C TR & ANN MARIE TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
117 EDX 027-222-
012-000
1096 JUNIPER AVE VOGT BRUCE L JR TR & LINDA M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
118 EDX 027-222-
013-000
1092 JUNIPER AVE FLOOD BAILEY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8118

239
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
119 EDX 027-222-
014-000
1084 JUNIPER AVE BENNIS CAROL LYNNE & TERESSA LYNNE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
120 EDX 027-222-
015-000
1082 JUNIPER AVE BROWN GEORGE DOUGLAS & CATHERINE

CARDINALE TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8118
121 EDX 027-222-
017-000
3306 DEER PARK
AVE

ROMERO DAVID A & LITTLEJOHN JOCELYN

TEN EYCK

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
122 EDX 027-222-
018-000
3302 DEER PARK
AVE

DENNEY CRAIG S TR & FRIDLAND VALERIE M
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
123 EDX 027-222-
019-000
1091 CRAIG AVE HOLMAN DIANE B & RICHARD A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
124 EDX 027-222-
020-000
1095 CRAIG AVE CLAYTON CONNLEY N & ROBIN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
125 EDX 027-231-
001-000
3282 PICKETT AVE RUSH PATRICK & CONSTANCE M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8101

240
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
126 EDX 027-231-
002-000
1120 CRAIG AVE BEBOUT ALEXANDER J JR TR & A J JR LIV REV TRUST

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
127 EDX 027-231-
003-000
1124 CRAIG AVE GILMAN PEGGY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
128 EDX 027-231-
004-000
1128 CRAIG AVE ALVARADO GILBERT G & LYNNA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
129 EDX 027-231-
005-000
1132 CRAIG AVE BLACK JAN P TR & DIANE L TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
130 EDX 027-231-
006-000
1144 CRAIG AVE CANTFIL WENDY DIANE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
131 EDX 027-231-
007-000
1148 CRAIG AVE DOHERTY HUGH TR & ANNE TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
132 EDX 027-231-
008-000
1150 CRAIG AVE WIESENFELD WILLIAM WARREN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
133 EDX 027-231-
009-000
3292 CAPE

HORN RD
SMITH JUDITH M TR & REV TRUST OF 6/28/1999 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8156
134 EDX 027-231-
011-000
3300 CAPE

HORN RD

SALLE CHARLES A & PATRICIA A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8140
135 EDX 027-231-
012-000
3302 CAPE

HORN RD

LANGFORD LAURIE & JANINE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8140
136 EDX 027-231-
038-000
3294 CAPE

HORN RD

CHIN WARREN Y & ARDEN L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8156
137 EDX 027-231-
039-000
3298 CAPE

HORN RD

MUNGUIA KIMBERLY & JOSE LUIZ SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8156
138 EDX 027-232-
001-000
1117 CRAIG AVE
1 DOBSON RHONDA R & MARK S SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
139 EDX 027-232-
002-000
1125 CRAIG AVE NG DENNIS K TR & JENNIFER C TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148
140 EDX 027-232-
005-000
1135 CRAIG AVE WILLIAMS RICHARD STANLEY JR TR & MAUREEN

MCEVOY TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
141 EDX 027-232-
006-000
1139 CRAIG AVE ROBERSON STUART & DIANA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148
142 EDX 027-232-
008-000
3305 CAPE

HORN RD

JONES WARREN A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
143 EDX 027-232-
009-000
1144 JUNIPER
AVE

HAMILTON RICHARD R TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119

241
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
144 EDX 027-232-
010-000
1142 JUNIPER
AVE

HANDSAKER-TURK MARLA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
145 EDX 027-232-
012-000
1130 JUNIPER
AVE

SPEARS TERRY R TR & LYLA K TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
146 EDX 027-232-
013-000
1122 JUNIPER
AVE

REID LAURENCE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
147 EDX 027-232-
014-000
1120 JUNIPER
AVE

CHALPIN GREGORY C TR & TRUST OF
10/20/1998

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
148 EDX 027-232-
015-000
3300 PICKETT
AVE

WILKINSON CHAD EVAN TR & KYMBERLEE

ANNETTE TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8101
149 EDX 027-232-
016-000
1116 JUNIPER
AVE

MAGRUDER DANIELLE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
150 EDX 027-232-
017-000
1143 CRAIG AVE SEN ARINDAM & BISWAS SATHI TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148

242
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/2
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
151 EDX 027-232-019-
000
1134 JUNIPER AVE HAVEN PATRICK & GILBOY CHERILYN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8119
152 EDX 027-232-020-
000
1138 JUNIPER AVE CUELLAR SERVANDO & HENDERSON

NICHOLE

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
153 EDX 027-232-023-
000
1127 CRAIG AVE ARMLIN CHARLOTTE P SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
154 EDX 027-232-024-
000
1147 CRAIG AVE TAYLOR JODIE L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
155 EDX 027-381-004-
000
3302 TREEHAVEN
CT
RUSSO HORACE & EMILY HILL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
156 EDX 027-660-001-
000
3305 TREEHAVEN
CT 1
BATKIN WILLIAM SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
157 EDX 027-660-002-
000
3305 TREEHAVEN
CT 2
BATKIN WILLIAM SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
158 EDX 027-660-005-
000

SANO D CHRISTOPHER & DONALD

CHRISTOPHER
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

243

MICHAEL R & NANCY EIMER

HAMILTON
33152 VIA MAYOR
SAN JUAN CAPISTRA CA 92675-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 911
MARYSVILLE CA 95901

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT
PO BOX 1279
HAYFORK CA 96041-1279

LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DIST
337 PLACERVILLE DR
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

KAREN D & MCMURRAY

CHRISTINA S ANDERSEN
PO BOX 928
NEWCASTLE CA 95658

LELAINE INGRAM URBAN
1011 LOS ANGELES AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

INGRAM M LEILANI
5613 DIVOT PL
LAS VEGAS NV 89130

RICHARD C STUART
2470 PALMIRA PL
SAN RAMON CA 94583

JEAN TALBURT
5662 DRAKES DR
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94505-9372

LISA A & JENNINGS CHERYL J
BONTI
3218 MAX CT
CARMICHAEL CA 95608-3776

LADONNA G HERMANT
356 OMNI DR
SPARKS NV 89441-7266

KEITH R & LENNOX LISA J

GUSTAFSON
4961 8TH AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95816

HOWARD & KAREN BERG SMITH
2408 MCGARVEY AVE
REDWOOD CITY CA 94061-1335

SOETH WILLIAM NORMAN TR &
W TAHOE TRUST 5/23/16
20809 WOODLAND CV
GARDEN RIDGE TX 78266

DE TARR DARCY SUC CO TR &

TARR MARTIN SUC CO TR
26 VICTORIA RD
BURLINGAME CA 94010-2957

JAMES R & DOUGLAS W LEWIS
33 HARVEST DR
OAKLEY CA 94561-4315

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT
7787 GREENRIDGE WAY
FAIR OAKS CA 95628

JEFFREY B OLWELL
2731 LAND PARK DR
SACRAMENTO CA 95818

DEAN C & PEGGY DENEEN
LAWRIE
102 MCDERBY CT
FOLSOM CA 95630-2256

STEVEN R & SHIRLEY A SIMONS
211 ST FRANCIS WY
RIO VISTA CA 94571

ROBERT T & JUANITA STAHMER
845 PEAR AVE
SUNNYVALE CA 94087

ERNEST E & JUDY M BRADFORD
4720 HIXON CIR
CARMICHAEL CA 95608-8024

DAVID F & CHRISTINE A
MERCER
730 EDWARDO AVE
BEN LOMOND CA 95005-9406

EARNEST IRVINE
758 CHANNING AVE
PALO ALTO CA 94301

BONTI DAVID E CO TR &

PATRICIA L CO TR
5713 ASHBROOK LN
ORANGEVALE CA 95662-5525

SUSAN M STINE
581 39TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95816-3934

GARY & IRENE WHITE
1505 PEPPERTREE CT
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95691-

EVAN & LINNARD PALMER

LUANNE PALMER
382 IRWIN ST
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-5120

CURTIS L & LYNN M WEBB
105 COBB CT
FOLSOM CA 95630
ALDINGER SALLY L TR & 2004

REV TRUST
PO BOX 1279
HAYFORK CA 96041
244

RISMO & ALFIA RICCI
RON RICCI 3604 ARDEN CREEK
SACRAMENTO CA 95864

ALBERT LAUSCHE
PO BOX 878
ROUGH AND READY CA 95975

KENNETH & DELORES H

ANDERSON
1501 SECRET RAVINE PKWY # 820
ROSEVILLE CA 95661-6008

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

DUBNER MARGUERITE TR &

SURVIVORS TRUST
4412 STRIPED MAPLE CT
CONCORD CA 94521-4329

BEACHCOMBER INN VACATION
& MEMBERSHIP ASSOC-TRUSTE
999 LAKEVIEW AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CERESKE WILLIAM H JR CO TR
& JEANETTE A CO TR
1193 S KINGFISHER WAY
BOISE ID 83709-1237

GOLDING GEORGIA M TR & FAM
TRUST OF 5/29/97
PO BOX 563
SANTA MARGARITA CA 93453

RICHARD AHL & JG FOSTER
9275 APPLE RIDGE LN
SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9623

TSAI MARGARET Y TR & TRUST
3/4/1992
43502 MODENA DR
TEMECULA CA 92592-9235

STERKEL DENNIS L TR & D L

FAM REV TRUST
1343 BERWICK DR
MORRO BAY CA 93442-1809

GAINES MARY D TR & CREDIT
TRUST 7/30/03
3502 SCHOONER DR
STOCKTON CA 95219-4566

TRENT M WALL
14868 GUADALUPE DR
RANCHO MURIETA CA 95683

DAVID & MARIA ISABEL

PHILLIPS
4146 MARSTON LANE
SANTA CLARA CA 95054

DOMINIC & MCCREADY ROBERT

A BROCATO
20430 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070-5935

STEVE A & ANNE M SMITH
PO BOX 89
MONTARA CA 94037

SERIO AMIRI
11040 BOLLINGER CANYON RD
SAN RAMON CA 94582

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

RONALD S & JACQUELINE H

WILLIAMS
2315 LUPINE TRL
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

RONALD S & JACQUELINE H

WILLIAMS
2315 LUPINE TRL
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
245

TDL ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOX 18834
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

TDL ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOX 18834
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JOHN N & JUDY A CEFALU
753 LAKEVIEW AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

JOHN N & JUDY A CEFALU
3100 NEVADA AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
16010 VALLEY VISTA BLVD
ENCINO CA 91436-3457

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

THE PRESS PROJECT CA LLC
3079 HARRISON AVE STE 12
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

OAKLAND HILLS TENNIS CLUB,
INC
5475 REDWOOD RD
OAKLAND CA 94619

DARREN COBRAE
966 MODESTO AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CALI COFFEE CA LLC
1509 WALKUP RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

AL TAHOE CO

ADDRESS UNKNOWN

ADDRESS

MARKLEY L & MCMAHON MALL

ATT DEBORAH MARY MALLATT
PO BOX 17074
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

GENASCI PATRICIA D SURV TR
& REV TRUST OF 9/24/98
973 LOS ANGELES AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

JOHN LEWIS & GAYLE WANZER
3043 HARRISON AVE APT B
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

GABRIEL & LE TRANG BENEDEK
755 MORSE ST
SAN JOSE CA 95126

CARL F & ROSEMARY VIRGINIA
GEORGE
PO BOX 1024
GRASS VALLEY CA 95945

ROSENBAUM DAVID H II TR &

DAVID H II RV TRUST
6705 GLEN SPRINGS CT
LOUISVILLE KY 40222

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC
1473 RIFLE RANGE RD
EL CERRITO CA 94530-2506

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC
1473 RIFLE RANGE RD
EL CERRITO CA 94530

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
246

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

ESOTERIC HOLDINGS TX LTD
PTNSP
PO BOX 171077
ARLINGTON TX 76003

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JOHN L MARTINEZ
486 PEAR AVE APT 102
VENTURA CA 93004

CRAIG R GRASTEIT
PO BOX 13164
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

WIBLE PATRICIA BARTOLI
42710 42ND STREET WEST
LANCASTER CA 93536

SILVA M & JAMES E LORRIE
MARCEAU 178 BAYLINE CIR
FOLSOM CA 95630-8075

VINCENT CHARLES & PAMELA D

BONOTTO
3406 TWIN OAKS DR
NAPA CA 94558-5228

GIUFFRA CHARLES E TR & FAM
TRUST
3957 E PELTIER RD
ACAMPO CA 95220-9539

WILLIAM H & RHONDA L

CRIVELLI
7160 GRANDVILLE AVE
DOS PALOS CA 93620-9473

ERIC D HOLDEN
1092 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RICHARD & KATHLEEN DENISON
PO BOX 128
DUNNIGAN CA 95937

FRANK A & CAROLYN J

YARWASKY
1229 SPRINGTIME DR
GARDNERVILLE NV 89460-9602

WILLIAM DAVID ORR
PO BOX 562907
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

LUIS M GARCIA
1071 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JAMES E & JAMES E ROGERS
2736 MISSION AVE
CARMICHAEL CA 95608

ALLISON JONES
1081 CRAIG AVENUE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RUGENE BENTZ
6343 LANDMARK RD
STOCKTON CA 95215

BENTZ/IVERS MARGO TR & M

REV TRUST
4750 LAGORIO RD
STOCKTON CA 95215-1811

STACY WAGGONER
5590 SAUNDERS AVE
LOOMIS CA 95650

STACY LYNN WAGGONER
5590 SAUNDERS AVE
LOOMIS CA 95650

STEVEN LANE BREWSTER
PO BOX 796
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

DOG BLUE PROPERTIES CA LLC
4901 PARK RD
BENICIA CA 94510

DAVID C & ANN MARIE FAIRES
2017 RICHMOND ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-0433

BRUCE L & LINDA M VOGT
403 LIGHTHOUSE AVE
PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950-2814

BAILEY FLOOD
51 CALDWELL PL APT 3
SPRINGFIELD NJ 07081

CAROL LYNNE & TERESSA

LYNNE BENNIS
1620 10TH ST
MINDEN NV 89423

GEORGE DOUGLAS & CATH

ERINE CARDINALE BROWN
PO BOX 16456
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
247

DAVID A & LITTLEJOHN J

OCELYN TEN EYCK ROMERO
3531 J ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95816-5423

CRAIG S & FRIDLAND VALERIE

M DENNEY
2760 STARR MEADOWS LOOP
RENO NV 89519-7357

DIANE B & RICHARD A HOLMAN
266 KING ST
REDWOOD CITY CA 94062-1942

CONNLEY N & ROBIN CLAYTON
PO BOX 24
EL NIDO CA 95317

PATRICK & CONSTANCE M RUSH
3909 EDGEVALE CT
FAIR OAKS CA 95628

BEBOUT ALEXANDER J JR TR &

A J JR LIV REV TRUST
1120 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

PEGGY GILMAN
6252 CHESAPEAKE CIR
STOCKTON CA 95219

GILBERT G & LYNNA

ALVARADO
668 MISTY RIDGE CIR
FOLSOM CA 95630

JAN P & DIANE L BLACK
35001 GRAPE AVE
YUCAIPA CA 92399-2937

WENDY DIANE CANTFIL
15631 SW 12TH ST
PEMBROKE PINES FL 33027-2238

HUGH & ANNE DOHERTY
PO BOX 2800
EL GRANADA CA 94018

WILLIAM WARREN WIESENFELD
1420 CURCI DR UNIT 412
SAN JOSE CA 95126-3983

SMITH JUDITH M TR & REV
TRUST OF 6/28/1999
1356 SAN CLEMENTE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95831-2866

CHARLES A & PATRICIA A SALLE
2343 MAXIMILIAN DR
CAMPBELL CA 95008-3817

LAURIE & JANINE LANGFORD
20 DUFFY CT
PLEASANT HILL CA 94523-1708

WARREN Y & ARDEN L CHIN
2723 WESTGATE AVE
SAN JOSE CA 95125-4123

KIMBERLY & JOSE LUIZ

MUNGUIA
9690 STABLEGATE RD
WILTON CA 95693-9216

RHONDA R & MARK S DOBSON
2225 MORRO DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

DENNIS K & JENNIFER C NG
752 HOLBROOK PL
SUNNYVALE CA 94087-1802

RICHARD STANLEY & MAUREEN

MCEVOY WILLIAMS
18396 PURDUE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070-4713

STUART & DIANA ROBERSON
438 CAPRI DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

WARREN A JONES
3985 MCKINLEY BLVD
SACRAMENTO CA 95819

RICHARD R HAMILTON
PO BOX 445
RIO VISTA CA 94571

MARLA HANDSAKER-TURK
1142 JUNIPER AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

TERRY R & LYLA K SPEARS
237 E GLASGOW AVE
STOCKTON CA 95210

LAURENCE A REID
11769 LAKESORE SOUTH
AUBURN CA 95602

CHALPIN GREGORY C TR &
TRUST OF 10/20/1998
4413 NORTH PARK DR
SACRAMENTO CA 95821-4301

CHAD EVAN & KYMBERLEE

ANNETTE WILKINSON
PO BOX 1684
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

DANIELLE MAGRUDER
1210 MALCOLM DIXON RD
EL DORADO HILLS CA 95762

ARINDAM & BISWAS SATHI SEN
1143 CRAIG AVENUE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
248

PATRICK & GILBOY CHERILYN
HAVEN
PO BOX 592
KENTFIELD CA 94904

SERVANDO & HENDERSON

NICHOLE CUELLAR
1702 GROVE ST #2
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117

CHARLOTTE P ARMLIN
2758 BENT TREE CT
FAIRFIELD CA 94534

JODIE L TAYLOR
1147 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

HORACE & EMILY HILL RUSSO
2994 COLTON RD
PEBBLE BEACH CA 93953-2943

WILLIAM BATKIN
3305 TREEHAVEN DR #1
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

WILLIAM BATKIN
3305 TREEHAVEN DRIVE #1
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

SANO D CHRISTOPHER
3305 TREEHAVEN DR #3
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
249
ATTACHMENT 08
250
Resolution 2021-18
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
December 16, 2021

RECOMMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE

BIJOU/AL TAHOE COMMUNITY PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS

BACKGROUND
A The Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan/Specific Plan was adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 1995.

B. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan may be prepared and adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.

C. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission has prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan/Specific Plan Amendments, in compliance with CEQA.

D. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission took public comments on the proposed amendment at their December 16, 2021 meeting and considered all the evidence in the record.

E. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the IS/ND at a duly noticed public hearing.

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

1. Does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the IS/ND (Exhibit 1) pursuant to CEQA, and determine that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; and

2. Does hereby recommend that the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council adopt the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan/Specific Plan Amendments (Exhibit 2). 251
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission on December 16, 2021 by the following vote:

Yes: Hibbard, Feiger, Rahbeck, Wieczorek and Williams
;ffarpt( lfibbarlf
Mason Hibbard (Dec 29, 202115:04 PST)
Mason Hibbard, Chair
Attest:
~
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Dec 29, 2021
Date:
----
The presence of electronic signature cerlifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission.

Resolution 2021-18 December 16,2021 Page 2 of 2
252
Resulution 2021-18 Bijou Al Tahoe
Final Audit Report 2021-12-29
Created: 2021-12-21
By: jo Mcdonough ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAcHsV5D5uZEwvOrNQGKsXvSW-MDmzlHBK "Resulution 2021-18 Bijou Al Tahoe" History
~ Document created by jo Mcdonough [email protected]) 2021-12-21 - 9:50:28 PM GMT- IP address: 128.92.136. 146 C. Document emailed to Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2021-12-21 - 9:51 :21 PM GMT
~o Document e-signed by Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2021-1 2-28 - 5:35:38 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128.92.136.146 C. Document emailed to Mason Hibbard ([email protected]) for signature 2021-12-28- 5:35:39 PM GMT
~ Email viewed by Mason Hibbard ([email protected]) 2021-1 2-29 - 11:03:17 PM GMT- IP address: 166.216.158.78 ~o Document e-signed by Mason Hibbard ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2021-12-29 - 11:04:47 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 166.216.158.78 0 Agreement completed.
2021-12-29-11 :04:47 PM GMT
II Adobe Sign
253

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE

DECLARTION AND INITIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of South Lake Tahoe
Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment
Prepared by Hauge Brueck Associates
December 16, 2021
254

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
SEPTEMBER 2021 B/ATCP AMENDMENT – 56 - ACRE PAGE i
 Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

1.1 INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.......................................................... 1

1.2 TIERING PROCESS..................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 PROJECT LOCATION, SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................................... 4

1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................... 6

1.6 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION..................................................................................................... 7

1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................................. 7

1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS ............................... 8

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 11

3.0 BASELINE ......................................................................................................... 17

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS........................................................... 17

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................ 18

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..................................................... 19

5.2 CEQA ENVIROMENTAL DETERMINATION ............................................................................. 20

5.3 TRPA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPELTED BY TRPA)..................... 21

5.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...................................................................... 22

5.4.1 CEQA.................................................................................................................................... 22

5.4.2 TRPA..................................................................................................................................... 22

5.4.3 AESTHETICS (CEQA), SCENIC RESOURCES/COMMUNITY DESIGN AND LIGHT AND GLARE (TRPA).......................................................................................................... 24

5.4.4 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES............................................................... 34

5.4.5 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................ 36

5.4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (STREAM ENVIRONMENT ZONES, WETLANDS, WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION) .................................................................................................... 39

5.4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES (CEQA) AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL (TRPA) ........................................................................................................................................... 45

5.4.8 ENERGY (CEQA/TRPA)....................................................................................................... 47

5.4.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS (CEQA) AND LAND (TRPA).......................................................... 49

5.4.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CEQA) AND AIR QUALITY (TRPA).......................... 54

5.4.11 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (CEQA) AND RISK OF UPSET AND HUMAN HEALTH (TRPA).............................................................................................................. 56

5.4.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.............................................................................. 60

5.4.13 LAND USE AND PLANNING.............................................................................................. 66

5.4.14 MINERAL RESOURCES (CEQA) AND NATURAL RESOURCES (TRPA)....................... 68

5.4.15 NOISE................................................................................................................................. 70

5.4.16 POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................... 73

5.4.17 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................ 76

5.4.18 RECREATION..................................................................................................................... 79

5.4.19 TRANSPORTATION (CEQA) AND TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (TRPA)..................... 81

5.4.20 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (CEQA) AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL (TRPA).................................................................................. 84

5.4.21 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (CEQA) AND UTILITIES (TRPA) .......................... 86

5.4.22 WILDFIRE (CEQA) ............................................................................................................. 90

5.4.23 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................................................. 92

5.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 96 255

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
SEPTEMBER 2021 B/ATCP AMENDMENT – 56 - ACRE PAGE ii

ATTACHMENT A - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

ATTACHMENT B - COMMENTS RECEVIED
S
256

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of South Lake Tahoe is proposing to amend the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan (B/ATCP) to allow for greater building height for public or quasi-public buildings that require flatter roofs to span large interior spaces proposed within the 56-acre area of the B/ATCP Town Center (District 4). The amendments will be considered pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances, which allows local governments to adopt conforming Community Plans that contain policies and development ordinances that are consistent with and further the goals and policies of the TRPA Regional Plan.

1.1 INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist (IS/IEC) has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of amending the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan (B/ATCP), located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California. An Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency as a basis for determining whether an EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration is required for a project under CEQA guidelines.

An Initial Environmental Checklist is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used for determining whether an EIS, a Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effect, or a Finding of No Significant Effect is required for a project under TRPA Rules of Procedure.

The IS/IEC contains a project description, description of environmental setting, identification and explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for potentially significant environmental effects, evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing, applicable land use controls, and the names of persons who prepared the study.

The IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Cal. Pub.

Res. Code §21000 et seq. The City of South Lake Tahoe is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The IEC has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Article VI of the TRPA Rules of Procedures and Chapter 3 of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances. TRPA serves as lead agency pursuant to its own regulations.

1.2 TIERING PROCESS
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program-level EIR, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. This environmental document incorporates by reference and tiers from the discussions in the 2011 General Plan EIR (the Program EIR) and concentrates on issues specific to the B/ATCP. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the Program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference.

Section 15168(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides for simplifying the preparation of environmental documents on individual parts of the program by incorporating by reference analyses and discussions that apply to the program as a whole. Where an EIR has been prepared or certified for a program or plan, the environmental review for a later activity consistent with the program or plan should be limited to effects that were not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR or that are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152[d]).
257

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2 This Initial Study is tiered from the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan EIR, in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21094. The 2011 General Plan EIR is a Program EIR that was prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The 2011 General Plan is a comprehensive land use plan that guides physical development within the City of South Lake Tahoe through 2030. The 2011 General Plan EIR analyzes full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the General Plan, and it identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse program-level and cumulative impacts associated with that growth.

This IS/IEC will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed B/ATCP amendments with respect to the 2011 General Plan EIR to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. As shown in the Determination in Section 5.2 of this document and based on the analysis contained in this IS/IEC, it has been determined that the proposed amendments would not have significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the 2011 General Plan EIR; therefore, a Negative Declaration will be prepared.

This IS/IEC concludes that potentially significant impacts are addressed by adopted policies and regulations applicable to the area, and the mitigation measures that have been adopted as part of the approval of the 2011 General Plan. These mitigation measures, to the extent they are applicable to the B/ATCP, will be incorporated into project approval. Nothing in this Initial Study in any way alters the obligations of the City to implement the General Plan mitigation measures. All future projects within the B/ATCP boundary would be subject to project-level environmental review and permitting by the City and/or TRPA, with the permitting agency determined based on the size, nature and location of the project (Section 13.7.3 of the TRPA Code).

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
The TRPA concept of "tiering" refers to the coverage of general matters in a broader EIS (Program EIS) and subsequent documents incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the document subsequently prepared. Therefore, when an EIS has been certified for a project or matter, TRPA shall limit the analysis for a later related or consistent project or matter, to effects which were not examined as significant effects in the prior EIS or which are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by revisions in the project or matter through conditions of approval or mitigation.

Tiering is limited to situations where a later project or matter is consistent with a program, plan, policy or ordinance for which an EIS was prepared, is consistent with applicable TRPA plans, and a supplemental EIS is not required.

This Initial Environmental Checklist is tiered from the TRPA 2012 RPU EIS in accordance with Section

6.12 of the TRPA Rules of Procedures. The 2012 RPU EIS is a Program EIS that was prepared pursuant to Article VI of TRPA Rules of Procedures (Environmental Impact Statements) and Chapter 3 (Environmental Documentation) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. The 2012 RPU is a comprehensive land use plan that guides physical development within the Lake Tahoe Region through 2035. The 2012 RPU EIS analyzes full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the 2012 RPU, and it identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse program-level and cumulative impacts associated with that growth. The proposed amendments are an element of the growth that was anticipated in the 2012 RPU and evaluated in the 2012 RPU EIS. By tiering from the 2012 RPU EIS, this Initial Environmental Checklist will rely on the 2012 RPU EIS for the following:
 a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas;  overall growth-related issues;
258

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3  issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the 2012 RPU EIS for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis; and  assessment of cumulative impacts.

This Initial Environmental Checklist evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to the 2012 RPU EIS to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. As shown in the Determination in Section 5.3 of this document, and based on the analysis contained in this Initial Environmental Checklist, it has been determined that the proposed project would not have significant effects on the environment. Therefore, a Finding of No Significant Effect will be prepared.

This Initial Environmental Checklist concludes that many potentially significant project impacts are addressed by the measures that have been adopted as part of the approval of the 2012 RPU. Therefore, those 2012 RPU EIS mitigation measures that are related to, and may reduce the impacts of, this project will be identified in this Initial Environmental Checklist. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the approval for this project. Nothing in this Initial Environmental Checklist in any way alters the obligations of the City or TRPA to implement the mitigation measures adopted as part of the RPU.

1.3 BACKGROUND
All of the land within the Lake Tahoe Basin falls under the jurisdiction of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. This includes land under the local jurisdiction of the City of South Lake Tahoe. In order to be responsive to the unique needs and opportunities of the Region and local communities, the TRPA Regional Plan encourages and authorizes local jurisdictions to develop and adopt individual Area Plans that provide more specific development objectives and standards that are adapted to the needs of the specified area.

Local jurisdictions are permitted to develop, adopt, and implement regulations so long as they are consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinances are the City’s primary policy documents that guide land use, transportation, infrastructure, community design, housing, environmental, and other decisions in a manner consistent with the planning statues for the State of California. The B/ATCP is designed to supplement the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by designating zoning districts and providing specific guidance for the area included within the B/ATCP boundary. The Community Plan is considered a specific plan pursuant to California State Law.

The process of amending a specific plan is provided in CA Government Code Section 65359 and generally follows the general plan amendment process outlined in Sections 65350 through 65358. This includes public hearings with public notice, and adoption by resolution or by ordinance. Specific plans may be amended as often as necessary by the local legislative body, but the amendments must be consistent with the adopted general plan for the area. TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 12 also indicates plan amendments require public hearing, and must be consistent with the Regional Plan. Amendments require findings, conformance review (conformance checklist), and threshold and compliance measure evaluations.

The 1995 B/ATCP serves as a comprehensive land use plan, consistent with the Regional Plan and General Plan at the time it was written, although it does not address all the issues identified in the current Regional and General Plans due to age, with its most recent amendments occurring in October 2020. The B/ATCP establishes the area vision and is intended to support and implement the City’s and TRPA’s goals, policies and strategies. The B/ATCP includes vision statements for land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, and public service. The Planning Statement indicates, “The area should be developed to provide regional commercial, recreational and public services for the South Shore.” The amendments apply to the B/ATCP Town Center District 4 whose vision is to:
259

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4 “Create a centralized public service district by expanding the existing El Dorado County Government Center (Al Tahoe and Johnson Boulevards). Encourage the relocation of city, county, state and federal offices to the district that will provide an anchor for the community plan. Expand recreational activities within the district and the immediate surrounding areas.”

1.4 PROJECT LOCATION, SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES
The B/ATCP functions as the central commercial hub in the South Lake Tahoe area. The boundaries of the B/ATCP generally extend from Fairway Avenue along US 50, just west of Al Tahoe Boulevard, as well as property between Johnson Boulevard and US 50, including property on Al Tahoe Boulevard terminating at the west boundary of Bijou Park and at the east boundary of Lake Tahoe Community College. District 4 of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan is a centralized public service district where a large concentration of public and institutional uses are located. These include a recreation center, campground, sheriff’s precinct, jail, middle school, ice arena, county offices, forest service offices, and the community college. Land use patterns in this area are widely varied and include commercial, governmental office, school, and recreation, although the predominant theme of businesses is retail oriented including restaurants, and a sizable area of the B/ATCP is devoted to public service uses (e.g., schools, parks, government offices). The area proposed for building height and roof pitch amendments serves as a direct recreation access point to Lake Tahoe (Lakeview Commons) along with the City and County owned facilities located south of US 50 across from Lakeview Commons. The area is served by transit, with US 50 stops near Rufus Allen Blvd (Library), San Jose Ave, and Modesto Ave (So Tahoe Visitor Center), with links to other Tahoe Transportation District routes. A bike lane and multi-use path parallel to US 50 run through the B/ATCP boundary and link to other bike lanes, bike routes, and multi-use trails in the South Shore with connections extending to Stateline, Meyers, Tahoe Keys, and Camp Richardson. The proposed amendment area is located within a portion of B/ATCP District 4 (Town Center), which is designated public service and recreation. Since the adoption of the B/ATCP, the 56-acre park area has been designated as a TRPA Regional Plan land use classification of Mixed-Use.

Figure 1-1 Scenic Corridor & Amendment Area & TRPA Regional Plan Land Use Maps 260

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
5 261

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
6 The B/ATCP was adopted by the City and TRPA in 1995 and has been amended on numerous occasions with the most recent amendments being adopted on June 24, 2020 facilitating the development of the Boys and Girls Club and on October 28, 2020 when a portion of District 1 of the B/ATCP was added to the Tourist Core Area Plan Gateway District.

1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the Community Plan amendments is to permit greater building height for public, and quasipublic, and recreation facilities buildings that require flatter roof pitches to span large interior spaces (e.g., recreation center) that are being considered as part of the 56-acre park master plan process. The objective of this action is to 1) revise the height standards in the B/ATCP District 4, specific to the 56-acre area to align with the TRPA Code section 337.5, which allows additional height for public service and recreation facilities as well as height allowances for public service facilities within District 4 (specifically on the Lake Tahoe Community College and Lake Tahoe Unified School District sites), for urban development within Area Plans and 2) encourage redevelopment in the 56-acre project area for large public or quasi-public land uses/buildings that typically require additional height and flat roofs based on their large size, and 3) bring the roof pitch requirement for all other building in the 56-acre project area into alignment with the citywide minimum roof pitch requirement of 5:12. 262

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7 1.6 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/IEC includes the standard content for environmental documents under CEQA and TRPA Code of Ordinances and Rules of Procedures. An EIR/EIS was determined to be unnecessary, as there are not potentially significant environmental effects associated with the implementation of proposed amendments to the B/ATCP. This IS/IEC is a full disclosure document, describing the plan amendments and their environmental effects in sufficient detail to aid decision-making.

Chapter 1 includes a description of the IS/IEC process, the tiering process, project background, the location of the Project and surrounding land uses, Project Objectives and Purpose and Needs Statement, the public involvement process and history, and the relationship of the B/ATCP to other land use plans, policies, and regulations.

Chapter 2 contains a description of the B/ATCP amendments, including an overview of the proposed changes to the Community Plan.

Chapter 3 provides the baseline conditions for the environmental analysis.

Chapter 4 contains the methods and assumptions used to analyze the potential environmental effects of the amendments.

Chapter 5 contains a detailed analysis of the environmental effects and necessary mitigation measures if applicable.

1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, this IS/IEC will be sent, along with a Notice of Completion, to the California State Clearinghouse. In addition, copies of this document will be distributed to other Lake Tahoe Region reviewing agencies and interested stakeholders for review. A Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and a Planning Commission hearing will be conducted to solicit comments during a 30-day public review period. After closure of the public review period, the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA staff will respond to comments. City staff will then prepare an agenda item for the City Planning Commission’s recommendation and City Council’s action that include the IS/IEC, comments on the IS/IEC, and responses to the comments. If the City Council determines that the amendments would not have significant adverse impacts, the City Council may adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impact and adopt the proposed B/ATCP amendments. Following City Council approval, a Notice of Determination would be filed with the El Dorado County recorder-clerk’s office and with the California State Clearinghouse.

Pursuant to the TRPA’s Rules of Procedure and Chapter 3 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, the agencies IEC will be made available for public review along with the project staff report at least 14 days prior to hearings held to consider the proposed amendments. TRPA staff will prepare agenda items for the TRPA Regional Plan Implementation Committee, TRPA Advisory Planning Commission’s, and TRPA Governing Board consideration. If it is determined that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project, the TRPA Governing Board may issue a Finding of No Significant Effect and adopt the amendments.
263

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
8 1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND

REGULATIONS
The B/ATCP falls under the direct jurisdiction of both The City of South Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. In addition, federal and state agencies exercise varying levels of control concerning specific parcels or resources. This section identifies each agency’s responsibility relative to the proposed amendments; it also identifies the plans and policies to which the B/ATCP must show compliance.

Regional
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is a bi-state planning agency with authority to regulate growth and development within the Lake Tahoe Region. TRPA implements that authority through a BiState Compact and the TRPA Regional Plan. The Regional Plan Goals and Policies establish an overall framework for development and environmental conservation in the Lake Tahoe Region.

In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted an updated Lake Tahoe Regional Plan. General priorities of the updated Regional Plan that apply to these amendments include:
 Accelerating water quality restoration and other threshold gains by supporting environmental beneficial redevelopment opportunities, restoration of disturbed lands and Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) investments.
 Transitioning to more permitting delegated to local governments to create one-stop-shopping for homeowner improvements in order to return TRPA to a more regional role that the Bi-State Compact originally intended.
 Creating walkable communities and increasing alternative transportation options.

Important policies addressed in the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan include:
 Retaining the established regional growth control system. Under this system, rampant overdevelopment was stopped and open spaces preserved. Most of the policies from the 1987 Regional Plan stayed in place.
 Creating a more efficient planning system that integrates TRPA requirements into the plans and permits of other applicable government agencies.
 Encouraging property owners to transfer development rights from sensitive and remote areas into Town/Regional Centers with the goal of restoring these lands.  Eliminating regulatory barriers to support upgrades and environmentally beneficial redevelopment of rundown buildings with aging infrastructure.
 Simplifying overly complicated regulations for homeowners while achieving threshold gain.  Incorporating the 2020 Linking Tahoe: Regional Transportation Plan (adopted in 2021) and the Active Transportation Plan (adopted in 2018) to support sidewalk and bike trail projects that reduce automobile dependency and increase walkability and safety.  Continuing to deliver restoration projects under the EIP which achieves erosion control on roadways and restore forests and wetlands.
264

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
9 Under the 2012 Regional Plan update, Community Plans are intended to be replaced by Area Plans; however, Chapter 12 (Community Plans) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances addresses Community Plans, their applicability, contents, and process. Specifically, Section 12.8 addresses the maintenance and modification of Community Plans, stating:
“Adopted community plans shall be reviewed by TRPA at five-year intervals to determine conformance with approved schedules of development and adequacy of programs, standards, mitigation, and monitoring. TRPA may defer approval of projects within community plans if the review indicates approved goals, targets, and requirements are not being achieved. Community plans may be modified as a result of such reviews as deemed appropriate by TRPA to achieve environmental thresholds or to otherwise improve the community plans. The procedure for modification shall be consistent with this chapter.”
Section 12.7.4 indicates modification approvals occur through review of the modification and recommendation by the TRPA Advisory Planning Commissions, followed by Governing Board review, or an alternate process (Section 12.7.5) that may better facilitate the planning process.

Regional Plan Policy LU-4.3 indicates, “Community plans have been approved for some properties in the region to refine and supersede the plan area statements. These community plans were adopted in accordance with the 1987 regional plan and shall remain in effect until superseded by area plans that are developed in accordance with and found in conformance with this regional plan. If any community plan contains provisions that contradict newer provisions of the regional plan or development code, the newer provisions of the regional plan or development code shall prevail, but only to the extent that specific provisions conflict.”
State of California
Several State agencies may play a role in development decisions within the Tahoe Region. As such, these State agencies must grant permits or other forms of permission prior to physical development. Affected agency staff will review the proposed amendments for consistency with adopted plans and policies. State agencies that may have a responsible agency role in projects that may be implemented include:

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining all state highways (e.g., US 50). The jurisdictional interest of Caltrans extends to improvements to roadways on the state highway system (including roadways designated as U.S. highways). Any federally funded transportation improvements would be subject to review by Caltrans staff and the California Transportation Commission, either on or off of the state highway system.

California Tahoe Conservancy: The mission of the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) is to protect and restore the natural environment of Lake Tahoe, including the lake’s exceptional clarity and diversity of wildlife habitat in the Region. The CTC implements a comprehensive set of programs to affirmatively address resource needs in the Tahoe Region, including the protection and restoration of the natural environment, especially water quality; enhancement of wildlife habitat; provision of public access and recreation opportunities; and management of acquired public land at Lake Tahoe.

Within the 56-Acre project area, the CTC has provided grant funding (most recently in 2020) for the City to partner with the County and the local community to complete a master plan for the areas of the 56-Acre site located south of US 50. The site includes Campground by the Lake, a recreation center, ice arena, library, and senior facilities. Future master plan facilities could include a new government center, a new recreation center, and an outdoor music amphitheater.
265

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
10 Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board: Lahontan has water quality responsibilities including the California-side of the Lake Tahoe Region. This agency establishes water quality standards, subject to the approval of the State Board, and has broader enforcement power than TRPA. By issuing waste discharge permits and requiring monitoring to show compliance, among other activities, Lahontan actively enforces attainment of standards.

Any party responsible for construction activity over one acre must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES Permit) form Lahontan to eliminate or reduce pollutants from construction related storm water discharged to surface waters, which include riparian zones.

Lahontan is also responsible for incorporating the Lake Tahoe Daily Maximum (TMDL) pollutant load reduction targets into the NPDES permit for California municipalities in the Tahoe Region. This permit regulates stormwater discharge from El Dorado County’s stormwater management infrastructure and Federal rules require that El Dorado County implement programs to control pollutant runoff. The NPDES permit issued to El Dorado County stipulates a September 30, 2020 deadline to reduce estimated 2004 baseline jurisdictional pollutant loads of fine sediment particles by 21%, total nitrogen by 14% and total phosphorus by 14%. Lahontan is expected to update the NPDES permit every five years to include additional load reduction targets. Attainment of the 2026 target, termed the Clarity Challenge, is estimated to return Lake Tahoe to an average annual transparency of 80 feet (Lahontan 2010).

The NPDES Permit requires the City to prepare an updated Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP) by March 15, 2018 detailing the approach for meeting pollutant load reduction requirements. The City Council adopted a PLRP in January 2013 that outlined the proposed strategy for meeting the first 2016 load reduction targets.

California Trustee Agencies: State agencies with trustee responsibility in the B/ATCP boundary include:

California Division of Forestry (tree removal and forest resource concerns), State Historic Preservation Officer (cultural resources), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (plant and wildlife resources), and State Lands Commission, which oversees state-owned sovereign lands (Lake Tahoe).

City of South Lake Tahoe
The City of South Lake Tahoe implements its regulatory authority through its General Plan and City Code.

The City’s 1999 General Plan adopted TRPA’s Plan Area Statements (PASs) and Community Plans to replace its previous local zoning. In the City’s 2011 General Plan update, the City adopted new land use designations for PASs located within the County’s jurisdiction but retained the PASs and Community Plans in the Lake Tahoe Region as its zoning system. The existing PASs and Community Plan will remain in effect until superseded by an adopted conforming Area Plan or amendments to existing Area Plans.

El Dorado County
El Dorado County owns 41 acres of the 56-acre project area and is participating in preparation of the 56 Acres Master Plan, a joint effort between the city and county to update the area and provide for trails, recreational and civic uses. A new recreation center and senior center are included within the plan proposals.

The 56-acre area also contains 15 acres owned by the City of South Lake Tahoe. Portions of this site were deeded to El Dorado County by D. L. Bliss in 1923 and by the Lake Valley Community Club in 1959. The City, through a cooperative lease agreement with El Dorado County, operates and manages the on-site facilities and uses for a public park, recreation, cultural, and visitor information purposes. That 50-year lease expires in 2023.
266

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of South Lake Tahoe proposes two amendments to the B/ATCP, specifically:

1. Increase allowable building height current B/ATCP building height limits are defined by Table

37.4.1 1 and Section 37.5 (Additional Height for Certain Buildings) of the TRPA Code and only permit up to 42 feet for structures with greater than 10:12 roof pitches, and on slopes of greater than 24 percent across the building site. The Code does not permit structures of 42 feet in height that have flat roofs and are located within a TRPA designated scenic highway corridor. The proposed amendment would permit building heights up to allow a maximum height of 42 feet for public, or quasi-public, or recreation facilities structures in within the 56-acre project area of District 4 with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements. if TRPA Code Section 37.7 findings 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 can be made (Code findings reprinted below). Height limits for B/ATCP areas outside of the 56-acre project area would remain unchanged.

2. Reduce minimum roof pitch requirements to 5:12 for other structures within the 56-acre project area. Eliminate minimum roof pitch for public and quasi public buildings located in the 56 acre project area current roof pitch standards require a minimum of 7:12 roof pitches in B/ATCP District 4. The proposed amendment would permit flat roofs for public or quasi public buildings within the 56 acre project area and reduce minimum roof pitch requirements to 5:12 for the rest of B/ATCP District 4 (Town Center).

The amended plan will serve as a mutual plan for the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA by providing direction for how the applicable area shall be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land use objectives. The development standards and the specific policies referenced in the amendments are the land use standards intended to administer and regulate development within the 56-acre project area of the B/ATCP (see Figure 2-1). The proposed B/ATCP amendments, shown in track changes (strike through and bold/underline font) follow the figure.

TRPA Code Section 37.7 – Findings for Additional Building Heights

37.7.1. Finding 1 - When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection

66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.

37.7.3. Finding 3 - With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.

37.7.4. Finding 4 - The function of the structure requires a greater maximum height than otherwise provided for in this chapter.

37.7.5. Finding 5 - The portion of the building that is permitted additional building height is adequately screened, as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas from which the building is frequently viewed. In determining the adequacy of screening, consideration 267

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
12 shall be given to the degree to which a combination of the following features causes the building to blend or merge with the background.

A. The horizontal distance from which the building is viewed; B. The extent of screening; and
C. Proposed exterior colors and building materials.

37.7.7. Finding 7 - The additional building height is the minimum necessary to feasibly implement the project and there are no feasible alternatives requiring less additional height.

37.7.8. Finding 8 – The maximum building height at any corner of two exterior walls of the building is not greater than 90 percent of the maximum building height. The maximum height at the corner of two exterior walls is the difference between the point of lowest natural ground elevation along an exterior wall of the building, and point at which the corner of the same exterior wall meets the roof. This standard shall not apply to an architectural feature described as a prow.

Setbacks for District 4 is regulated by the City Code Section 6.55.150, which is summarized below.

Land Use Classification Setbacks
Commercial/Public Service Front - 20 feet
Side Interior – 5 feet (less if firewall) or 15 feet
if adjoins residential land use classification
Side Street – 15 feet
Rear Interior - 5 feet (less if firewall) or 15 feet
if adjoins residential land use classification
Rear Street – 15 feet
Recreation Front – 50 feet
Side Interior – 20 feet
Side Street – 20 feet
Rear – 50 feet
Designs standards are regulated by the B/ATCP Appendix A Section Two – Public Service/Recreation Theme. The standards call for the natural forest setting to be preserved by maintaining the maximum number of trees in the project site and for the use of architectural treatments that use natural materials and colors that create visual interest variations in facades and building forms.
268
269

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
14 APPENDIX A: BIJOU/AL TAHOE COMMUNITY PLAN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES SECTION TWO – PUBLIC SERVICE/RECREATION THEME

DISTRICTS MAP AND USE MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Town Center 4
A PERMITTED USES Refer to use matrix for district uses.

B HEIGHT
Standard Refer to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 37.

Special Standard The following shall apply to:

Lake Tahoe Community College and Lake Tahoe
Unified School District properties:

Height issues for these sites shall be addressed by
TRPA on an individual project basis, and may be in
excess of Chapter 37 based on project setback,
visibility, or other design criteria.

El Dorado County and City properties located in
56-Acre project area:

For public and quasi-public owned buildings, the
maximum height permitted is 42 feet, with no
minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements,
provided TRPA makes Findings 1, Finding 3,
Finding 4, Finding 5, and Finding 7, and Finding 8
of CodeSection 37.7.

C BULK
Standard Refer to Redevelopment Design Element, Sections 1 and 2.

D COVERAGE
Standard Refer to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 30.

E SETBACKS
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Manual Section 3 of
Chapter 1 & 2.

Special Standard In addition to the City Wide Design Manual, the following shall apply to specific properties located
with the Town Center District, including:

The vacant 7.5 acre parcel north of Al Tahoe and
west of Johnson Boulevard (Adjacent to the existing
270

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
15 El Dorado County Government Center) shall
required a minimum of a 50’ setback from Johnson
Boulevard and an increased interior side yard
setback of 20’ in that area of the property adjoining
the residentially developed district.

The vacant 12 acre parcel, north of Al Tahoe and
east of Johnson Boulevard (adjacent to Bijou
Community Park) shall require a minimum of a 50’
setback from Johnson Boulevard for development.

Development on the Lake Tahoe Community College
property shall have a minimum setback of 50’ from Al
Tahoe Boulevard.

F SITE DESIGN
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Manual, Section 2,
Chapters 1 & 2
Special Standard In addition to the City Wide Design Manual, the following standards shall apply to the entire Town
Center:

1. A natural forest setting shall be preserved by
designing projects that maintain the maximum
number of trees, shrubs, boulders, and other
natural amenities at a project site. Landscaping
shall be designed to blend with the native
surroundings, including trees, shrubs, ground
covers and flowers.

2. Sidewalks shall connect all buildings within
project area.

G ARCHITECTURAL

TREATMENT
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Standards, Section 2 of Chapters 1 & 2 and City Lighting Standards.

Special Standard In addition to the City Design Standards, the following standards shall apply:

1. Buildings shall be designed with interest (no box
forms, variations in elevation, etc.) and shall
incorporate architectural features which blend
with the surrounding buildings.

2. Wood siding or natural appearing siding shall
be used on the exterior of all remodeled newly
constructed buildings.

3. Roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 75:12 and a
maximum roof pitch of 12:12. Roofs may have a
271

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
16 minimum pitch of 0:12 on public and quasipublic owned buildings within El Dorado County and City properties located in 56-Acre
project area.

4. Real stone shall be incorporated into the building
design. Manufactured stone may be used on a
project only if the applicant demonstrates the
application of the stone will appear “real.”

5. All projects shall incorporate days use amenities,
including; outdoor furniture, bicycle racks and
trash receptacles.
272

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
17 3.0 BASELINE
As specified in Section 13.3.1 of the TRPA Code, all plans, policies, and regulations in the Regional Plan and the TRPA Code shall remain in effect unless superseded by the provisions of an adopted conforming Area Plan. Thus, existing baseline conditions for the purposes of this IS/IEC reflect current environmental conditions with the updated Regional Plan, TRPA Code, City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in effect, and the existing TRPA plans (e.g., B/ATCP and adjacent area plans), maps, and ordinances also in effect.

The proposed project evaluated in this IS/IEC is the amendment of the B/ATCP. With approval, the B/ATCP amendments would become part of the TRPA Regional Plan and would amend the existing B/ATCP. The focus of the analyses herein is on the amendment of the existing plan, maps, and ordinances to reflect the revised boundaries of design standards and the potential environmental effects of implementing the amendments to the B/ATCP over its plan horizon.

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This IS/IEC was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the B/ATCP amendments using as a tool the CEQA initial study and TRPA initial environmental checklist questions, responses, and supporting narrative. The analysis tiers and incorporates by reference specific analyses contained in the following environmental review documents, as appropriate:
 TRPA, Regional Plan Update EIS, certified by the TRPA Governing Board on December 12, 2012 (RPU EIS)
 TRPA/Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO), Mobility 2035: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy EIR/EIS, certified by the TMPO Board and the TRPA Governing Board on December 12, 2012 (RTP EIR/EIS)  TRPA/Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO), 2020 Linking Tahoe: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy IS/MND/IEC/FONSE, certified by the TMPO Board and the TRPA Governing Board in April 2021 (RTP IS/IEC)  City of South Lake Tahoe, General Plan Update EIR, certified by the City Council on May 17, 2011 (City GP EIR)
These program-level environmental documents include a regional and city-wide scale analysis and a framework of mitigation measures that provide a foundation for subsequent environmental review at an community plan/area plan level. These documents serve as first-tier documents for the City and TRPA review of the proposed Amendments. To the extent that the B/ATCP is consistent with the Regional Plan and the RTP, for which the program EISs were prepared, the Amendments could be found to be “within the scope” of the program EISs.

The B/ATCP Amendments IS/IEC is also a program-level environmental document. No specific development projects are proposed at this time or analyzed herein. All future projects within the B/ATCP boundary (including the 56-acre project area) would be subject to project-level environmental review and permitting by the City of South Lake Tahoe and/or TRPA, with the permitting agency determined based on the size, nature and location of the project. Project-level environmental documents would require identification of, and mitigation for any potentially significant environmental impacts. 273

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
18 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT

ANALYSIS

1. Project title: B/ATCP Amendments

2. Lead agency name and address:

The City of South lake Tahoe is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency responsible for preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) will serve as the lead agency for the Initial Environmental Checklist/Finding of No Significant Effect (IEC/FONSE) under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.

City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
P.O. Box 5310
Stateline, Nevada 89449

3. Contact person(s) and phone number(s):

City of South Lake Tahoe: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager, (530) 542-7472, [email protected]
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Jennifer Self, Principal Planner (775) 589-5261, [email protected]

4. Project location:

The B/ATCP is located within the City of South Lake Tahoe, and the portion of the B/ATCP proposed for amendment to building height and roof pitch standards is the City and County owned 56-acre public service and recreation area located between US Highway 50 and Rufus Allen Blvd, from Lake Tahoe south to the Lake Tahoe Historical Museum and South Lake Tahoe Recreation Center shown on Figure 1-1.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

6. General Plan designation: The City’s General Plan designates the 56-acre project area land use as Recreation and TRPA’s Conceptual Land Use Map designates it as Mixed-Use (Commercial/Public Service).

7. Zoning: Commercial/Public Service

8. Description of project: Refer to Chapter 2 of this document.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:
274

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
19 Refer to Section 1.4 in Chapter 1 of this document.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Amendment of the B/ATCP requires City of South Lake Tahoe City Council and the TRPA Governing Board approval. Projects that may move forward as a result of the implementation of these amendments will undergo project-level environmental review and may also require approval by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (tree removal), California Tahoe Conservancy (funding source), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (waste discharge), El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (generators), and/or the California Department of Transportation (highway encroachment/ROW).

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
If environmental factors are checked below, there would be at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. As discussed in the IS/IEC checklist, there are no potentially significant impacts associated with the B/ATCP amendments. Applicable mitigation measures for general and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan and the RPU are incorporated into the project approval.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
None None with Mitigation
Incorporated
275

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
20 5.2 CEQA ENVIROMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
10/20/2021
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
Date
276

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
21 5.3 TRPA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPELTED

BY TRPA)
On the basis of this TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist:
a. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedures Yes No
b. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, but due to the listed mitigation measures which have been added to the project, could have no significant effect on the environment and a mitigated finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedures.

Yes No
c. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an environmental impact statement shall be prepared in accordance with this chapter and TRPA’s Rules of Procedures.

Yes No
Signature of Evaluator Date
Title of Evaluator
277

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
22 5.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following environmental analysis has been prepared using the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G:

Environmental Checklist Form to complete an Initial Study (IS). This checklist also includes analysis of environmental impacts required in the TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) found at:
http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Initial_Environmental_Checklist.pdf.

5.4.1 CEQA
CEQA requires a brief explanation for answers to the Appendix G: Environmental Checklist except "No Impact" responses that are adequately supported by noted information sources (see Table 5-1). Answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Table 5-1: CEQA Defined Levels of Impact Significance
Impact Severity Definition
No Impact A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

Less than Significant
Impact
"Less than Significant Impact" applies where the Project’s impact creates no significant impacts based on the criterion or criteria that sets the level of impact to a resource and require no mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts.

Less than Significant
Impact after Mitigation
"Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from potentially "Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

Significant Impact "Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is potentially significant, as based on the criterion or criteria that sets the level of impact to a resource. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Source: CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form 2018

5.4.2 TRPA
Article VI of the TRPA Rules of Procedures presents the rules governing the preparation and processing of environmental documents pursuant to Article VII of the Compact and Chapter 3 of the Revised TRPA Code of Ordinances.

TRPA uses an IEC, in conjunction with other available information, to determine whether an EIS will be prepared for a project or other matter. This could include preparation of an Environmental Assessment, in accordance with Section 3.4 of the TRPA revised Code, when TRPA determines that an IEC will not provide sufficient information to make the necessary findings for a project.

The IEC includes a series of questions categorized by and pertaining to resources regulated by TRPA. Each checklist item requires a checked response of “Yes,” “No,” “No, with Mitigation,” or “Data Insufficient.” A checked response of “Data Insufficient” or a determination that a project may have a significant effect on the environment (Section 3.3.2 of the TRPA Code) indicates that additional environmental review in the 278

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
23 form of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required.

The IEC form indicates that all “Yes” and “No, with Mitigation” responses require written explanations.

This IEC provides supporting narrative for all responses. Where a checked response may not be intuitive or easily understood by the reader, that response has been marked with an asterisk (*) and a brief clarifying statement supporting the rationale for the checked response is included. Based on an initial review of the Project, TRPA and City staff determined that an IEC would provide sufficient information regarding the Project to make one of the findings below. As set forth in Code Subsection 3.3.1, based on the information submitted in the IEC, and other information known to TRPA, TRPA shall make one of the following findings and take the identified action:

1. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.

2. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, but due to the listed mitigation measures which have been added to the project, could have no significant effect on the environment and a mitigated finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.

3. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an environmental impact statement shall be prepared in accordance with this Chapter and TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.

When completed, TRPA reviews the IEC to determine the adequacy and objectivity of the responses. When appropriate, TRPA consults informally with federal, state, or local agencies with jurisdiction over the project or with special expertise on applicable environmental impacts. 279
280

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
25 5.4.3-10. Include new or modified
sources of exterior lighting? (TRPA
item 7a)
X

5.4.3-11. Create new illumination
which is more substantial than other
lighting, if any, within the surrounding
area? (TRPA item 7b)
X

5.4.3-12. Cause light from exterior
sources to be cast off-site or onto
public lands? (TRPA item 7c)
X

5.4.3-13. Create new sources of glare
through the siting of the improvements
or through the use of reflective
materials? (TRPA item 7d)
X

5.4.3-1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (CEQA Ia) The B/ATCP contains scenic vistas visible from public roadways; including views to Lake Tahoe from US 50 within the 56-acre project area. The 56-acre project area is characterized by heavy forest growth to the southeast in park lands of the South Lake Tahoe recreation area (library, campground, and senior center area), and wide expansive panoramas of Lake Tahoe and surrounding mountains where US 50 closely parallels the Lake Tahoe shoreline (through Lakeview Commons park). While development and redevelopment could occur in the future without the amendments, changes are likely to be positive by improving the visual quality of the built environment consistent with the TRPA Code of Ordinances, City Design Guidelines, City Code Title 6, the standards of the B/ATCP, and the general recommendations for site planning found in the TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program (SQIP).

The portion of US 50 in the 56-acre amendment area is associated with TRPA Scenic Roadway Unit 34 (El Dorado Beach) viewsheds #1 and 2. Views from this Roadway Unit area towards the south and east consist of a heavily forested area of the South Lake Tahoe recreation area with very little understory vegetation, many recreational facilities including a campground, and some buildings and associated parking. Views from this Roadway Unit area towards the north consist of a major panorama of Lake Tahoe seen through a line of pine trees located between the highway and the lake shoreline. The 2015 2019 rating for this area included a travel route rating threshold composite score of 18 (attainment) and a scenic quality rating of 8 (attainment) for natural landscapes and 12 (attainment) for views to the Lake. Visual improvements to roadway distractions and lake views occurred between 2011 and 2015 2019 with the removal of the Alta Mira commercial building located between US 50 and Lake Tahoe, new bus shelters, landscaping along US 50, Lakeview commons improvements, and the Harrison Avenue project that reconfigured parking, sidewalks and landscaping to reduce visual clutter , and façade improvements to Hotel Azure. The 2018 Threshold Evaluation noted these beneficial improvements continue to incrementally improve scenic quality in the unit, but not sufficient to change the scenic ratings.

The project area also includes TRPA Shoreline Unit 32 (Al Tahoe), which is in attainment with a 2015 2019 threshold composite rating of 11 and scenic quality rating of 8 for shoreline views. The 2015 2018 evaluation identifies improvements to Shoreline Unit 32 from completion of shoreline components of Lakeside Commons Park, and removal of the Alta Mira commercial building and residential rebuilds behind Regan Beach. However, similar to the roadway unit, the improvements were incrementally beneficial, but not sufficient to increase the scenic ratings.
281

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
26 The project proposes the following changes to the 56-acre project area within the B/ATCP in relation to scenic resources and visual quality:
• The proposed amendment would allow a maximum height of 42 feet for public, quasi-public, or recreation facilities with the 56-acre project area of District 4 with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements. increase maximum building heights up to 42 feet for public or quasi public structures in the 56 acre project area if TRPA Code Section 37.7 findings 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 can be made.
• Reduce minimum roof pitch requirements to 5:12 for other structures within the 56-acre project area. -permit flat roofs (0:12 roof pitches) for public or quasi public buildings within the 56 acre project area and reduce minimum roof pitch requirements to 5:12 (from 7:12) for the rest of B/ATCP District 4 (Town Center).

New public service and recreation buildings are being considered for the 56-acre project area as part of the City, County and CTC master planning process that is currently in process. Current height and roof pitch requirements utilize TRPA Code Chapter 37 limits for establishing maximum building height and B/ATCP District 4 development standards for minimum roof pitch (7:12). The maximum height permitted for a building with a 7:12 roof pitch is 32.5 feet and is not adequate to accommodate public service and recreation facilities that require large footprints and high ceilings (e.g., recreation centers, gyms, performance spaces, etc.). In addition, to span a large space with a 7:12 roof pitch would likely result in a structure that not only exceeds 32.5 feet but would also exceed the maximum height permitted by TRPA of 42 feet and results in a design with “excessive roof components.

Allowing maximum building heights of up to 42 feet (with applicable findings) for flat roofed public or quasi public structures within the 56 acre project area would increase potential building height for a flat roofed structure by approximately 18 feet compared to maximum building heights using existing B/ATCP development standards (42 feet compared to 24 feet). Current height and roof pitch requirements utilize TRPA Code Chapter 37 limits for establishing maximum building height, and B/ATCP District 4 development standards for minimum roof pitch (7:12). Code Section 37.4 permits only 24 feet of building height for buildings with 0:12 (flat) roof pitches that are located on flat building sites. Maximum building heights are increased to 32.5 feet for buildings with a 7:12 roof pitch, the minimum roof pitch currently allowed in the B/ATCP for the Town Center District 4 that includes the 56 acre project area.

The City has determined that building heights of 24 feet with a 0:12 roof pitch (which does not follow B/ATCP standards) or 32.5 feet with a 7:12 roof pitch (which follows B/ATCP standards) are not adequate to accommodate public service structures that require large footprints and high ceilings (e.g., recreation centers, gyms, performance spaces, etc.). New public service and recreation buildings are being considered for the 56 acre project area as part of the City, County and CTC master planning process that is currently in process. feet of building height would not permit adequate ceiling height along exterior walls for public service/recreation uses that include large covered pools and gymnasiums. Thirty two and one half feet of building height along with 7:12 roof pitches would not allow the roof to span the necessary width (e.g., 100 to 200 feet) of public service buildings and remain below the 32.5 foot height limit (e.g., the roof by itself would be 28 feet tall to span a 100 foot wide building).

The proposed amendment to allow a maximum height of 42 feet for public, quasi-public, or recreation facilities within the 56-acre project area of District 4 with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements is to provide the same height standards for new buildings on Lake Tahoe Unified School District property and the Lake Tahoe Community College properties. Both sites, like 56-acres, are intended for larger-scale buildings to house public education programs. Requiring such buildings to have high pitched roofs results in designs with “excessive” roof components, which is contrary to TRPA’s and the City’s goals of promoting environmentally beneficial and sustainable development. 282

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
27 Public service and recreation facilities are designed with low pitched roofs appropriate for their function and sustainable design but cannot be currently approved by TRPA or City because the current B/ATCP requires a minimum roof pitch of 7:12 and a maximum height of 32.5 feet.

The minimum high roof pitch requirement would create buildings that are out of scale for its function and more intrusive on the surrounding neighborhood. This creates a negative visual impact with a larger than necessary man-made structure that dominates and obstructs views of surrounding natural elements. All of which is contrary to TRPA’s visual regulations which are intended to protect natural views and reduce the visual intrusion of man-made structures.

Higher roof pitches also result in larger interior volume than needed, which must be conditioned and maintained, resulting in increase energy consumption and operation costs, which is contrary to long term sustainability goals
The reduction in roof pitch for other structures within the 56-acres project area is to bring the roof pitch requirement into alignment with the city-wide minimum requirement of 5:12 and the City’s long-term sustainability goals.

The proposal for amending maximum building height up to 42 feet is consistent with limits in place for nearby plan areas along US 50 including the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) and Tahoe Valley Area Plan (TVAP) and height limits studied in the TRPA Regional Plan, which allows structures up to 56 feet within urban Town Centers if certain findings can be made. The proposed height standard amendment for the 56 acre project area of the B/ATCP would require TRPA height findings consistent with these other plan areas of the City. The proposal for amending roof pitches to a minimum of 0:12 (flat roof) in the 56 acre project area for public or quasi public buildings, and 5:12 elsewhere in B/ATCP District 4 (e.g., El Dorado County Government Center, LTUSD campus, LTCC) is consistent with roof pitch requirements in the TCAP and TVAP boundaries and would not impact scenic vistas or scenic quality.

The proposed B/ATCP amendment would require public or quasi-public structures of up to 42 feet in the 56-acre project area to meet height findings 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, and 8 as defined in Section 37.7 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. These findings (listed below) ensure the additional height does not extend above forest canopies, minimizes interference with existing views, particularly within the shoreline, is adequately screened from public viewpoint locations, and is the minimum building height necessary to feasibly implement the project. If the findings cannot be made, the additional height would not be permitted for future projects within the 56-acre project area. This ensures no significant impact would result from the increased height allowance proposed within the amendment area.

37.7.1 Finding 1: When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection

66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.

Proposed development within the 56-acre project area will be located within a heavily forested area south of US 50 and buildings up to 42 feet in height would remain well below the height of the forest canopy, as viewed from US 50 or Lake Tahoe. The majority of trees located within the 56-acres project area south of US 50 are primarily mature conifers in excess of 100 feet in height. Any proposed building at 42 feet in height would still be well below 66 feet, which is approximately two-thirds of the existing tree canopy, and thus when viewed from major arterials, 283

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
28 scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, the additional height would not extend above the forest canopy.

37.7.3. Finding 3: With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.

Future development proposals for the 56-acre project area will have to document how building design and placement minimize interference with existing views. Since existing views include heavily forested recreation uses to south of US 50 and open panoramas of Lake Tahoe as viewed north from US 50, future building placement must ensure that forest/landscape buffers remain between US 50 and the development south of US 50, and open panoramas are not blocked as viewed north from US 50.

37.7.4. Finding 4: The function of the structure requires a greater maximum height than otherwise provided for in this chapter.

Future development proposals will have to document how building structural requirements (e.g., gym, covered pool, recreation center, etc.) warrant a maximum building height greater than what would be provided in Code chapter 37.4.

37.7.5. Finding 5: The portion of the building that is permitted additional building height is adequately screened, as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas from which the building is frequently viewed. In determining the adequacy of screening, consideration shall be given to the degree to which a combination of the following features causes the building to blend or merge with the background: a) the horizontal distance from which the building is viewed; b) the extent of screening; and c) proposed exterior colors and building materials.

Future development proposals will have to document how buildings are adequately screened to protect existing scenic quality (e.g., lake views, landscape views, man-made features, roadway distractions, etc.) from US 50 and Lake Tahoe viewpoints.

37.7.7. Finding 7: The additional building height is the minimum necessary to feasibly implement the project and there are no feasible alternatives requiring less additional height.

Future development proposals will have to document how building structural requirements (e.g., gym, covered pool, recreation center, etc.) warrant a proposed building height that is greater than what would otherwise be provided in Code chapter 37.4.

A similar scenic analysis for the 2013 TCAP IS/IEC found that impacts from proposed TCAP Design Standards on scenic vistas were less than significant based on a 42 foot height limitation for buildings within the TCAP Gateway District. The analysis concluded that if required height findings cannot be made, the additional height allowance would not be approved, thereby avoiding a significant impact. Since this amendment proposes no other changes to the B/ATCP Design Standards other than the possibility of earning additional height (up to 42 feet) and allowing flat roofs for public or quasi-public buildings, no significant impact is anticipated. Any future proposed project would be required to implement the design standards of the B/ATCP, Implementation of the Design Standards and be in compliance with TRPA and City requirements during any future development projects would to ensure no significant impact to scenic vistas would occur as these standards offset the impacts of additional height. 284

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
29 Those requirements include preserving the maximum number of trees, shrubs, boulders and other natural amenities on site. Incorporating architectural treatments that limit box forms creates variations in elevations and facades to blend with the natural landscape. The standards also require the use of earthtone colors and the use of natural and natural-appearing materials. Moreover, due to the existing major conifers located within the 56-acres project area south of US 50, any proposed project would not extend above the forest canopy. Implementation of the theses measures for any future project that results from this amendment and making TRPA findings for additional height is not expected to result in a significant impact on scenic vistas, scenic quality, or community character when viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the water of Lake Tahoe.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-2. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (CEQA Ib) US 50 is not an officially designated state scenic highway in the project area, through it is listed as an eligible route. An eligible State highway becomes officially designated through a process in which the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated a State Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Director. Other than distant views of the ridgelines and tree canopy outside the area proposed for amendment, the area footprint does not contain other unique visual resources such as rock outcroppings, trees, or historical buildings, as the parcels have been substantially developed with public service/recreational structures and infrastructure. Therefore, the Project has no impact on state designated scenic highways.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-3. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (CEQA Ic)
As discussed above in Question 5.4.3-1, the existing visual character of a majority of the 56-acre project area consists of heavy forest growth to the southeast of US 50 in lands used for the South Lake Tahoe recreation area (library, campground, and senior center/historical museum area). The northern most corner of the 56-acre project area includes wide expansive panoramas of Lake Tahoe and surrounding mountains where US 50 closely parallels the Lake Tahoe shoreline (viewed through Lakeview Commons park). As such, the existing visual character of the 56-acre project area appears less urban than other US 50 corridors north and south of the project area, with less evidence of man modifications and fewer roadway distractions.

The existing B/ATCP includes detailed design standards that are intended to ensure that the built environment complements the natural appearing landscape while promoting recreational and public service uses in the 56-acre project area. The B/ATCP specifically regulates building form, materials and colors and includes the following: buildings shall be designed with interest and provide adequate articulation and detail to avoid a bulky box-like appearance; a unified palette of quality materials shall be used; a variety of naturalappearing materials should be used on building facades to create contrast; and colors should blend with the setting. The amendments would allow public or quasi-public buildings to be approximately 10 (with a 7:12 roof pitch) to 18 feet taller (with a flat roof) then currently permitted, but other existing B/ATCP requirements for building standards and design would remain unchanged. 285

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
30 As a result, an increase in the height and roof pitch of future public or quasi-public buildings may occur as a result of the amendments but would not result in a significant change to visual character or quality of the area for the following reasons: public or quasi-public buildings that may utilize the additional height and flat roof provision will serve recreational or public service uses that are compatible with the existing visual character and requirements to make TRPA height findings will protect visual quality in the 56-acre project located between US 50 and Lake Tahoe. Finally, changes to allowable building height will not impact existing US 50 or shoreline viewsheds due to the required findings for additional height which includes screening of the additional height or limits height to below the tree canopy when viewed from major roadways, the waters of the lake or public viewpoints, and also requires no net loss of views along a scenic travel route, among other findings.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-4. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (CEQA Id)
The 56-acre project area is currently developed with recreation and public service uses, and no changes to lighting design standards is proposed. Therefore, glare or reflectivity from a project proposed under the amended B/ATCP would not change compared to projects developed under the existing Community Plan, and will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Pursuant to the City Code Section 6.10.160 and TRPA Code Section 36.8 all lighting shall have cutoff shields, be directed downward, and shall not spray above the horizontal plane. No new impact would occur.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-5. Would the Project be visible from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail or from Lake Tahoe? (TRPA 18a)
The project area is visible from Lake Tahoe and US 50, which is not a Caltrans Officially Designated State Scenic Highway at this location, but is a TRPA scenic corridor. US 50 is a federal highway and crosses the northern section of the proposed 56-acre amendment area. US 50 is designated by TRPA as an Urban Scenic Corridor. Urban Scenic Corridors are generally urbanized where man-made development is the dominant visual feature, but development still blends with the natural environment (TRPA Code Chapter 66, Scenic Quality).

As discussed in Question 5.4.3-1, the project area includes Scenic Roadway Travel Unit #34 – El Dorado Beach. The 2015 Threshold Evaluation indicates attainment with recent improvements in the visual quality of the built environment. The detailed design standards in the B/ATCP ensure that the built environment complements the natural appearing landscape in the Tahoe Region while providing public service and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. The B/ATCP specifically regulates building form, materials and colors to avoid bulky and “box-like” appearance, to promote materials and colors that blend with the natural setting, to reduce glare and reflectivity, and preserve views of the lake, ridgelines and meadows. With application of the design standards, the overall visual quality and character of the amendment area is expected to remain high while allowing for new and relocated public service and recreational uses. Thus, implementation of the amendments will not result in adverse impacts on views from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail or from Lake Tahoe. 286

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
31 Environmental Analysis: Yes, but No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-6. Would the Project be visible from any public recreation area or TRPA designated bicycle trail? (TRPA 18b)
The 56-acre project area is visible from El Dorado Beach/Lakeview Commons, which is included as part of the 56-acre area, and from Lake Tahoe. There is also a newly constructed Class I bike trail along US Highway 50 within the project area. Visual impacts have the potential to occur to each of these recreational locations, since the 56-acre project area is visible from each; however, the following recommendations included in the TRPA Lake Tahoe Scenic Resource Evaluation (1993) would protect views from these recreational land uses:
• Existing trees should be preserved as a visual screen between structures and major public use areas. • Structures should not be permitted to exceed the height of the existing tree cover. • Development should not be permitted where tree cover is too sparse to visually absorb new structures, road cuts, and other attendant improvements. • Use of reflective materials should be restricted and use of materials which blend into the surrounding landscape encouraged.

Development within the amendment area would be consistent with the B/ATCP’s Design Standards and Chapter 66 (Scenic Quality) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances that would prohibit buildings to protrude above the forest canopy or ridgeline, include site-specific design features that minimize ground disturbance, incorporate screening, use of earth tone colors, materials and architectural style that complements the Tahoe landscape. Thus, development within the amendment area will not adversely impact views from any public recreation area or TRPA designated bicycle trails.

Environmental Analysis: Yes, but no Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-7. Would the Project block or modify an existing view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vista seen from a public road or other public area? (TRPA 18c)
As discussed above in Questions 5.4.3-1 (CEQA Checklist 1a) and 5.4.3-6 (TRPA 18b) scenic viewsheds in the 56-acre project area include wide panorama views of Lake Tahoe from US 50 and the recreational uses south of US 50.

Future development projects located north of US 50 in the El Dorado Beach/Lakeview Commons area have the potential to disrupt existing scenic vistas of Lake Tahoe as viewed from US 50 or the campground.

Scenic findings required by TRPA for additional building height would prohibit buildings in these locations to earn additional height if they were to impact scenic viewpoints, especially those within the Lake Tahoe shoreline (finding 1). For projects in other parts of the 56-acre project area, the findings would prohibit buildings to protrude above the forest canopy or ridgeline, include site-specific design features that minimize ground disturbance, incorporate screening, and require use of earth tone colors, materials and architectural style that complements the Tahoe landscape. Public and quasi-public buildings located within the 56-acre project area that request additional height and flatter roofs would be visible from US 50; 287

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
32 however, impacts to overall scenic vistas would be less than significant and would not detract from the visual experience based on protections included in the scenic findings. Thus, the B/ATCP amendments would not result in new obstructed views to and from Lake Tahoe or other scenic vistas.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-8. Would the Project be inconsistent with the height and design standards required by the applicable ordinance or Community Plan? (TRPA 18d)
The B/ATCP includes design standards with which future development in the amendment area would be required to comply. The B/ATCP Design Standards and Guidelines for District 4 (Town Center) primarily defer to the TRPA Code of Ordinances, City Zoning and Sign Ordinances, City Wide Design Manual, City Lighting Standards, and South Tahoe Redevelopment Design Element. Special standards for District 4 include an emphasis on the use of natural wood, development of a landscape boulevard theme, parking lot landscaping, and public art. Since the B/ATCP was adopted in 1995, both the City and TRPA have revised planning documents to reflect the current direction on design. The proposed amendments do not change a majority of the adopted design standards, but do propose amendment to maximum height limits and minimum roof pitch requirements within the 56-acre project area, which would apply therein only, and only for public or quasi-public buildings.

The B/ATCP amendments would apply a 42 foot maximum height allowance to the 56-acre project area for any public or quasi-public building, if the existing additional height findings can be met. The current limit is 42 feet, but can only be earned on project sites where the ground slopes at 24 percent across the building pad, and where a 12:12 roof pitch is proposed. The 42 foot maximum height limit proposed in the amendment is similar or lower to other urban land use areas within the City, including most of the Districts in the TCAP and each of the Districts along US 50 in the TVAP. As such, the proposed height allowance for public or quasi-public buildings within the 56-acre project area is consistent with height limits applied elsewhere along a majority of US 50 frontage. Combined with the other remaining design standards, and protective measures incorporated in TRPA additional height findings, the visual quality and character of the affected area would be protected; therefore, no significant impact would result from implementing the amended height and roof pitch standards within the 56-acre project area.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-9. Would the Project be inconsistent with the TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program (SQIP) or Design Review Guidelines? (TRPA 18e)
The SQIP does not include recommendations for scenic improvement to the 56-acre project area portion of US 50, since the roadway unit has been in attainment for each review period since the SQIP was prepared.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-10. Would the Project include new or modified sources of exterior lighting? (TRPA 7a) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact. 288

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
33 Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-11. Would the Project create new illumination, which is more substantial than other lighting, if any, within the surrounding area? (TRPA 7b)
See discussions and analysis and for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-12. Would the Project cause light from exterior sources to be cast off-site or onto public lands? (TRPA 7c)
See discussions and analysis for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.3-13 Would the Project create new sources of glare through the siting of the improvements or through the use of reflective materials? (TRPA 7d)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
289
290

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
35 5.4.4-1. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (CEQA IIa) The amendments do not change policies related to farmland.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.4-2. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (CEQA IIb)
The amendments do not change land use and no contracts exist within the project area.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.4-3. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resource Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resource Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (CEQA IIc)
The amendments do not change land use or zoning of forested land.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.4-4. Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (CEQA IId)
The amendments do not result in loss of forested lands or increase the possibility of forest land conversion.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact
Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.4-5. Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (CEQA IIe)
The amendments would permit increased building height for public or quasi-public buildings within the 56-acre project area which may facilitate development that would not occur without the availability of additional height. However, public service uses could be constructed on the site with or without the proposed height amendment, so the amendment does not create a new impact not addressed in previous B/ATCP environmental review.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
291
292

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
37 Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.5-2. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (CEQA IIIb)
The B/ATCP amendments would not contribute to an increase in any criterial pollutant because they only address building height and roof pitch and not land use or density.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.5-3. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (CEQA IIIc)
The B/ATCP amendments do not create new opportunities for sensitive receptors to be constructed nearby existing pollutants, nor would the amendments contribute to higher pollutant levels from future development.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.5-4. Would the Project result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (CEQA IIId)
B/ATCP amendments to height limits and roof pitch standards would not change possibility for objectionable odors.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.5-5. Would the Project result in substantial air pollutant emissions? (TRPA 2a) See analysis for Question 5.4.5-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact
Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.5-6. Would the Project result in deterioration of ambient (existing) air quality? (TRPA 2b) See analysis for Question 5.4.5-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.5-7. Would the Project result in creation of objectionable odors? (TRPA 2c) 293

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
38 See analysis for Question 5.4.5-4.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
294
295
296

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
41 5.4.6-14. A change in the natural
functioning of an old growth
ecosystem? (TRPA 4h)
X

5.4.6-15. Change in the diversity
or distribution of species, or
numbers of any species of
animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects, mammals, amphibians or
microfauna)? (TRPA 5a)
X

5.4.6-16. Reduction of the
number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals?
(TRPA 5b)
X

5.4.6-17. Introduction of new
species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals? (TRPA
5c)
X

5.4.6-18. Deterioration of
existing fish or wildlife habitat
quantity or quality? (TRPA 5d)
X

5.4.6-1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service? (CEQA IVa)
The B/ATCP amendments do not create a new physical development impact not addressed in previous B/ATCP environmental review. While the amendment allows for additional height and changes to roof pitch standards, it does not propose specific new development that threaten biological resources habitat or protection of any candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-2. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (CEQA IVb) See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
297

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
42 5.4.6-3. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (CEQA IVc)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None

5.4.6-4. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (CEQA IVd) See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-5. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (CEQA IVe) See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-6. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (CEQA IVf)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-7. Would the Project result in removal of native vegetation in excess of the area utilized for the actual development permitted by the land capability/IPES system? (TRPA 4a) See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-8. Would the Project result in removal of riparian vegetation other vegetation associated with critical wildlife habitat, either through direct removal or indirect lowering of the groundwater table? (TRPA 4b)
298

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
43 See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-9. Would the Project result in introduction of new vegetation that will require excessive fertilizer or water, or will provide a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (TRPA 4c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-10. Would the Project result in change in the diversity or distribution of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micro flora and aquatic plants)? (TRPA 4d)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-11. Would the Project result in reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? (TRPA 4e)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None

5.4.6-12. Would the Project result in removal of streambank and/or backshore vegetation, including woody vegetation such as willows? (TRPA 4f)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-13. Would the Project result in removal of any native live, dead or dying trees 30 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) within TRPA’s Conservation or Recreation land use classifications? (TRPA 4g)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
299

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
44 5.4.6-14. Would the Project result in a change in the natural functioning of an old growth ecosystem? (TRPA 4h)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-15. Would the Project result in change in the diversity or distribution of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, mammals, amphibians or microfauna)? (TRPA 5a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-16. Would the Project result in reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? (TRPA 5b)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-17. Would the Project result in introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? (TRPA 5c) See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.6-18. Would the Project result in deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat quantity or quality? (TRPA 5d)
See analysis for Question 5.4.6-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
300
301

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
46 5.4.7-1. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (CEQA Va)
The B/ATCP amendments do not create a new physical development impact not addressed in previous B/ATCP environmental review. While the amendment allows for additional height and changes to roof pitch standards, it does not propose specific new development that threaten cultural and historical resources or policies designed to protect historical resources.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.7-2. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (CEQA Vb)
See analysis for Question 5.4.7-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.7-3. Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (CEQA Vc)
See analysis for Question 5.4.7-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.7-4. Will the Project result in an alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to a significant archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building? (TRPA 20a) See analysis for Question 5.4.7-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.7-5. Is the Project located on a property with any known cultural, historical, and/or archaeological resources, including resources on TRPA or other regulatory official maps or records? (TRPA 20b) See analysis for Question 5.4.7-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.7-6. Is the Project associated with any historically significant events and/or sites or persons? (TRPA 20c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.7-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
302
303

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
48 See analysis for Question 5.4.8-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.8-3. Would the Project use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (TRPA 15a) See analysis for Question 5.4.8-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.8-4. Will the Project substantially increase the demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? (TRPA 15b)
See analysis for Question 5.4.8-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
304
305
306

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
51 5.4.9-1. Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

5.4.9-1.i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? (CEQA VIIa).

The B/ATCP amendments do not create a new physical development impact not addressed in previous B/ATCP environmental review. While the amendment allows for additional height and changes to roof pitch standards, it does not propose changes to policies designed to protect people and structures from geological resources.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-1.ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-1.iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-1.iv) Landslides?
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-2. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (CEQA VIIb) See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-3. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (CEQA VIIc)
307

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
52 See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-4. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (CEQA VIId) See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-5. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (CEQA VIIe)
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-6. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (CEQA VIIf)
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-7. Would the Project result in compaction or covering of the soil beyond the limits allowed in the land capability or Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES)? (TRPA 1a) See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-8. Will the Project result in a change in the topography or ground surface relief features of site inconsistent with the natural surrounding conditions? (TRPA 1b) See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
308

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
53 5.4.9-9. Will the Project result in unstable soil conditions during or after completion of the proposal? (TRPA 1c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-10. Will the Project result in changes in the undisturbed soil or native geologic substructures or grading in excess of 5 feet? (TRPA 1d)
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-11. Will the Project result in the continuation of or increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (TRPA 1e)
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-12. Will the Project result in changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, including natural littoral processes, which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? (TRPA 1f)
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.9-13. Will the Project result in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, backshore erosion, avalanches, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? (TRPA 1g)
See analysis for Question 5.4.9-l.i.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
309
310

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
55 Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.10-3. Would the Project result in alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (TRPA 2d) See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.10-4. Would the Project result in increased use of diesel fuel? (TRPA 2e) See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
311
312
313

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
58 5.4.11-3. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (CEQA IXc)
See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.11-4. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (CEQA IXd) See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

No hazardous waste facilities or contaminated sites are identified within the proposed B/ATCP amendment area. There are two closed GeoTracker Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup sites (one at the Beach Bear Café site and one at a former Express Gas station in the Pioneer Center west of US 50) in the vicinity of the 56-acre site, but neither were located within the publicly owned lands.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.11-5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (CEQA IXe) The B/ATCP 56-acre amendment area is not located within Lake Tahoe Airport Safety Zones as depicted in the City’s 2019 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Figure 4-4), and therefore has no potential impact on public safety.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.11-6. Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (CEQA IXf) The amendments would not alter or revise existing regulations or amend the City’s Local Emergency Operations Plan or Emergency Management Plan. The amendments would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with the City Natural Hazard Management Plan or Emergency Management Plan and therefore results in no impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
314

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
59 5.4.11-7. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (CEQA IXg) See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.11-8. Will the Project involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an accident or upset conditions? (TRPA 10a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.11-9. Will the Project involve possible interference with an emergency evacuation plan? (TRPA 10b)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.11-6 above that concludes that implementation of the B/ATCP amendments will not impact existing emergency evacuation plans.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.11-10. Will the Project result in creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? (TRPA 17a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.11-11. Will the Project result in exposure of people to potential health hazards? (TRPA 17b) See analysis for Question 5.4.10-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
315
316
317

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
62 groundwater or any alteration of
groundwater quality? (TRPA 3j)

5.4.12-16. Is the Project located
within 600 feet of a drinking water
source? (TRPA 3k)
X

5.4.12-1. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? (CEQA Xa) The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-2. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (CEQA Xb)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-3. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would (CEQA Xc):

5.4.12-3.i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-3.ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-3.iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 318

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
63 See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-3.iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-4. Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (CEQA Xd)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-5. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (CEQA Xe)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-6. Will the Project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (TRPA 3a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-7. Will the Project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff so that a 20 yr. 1 hr. storm runoff (approximately 1 inch per hour) cannot be contained on the site? (TRPA 3b)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
319

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
64 5.4.12-8. Will the Project result in alterations to the course or flow of 100-year floodwaters? (TRPA 3c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-9. Will the Project result in change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (TRPA 3d)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-10. Will the Project result in discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (TRPA 3e) See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-11. Will the Project result in alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? (TRPA 3f)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-12. Will the Project result in change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (TRPA 3g) See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-13. Will the Project result in substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (TRPA 3h)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
320

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
65 Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-14. Will the Project result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding and/or wave action from 100-year storm occurrence or seiches? (TRPA 3i) See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-15. Will the Project result in potential discharge of contaminants to the groundwater or any alteration of groundwater quality? (TRPA 3j)
See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.12-16. Is the Project located within 600 feet of a drinking water source? (TRPA 3k) See analysis for Question 5.4.12-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
321
322

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
67 the amendments would result in changes to design standards including allowable building height and minimum roof pitch. The existing building height and roof pitch standards were included in the B/ATCP to protect scenic resources, including community design as viewed from US Highway 50. Refer to Section

5.4.3 for analysis of scenic quality impacts and the determination that the proposed amendments would not alter the B/ATCP’s ability to protect scenic resources from future development within the 56-acre project area.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.13-3. Will the Project include uses which are not listed as permissible uses in the applicable Plan Area Statement, adopted Community Plan, or Master Plan? (TRPA 8a) The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, or conflict with permissible uses included in the B/ATCP. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.13-4. Will the Project expand or intensify an existing non-conforming use? (TRPA 8b) See analysis for Question 5.4.13-l.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
323
324

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
69 Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.14-3. Will the Project result in a substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (TRPA 9a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.14-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.14-4. Will the Project result in a substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? (TRPA 9b)
See analysis for Question 5.4.14-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
325
326
327

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
72 5.4.15-4. Would the Project result in increases in existing Community Noise Equivalency Levels (CNEL) beyond those permitted in the applicable Plan Area Statement, Community Plan or Master Plan? (TRPA 6a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.15-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.15-5. Would the Project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? (TRPA 6b) See analysis for Question 5.4.15-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.15-6. Will the Project result in single event noise levels greater than those set forth in the TRPA Noise Environmental Threshold? (TRPA 6c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.15-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.15-7. Will the Project result in the placement of residential or tourist accommodation uses in areas where the existing CNEL exceeds 60 dBA or is otherwise incompatible? (TRPA 6d) See analysis for Question 5.4.15-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.15-8. Will the Project result in the placement of uses that would generate an incompatible noise level in close proximity to existing residential or tourist accommodation uses? (TRPA 6e) See analysis for Question 5.4.15-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.15-9. Will the Project expose existing structures to levels of ground vibration that could result in structural damage? (TRPA 6f)
See analysis for Question 5.4.15-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
328
329
330

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
75 5.4.16-4. Will the Project include or result in the temporary or permanent displacement of residents? (TRPA 11b)
See analysis for Question 5.4.16-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.16-5. Will the Project affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? (1) Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region? (2) Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region historically or currently being rented at rates affordable by lower and very-low-income households? (TRPA 12a) See analysis for Question 5.4.16-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.16-6. Will the Project result in the loss of housing for lower-income and very-low-income households? (TRPA 12b)
See analysis for Question 5.4.16-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
331
332

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
77 5.4.17-1. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? (CEQA XVa)
The B/ATCP amendments would facilitate taller public or quasi-public building structures within the 56- acre project area. The proposed amendments would allow public or quasi-public structures of up to 42 feet within the 56-acre project area, an increase compared to the current regulations that limit height based on Table 37.4.1-1 and Section 37.5 (Additional Height for Certain Buildings) of the TRPA Code. The amendments would increase the maximum allowable building height using current regulations from 24 feet (building with a flat roof on a flat building site) to up to 42 feet. The City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department’s new ladder truck is capable of responding to fire incidents in new or redeveloped multi-story structures with the allowed additional height. Therefore, no impact is created with the change to allowable height.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.17-2. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: fire protection? (TRPA 14a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.17-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.17-3. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: police protection? (TRPA 14b)
The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to police protection and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.17-4. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: schools? (TRPA 14c)
The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to schools and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
333

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
78 5.4.17-5. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: parks or other recreational facilities? (TRPA 14d) The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to parks and recreational facilities and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact
Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.17-6. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (TRPA 14e) See analysis for Question 5.4.17-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.17-7. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in other governmental services? (TRPA 14f) See analysis for Question 5.4.17-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
334
335

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
80 than modification of building height and roof pitch standards. The amendments are proposed to permit eventual development of public or quasi-public recreational facilities that would benefit the community.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.18-2. Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (CEQA XVIb)
See analysis for Question 5.4.18-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.18-3. Will the Project create additional demand for recreation facilities? (TRPA 19a) See analysis for Question 5.4.18-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.18-4. Will the Project create additional recreation capacity? (TRPA 19b) See analysis for Question 5.4.18-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.18-5. Will the Project have the potential to create conflicts between recreation uses, either existing or proposed? (TRPA 19c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.18-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.18-6. Will the Project result in a decrease or loss of public access to any lake, waterway, or public lands? (TRPA 19d)
See analysis for Question 5.4.18-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
336
337

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
82 5.4.19-10. Increase in traffic
hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians? (TRPA
13f)
X

5.4.19-1. Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (CEQA XVIIa) The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to transportation and circulation and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-2. Would the Project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (CEQA XVIIb)
See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-3. Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (CEQA XVIIc) See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-4. Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (CEQA XVIId) See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-5. Will the Project result in generation of 100 or more new Daily Vehicle Trip Ends (DVTE)? (TRPA 13a)
See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
338

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
83 5.4.19-6. Will the Project result in changes to existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (TRPA 13b)
See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-7. Will the Project result in substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including highway, transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities? (TRPA 13c) See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-8. Will the Project result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? (TRPA 13d)
See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-9. Will the Project result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (TRPA 13e) See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.19-10. Will the Project result in increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? (TRPA 13f)
See analysis for Question 5.4.19-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
339
340

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
85 ethnic cultural values? (TRPA
20d)

5.4.20-4. Will the proposal restrict
historic or pre-historic religious or
sacred uses within the potential
impact area? (TRPA 20e)
X

5.4.20-1. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (CEQA XVIIIa)?
The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to cultural or historic resources and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.20-2. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (CEQA XVIIIb)
See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.20-3. Does the Project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (TRPA 20d)
See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.20-4. Will the Project restrict historic or pre-historic religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (TRPA 20e)
See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
341
342
343

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
88 5.4.21-3. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (CEQA XIXc) See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-4. Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (CEQA XIXd)
See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-5. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (CEQA XIXe)
See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-6. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas? (TRPA 16a) See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-7. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to communication systems? (TRPA 16b) See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-8. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional water which amount will exceed the maximum permitted capacity of the service provider? (TRPA 16c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.
344

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
89 Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-9. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional sewage treatment capacity which amount will exceed the maximum permitted capacity of the sewage treatment provider? (TRPA 16d) See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-10. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? (TRPA 16e) See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.21-11. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to solid waste and disposal? (TRPA 16f) See analysis for Question 5.4.20-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
345
346

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
91 5.4.22-1. Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (CEQA XXa)
The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to wildfire protection and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.22-2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (CEQA XXb)
See analysis for Question 5.4.22-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.22-3. Would the Project require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (CEQA XXc) See analysis for Question 5.4.22-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.22-4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (CEQA XXd)
See analysis for Question 5.4.22-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
347
348

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
93 population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California or
Nevada history or prehistory?
(TRPA 21a)

5.4.23-5. Does the Project have
the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A shortterm impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time,
while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
(TRPA 21b)
X

5.4.23-6. Does the Project have
impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the
environmental is significant?)
(TRPA 21c)
X

5.4.23-7. Does the Project have
environmental impacts which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human being, either directly or
indirectly? (TRPA 21d)
X

5.4.23-1. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (CEQA XXIa) The B/ATCP amendments would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to biological resources (aquatic, wildlife, or plant) and proposes no changes to applicable policies. No changes would occur to the B/ATCP other than modification of building height and roof pitch standards.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
349

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
94 5.4.23-2. Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (CEQA XXIb) The B/ATCP is a collection of both short- and long-term goals, policies, and measures designed to guide the development of the plan area and support the Region in attaining environmental thresholds and other important objectives. These goals, policies, and measures are inherently cumulative in nature as they are applied over a long-term basis, for the planning area as a whole, and in compliance with City and TRPA goals, policies, measures, and thresholds. The B/ATCP amendments do not propose new policies or alterations to existing policies that would be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative projects contemplated in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a) include Environmental Enhancement, Land Management Plans, TTD/TMPO projects and programs, and other development projects. These projects and programs also apply to the B/ATCP, and therefore, the proposed 56-acre amendment area. The B/ATCP amendments do not propose specific projects for which cumulative impacts could be analyzed.

The Regional Plan EIR cumulative impacts analysis applies to the amendment area regardless of the Community or Area Plan in which it is located.

Scenic Resources
As discussed in the analysis, the B/ATCP amendments would alter building height and roof pitch standards for public or quasi-public buildings within the 56-acre project area; however, the proposed changes would be highly limited and subject to TRPA’s additional height findings to ensure the scenic threshold is maintained, if not improved. The existing B/ATCP scenic protections would not be altered, and all permitted projects would still be required to meet the TRPA scenic threshold non-degradation standard.

Therefore, the B/ATCP amendments would not contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on scenic resources.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.23-3. Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (CEQA XIXc) As described above, projects permitted under the B/ATCP amendments would require project-level environmental review and would be required to comply with applicable TRPA, federal, state, and City regulations, including protections for human health and safety. The amendments only address building height and roof pitch and the potential for new impacts to humans is low. Therefore, implementation of the amendments would not create a substantial direct or indirect adverse effect on human beings.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.23-4. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California or Nevada history or prehistory? (TRPA 21a)
350

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
95 See analysis for Question 5.4.23-1.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.23-5. Does the Project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (TRPA 21b)
The B/ATCP implements the TRPA Regional Plan’s policies, ordinances, and land use controls designed specifically to achieve long-term environmental goals, and the City’s policies, ordinances, and land use controls which are also designed to achieve long-term goals and guide City development over a period of decades. The B/ATCP amendments would not alter this long-term goal, nor does it propose changes to land use or design that would be substantially different from what is currently allowed or that achieve a shortterm goal at the expense of long-range planning for the area. While short-term impacts could occur during redevelopment activities, redevelopment projects have the potential to achieve long-term goals. Since the proposed amendment area is currently developed with recreational land uses, new permanent alterations to previously undeveloped land would not occur, and redevelopment projects are anticipated to support environmental, social, and economic improvements.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.23-6. Does the Project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environmental is significant?) (TRPA 21c)
See analysis for Question 5.4.23-2.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

5.4.23-7. Does the Project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? (TRPA 21d) See analysis for Question 5.4.23-3.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
351

INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
96 5.5 REFERENCES
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 1972. (California PRC Division 2. Geology, Mine and Mining Chapter 7.5 Earthquake Fault Zoning)
Ascent. 2013. TRPA Regional Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Statement. October 24, 2013.

Stateline, Nevada.

Bailey, R.G. 1974. Land Capability Classification of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California - Nevada. U.S.

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 32 pages.

Bryant W.A., Hart E.W. 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act With Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Sacramento, California.

Drennan, Jim. 2020. Personal Communication with Fire Chief Jim Drennan, South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue. March 25, 2020.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2013. Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit – Lockwood Regional Landfill, Permit #SW214R03. https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/land-waste-solid-permitdocs/lockwood-permit-rev03.pdf.

TRPA. See Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1993. Lake Tahoe Scenic Resources Evaluation. Stateline, Nevada. _____ . 1995 (October). Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan. Stateline, Nevada _____ . 2012a (April 25). Regional Plan Update, Draft EIS. Stateline, Nevada. _____ . 2012b (October 24). Regional Plan Update Final EIS. Stateline, Nevada. _____ . 2012c (December 12). Code of Ordinances. Stateline, Nevada. _____ . 2012d (December 12) Regional Plan. Stateline, Nevada. _____ . 2012e (April). 2011 Threshold Evaluation, Draft. Stateline, Nevada. _____ . 2012f (October 24). Staff Summary to the TRPA/TMPO Governing Board and Advisory Planning Commission. Exhibit of Existing Development Statistics and Maps. Stateline, Nevada.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Soil survey of the Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada. Accessible online at:
http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed surveys/. Site accessed August, 2018. 352

ATTACHMENT A
Response to Comments
353
Commenter Comment Response to Comments
Edwin Bustillos (see Comment #1) The commenter objected to the B/ATCP IS/ND conclusions.

The commenter stated that amendment would
result in a flat-roof industrial building next to a
federally sanctioned highway and review
under the state and National Historic
Preservation Acts is required due to the Pony
Express Trail.

The commenter further stated that the city
was segmenting the CEQA analysis because
the impacts of the proposed facility were not
analyzed in the EIS.

Comment noted: As stated in the IS/ND under
aesthetics (5.4.3-2, page 29), US 50 is not an
officially designated state scenic highway in
the project area, though it is listed as an
eligible route. The proposed amendment
would result in the development of a project
located next to US 50; however, it will be
located south of US 50 and setback from the
highway 140 feet and will not impact Lake
Tahoe's views.

Per the Pony Express EA submitted by the
commenter, there are few historic remains of
the actual Pony Express Trail because the
solitary rides left little physical trace of their
passage. Also, the trail alignment often
changed from week to week so a precise
location has not been mapped in the Lake
Tahoe Basin. It is true that numerous historic
sites are associated with the trail, including
within the Lake Tahoe Basin. However, none
of these mapped historical sites (i.e., Friday
Station, Pony Express Rider statue, and the
Lincoln Highway/Lake Tahoe) are located in
the project area.

The city has not segmented the
environmental analysis. The IS/ND was
prepared to analyze the impacts of the
proposed Community Plan amendment to
allow additional height and lower roof pitches
for public and quasi-public facilities in the 56-
acre project area – no amendment to the list
of allowed land uses is proposed. The
analysis concluded that implementing the
design standards of the Bijou/Al Tahoe
354
Community Plan, the City Code, and the
TRPA Code for any future project would not
have a significant effect on the environment.

Nevertheless, pursuant to the CEQA
guidelines, project-level analysis would be
required for any future project within the
amendment area.

Granville Fortescue (see Comment #2) The commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments due to impacts to the
scenic shoreline and states there are better
locations for the recreation center or
buildings.

Comment noted: As stated in the IS/ND under
aesthetics (5.4.3, pages 24-33), the proposed
amendments would either have a less than
significant impact or no impact provided that
future project’s implement the design
standards of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community
Plan and the requirements of the City and
TRPA Codes.

Any future project would be required to
implement the design standards of the
B/ATCP, and be in compliance with TRPA and
City requirements to ensure no significant
impact to scenic vistas would occur as these
standards offset the potential impacts of
additional height.

The TRPA and City requirements include
preserving the maximum number of trees,
shrubs, boulders and other natural amenities
on site. Standards also require architectural
treatments that limit box forms and create
variations in elevations and facades to blend
with the natural landscape. The standards also
require the use of earthtone colors and the use
of natural and natural-appearing materials.

Moreover, due to the existing major conifers
located within the 56-acres project area south
of US 50, any proposed project would not be
allowed to extend above the forest canopy,
355
reducing the visibility of future structures from
Lake Tahoe viewpoints.

Therefore, implementation of these design
measures along with making TRPA findings for
additional height for future projects within the
amendment area would not result in a
significant impact on scenic vistas, scenic
quality, or community character when viewed
from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public
recreation areas, or the water of Lake Tahoe.

The city conducted a robust master planning
process that identified the northern portion of
56-acres project area as suitable for
development. As stated above, no significant
impacts were identified, if standards of the
B/ATCP, City Code and TRPA Code are
implemented. Moreover, a project-level
analysis would be required for any future
project within the amendment area.

Paul Thorpe (see Comment #3) The commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments. However, the
commenter did not raise any environmental
issues with the proposed amendment.

Comment noted. This comment does not
address environmental issues and does not
require a response under 14 Cal. Code Regs.
section 15204(a).

Richard Smothers (see Comment #4) Commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments IS/ND. However, the commenter
did not raise any environmental issues with
the proposed amendment.

The commenter states that Director of
Development Services, Hilary Roverud, had a
conflict of interest.

Comment noted. This comment does not
address environmental issues and does not
require a response under 14 Cal. Code Regs.
section 15204(a).

The City notes for the record that
Development Services Director Hilary
Roverud received formal advice from the Fair
Political Practices Commission and has not
356
participated in governmental decisions on this
project.

Saundra Edwards (see Comment #5) Commenter objects to the proposed B/ATCP amendments IS/ND and states that it is
deficient and does not consider impacts to the
Pony Express Trail, the Lincoln Highway, the
TRPA designated scenic corridor, or the
California State Scenic Highway.

The commenter states that Director of
Development Services Hilary Roverud, and
Councilmember Middlebrook, have a conflict
of interest.

Comment noted: Please see response to
comment number 1 regarding potential
impacts to historic resources.

As stated in the IS/ND under aesthetics
(5.4.3-2, page 29), US 50 is not an officially
designated state scenic highway in the project
area, though it is listed as an eligible route.

The IS/ND did consider the impacts on TRPA
scenic corridor (5. 4.3-5, page 30) and
concluded that the proposed amendment
would have less than significant impact on the
environment.

The comments alleging conflicts of interest do
not address environmental issues and do not
require a response under 14 Cal. Code Regs.
section 15204(a). The City notes for the
record that Development Services Director
Hilary Roverud received formal advice from
the Fair Political Practices Commission and
has not participated in governmental
decisions on this project. Additionally,
Councilmember Middlebrook confirmed with
the Fair Political Practices Commission that
his income from the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency does not create a financial conflict of
interest under the Political Reform Act,
Government Code section 82030.

TRPA (see Comment #6) TRPA staff provided comments and
suggested editorial changes for ease of
readability and clarity and requested
The B/ATCP IS/ND was edited to incorporate
TRPA suggested edits. Analysis in the
aesthetics section (5.4.3-1, pages 25-29) was
357
additional analysis for impacts on scenic
vistas.
expanded to include additional analysis on the
proposed amendments' potential impact on
existing scenic vistas. Though additional
analysis for scenic vistas was provided based
on the TRPA comments, conclusions of the
B/ATCP Draft IS/ND were not changed.
358

ATTACHMENT B
Comments Received
Please note: The attachments to emails have not been printed. If you would like an emailed copy of these attachments, please contact Susan Blankenship, City Clerk (530) 542-6005 or
[email protected]
359
COMMENT #1
Edwin Bustillos
360
From: Edwin Bustillos
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: California Attorney General; aaron [email protected]
Subject: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment
Date: Friday, November 19, 2021 4:01:09 PM
Attachments: Pony Express.pdf
Pony Express EA.pdf
Dear Mr. Hitchcock,
I oppose the City of South Lake Tahoe's conclusory CEQA/NEPA negative declaration to the "Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment" which is a thinly-veiled piecemeal-review of the larger 56-Acres Development Plan. This amendment would not have been proposed "but for" the planned construction of a flat-roofed "industrial building" next to a federally sanctioned (23 U.S.C. § 162(b)(1)(iv)) state scenic highway (S&H Code § 263.4) on an otherwise undeveloped bluff with spectacular and irreplaceable views of Lake Tahoe and famous historical significance requiring review under the state and National Historic Preservation Acts (54 U.S.C. §§ 300101-320303; PRC §§ 5020 et seq.):
361
Point of CEQA/NEPA's "connected actions doctrine" is to prevent government from segmenting its own actions into separate projects and thereby failing to address true scope and impact of activities that should be under consideration.

An agency impermissibly segments CEQA/NEPA review when it divides connected, cumulative, or similar actions into separate projects and thereby fails to address the true scope and impact of the activities that should be under consideration. Doctrine of segmentation prevents agencies from dividing one project into multiple individual actions each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact but which collectively have a substantial impact. Simple, conclusory statements of no impact are not enough to fulfill an agency's duty under CEQA/NEPA (C.f., Delaware Riverkeeper Network v.

F.E.R.C., 753 F.3d 1304, 1313 (2014). See also, Fund For Animals v. Hall, 448 362
F.Supp.2d 127 (2006); Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11 (1973)). "When actions will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impact upon a region and are pending concurrently before an agency, their environmental consequences must be considered together under National Environmental Policy Act" (NEPA) (quoting Hammond v. Norton, 370 F.Supp.2d 226 at 245 (2005)). An agency's CEQA decision is improper if the agency has relied on factors which the Legislature or Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.

Please add this letter and the attached Pony Express NEPA documentation to the record of this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,
Edwin Bustillos
363
COMMENT #2
Granville Fortescue
364
From: Granville Fortescue
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: Jmarchetta
Subject: CEQA Comment: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment Date: Friday, November 19, 2021 2:13:18 PM
Attachments: SHC § 262.1.pdf
SHC § 263.1.pdf
SHC § 263.4.pdf
Scenic Res 82 Roadways El Dorado.pdf
Scenic Res 82 Shoreline El Dorado Beach.pdf
Scenic Recreation Areas 36-37.pdf
Scenic Maps.pdf
SCENIC-CORRIDORS.pdf
Visual Impact on Scenic Resources.pdf
Environmental Zone.pdf
Constructing a 112-foot cell tower in a residential area is no minor project.pdf EO-13057.pdf
PRC § 21084.pdf
SouthLakeTahoe City Code -- 6.10.190 -- Scenic highway corridors.pdf SouthLakeTahoe City Code -- Chapter 6 -- Trees.pdf
SouthLakeTahoe City Code -- Chapter 6 -- National Treasure.pdf Dear Officials;
I oppose the proposed amendment to the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan, and your negative CEQA declaration. The changes are to allow the extremely controversial construction of an ugly facility on our scenic shoreline. The precise purpose of the existing zoning was to preclude the sitting of such types of facilities in this location which has invaluable and irreplaceable spectacular visual quality; there are better alternative locations for a recreation center or buildings with aberrant "barn pitch" ugly roofing. Please add this letter with all of its relevant attachments to the record.

Please don't allow anymore thoughtless development of our Scenic Corridors!
The success of prior preservation efforts to set aside these lands and scenic corridors from development is precisely the reason we are even able to have this discussion! This land has been saved on purpose and it is not yours to ruin! A line has been drawn in the sand; if we keep moving it, then we have decided to be on a bona fide slippery slope to the very nightmare a prior generation hoped to prevent. There is no good reason to put an ugly, noisy, bright indoor recreation center on the precious rim of Lake Tahoe, just as there is no good reason to spoil the scenic return drive from Heavenly Valley Ski Resort Scenic Recreation Area with a hideous 12-story Macro Cell Tower, a cyclone fence, and an industrial shack. This is America's outdoor playground. Don't ruin it. DON'T DO IT! Thanks for considering,
Granville R. Fortescue
365
COMMENT #3
Paul Thorpe
366
From: Paul Thorpe
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: CEQA Negative Declaration: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment (OPPOSE) Date: Friday, November 19, 2021 2:23:46 PM
Attachments: South-Lake-Tahoe-Lodging-Association-May-13-2021 Minutes Jerry Bindel.pdf LTVA_Lodging.pdf
SLTLA Ratfck.pdf
Rich Bodine Elimainates SLT affordable housing.pdf
Res 2020-074 Bijou Park Creek Restoration Project.pdf
RES 2018-047 Grant Augmentation-CTA 17014L.pdf
RES 2018-014 Grant-California Tahoe Conservancy-Woodbine Residential Property Acquisition.pdf RES 2017-016 Bijou Park Creek Watershed Restoration Project Area.pdf Whole Foods Scandal.pdf
025-206-006-100 ELDCO Recorder.pdf
025-206-006-100 HPI.pdf
CIV § 1213.pdf
CIV § 2934.pdf
GOV § 27233.pdf
GOV § 27297.7.pdf
GOV § 81002.pdf
GOV § 81008.pdf
GOV § 87206.pdf
GOV § 91000.pdf
To whom it may concern regarding CEQA Negative Declaration: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment:

PLEASE ADD THIS OPPOSITION TO "NEGATIVE CEQA DECLARATION" TO THE RECORD.

Don't let the South Lake Tahoe Lodging Association—a historically criminal enterprise—destroy the irreplaceable lake view campground above El Dorado Beach. The location and sitting of the recreation center is not about the public good, it is about a bunch of unscrupulous business owners fooling the public into destroying their own outdoor commons to advance an indoor tourism amenity. 367
Read the attachments. We just fired filthy dishonest Timeshare Proponent Tom Davis from our City Council after his unconscionable raping and pillaging of the City treasury on behalf of the lodging industry which literally left our streets crumbling—just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Now this snake is slithering backin to help himself and his cronies to the public spoils, using the Boys and Girls Club as a thinly veiled political shield to unnecessarily decimate the scenic corridor. The SLT Lodging Association has openly discussed how tourism "aquatics centers" can't make money, so they want us to build their indoor waterpark for them! This is corporate socialism: getting the public to pay for entertainment venues, so that private hucksters can make lucrative profits.

We need to restore our open spaces to their natural state, not destroy them! Paul Thrope
368
COMMENT #4
Richard Smothers
369
370
which is a huge problem because they're double-dipping by writing and implementing the 56-Acres master plan!!!:

There are thousands of non-conflicting architecture and planning firms nationwide that could have done the same work for the City, other than the very firm of which Eric was a partner. Not only should she have recused herself from 56-Acres involvement, but the Manager should have never allowed any sort of contract between the City and her husband's firm which is illicit self-dealing (G.C. § 1090).

Hilary Roverud also failed to disclose that her husband Eric is working on the massive underground coliseum at Stateline, which goes by the euphemism "Events Center" and is not in any way an orchestra & chamber music hall as the LTVA publicly promised. Roverud should have recused herself of any involvement in Stateline redevelopment—such as staff recommendations for the February loop road vote—as she is materially invested in helping that outcome as well.

One last disqualifying reason that she should not have ever participated in 56-Acres development is that she shares the same material financial conflict of interest issue with John Friedrich:
371
372
373
In the Ninth Circuit, for First Amendment purposes, whether a statute is content neutral or content based is something that can be determined on the face of it; if the statute describes speech by content, then it is content based (Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Appelsmith, 945 F.Supp.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 2013), reversed and remanded 810 F.3d 638, rehearing en banc granted 842 F.3d 1092, on rehearing en banc 861 F.3d 839).

A restriction on speech that is content-based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government's benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of animus toward the ideas contained in the regulated speech; an innocuous justification cannot transform a facially content-based law into one that is content neutral (Taking Offense v.

State, 66 Cal.App.5th 696 (2021)).

Under California law, city ordinance making it a misdemeanor for members of the public who speak at city council meetings to engage in disorderly, insolent, or disruptive behavior allowed the city to prohibit non-disruptive speech that was subjectively “impertinent,” “insolent,” or essentially offensive, and therefore the ordinance was facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment; only the words “disorderly” and “disruptive” were qualifiers that referred to actual disruption of the city proceedings, and the third qualifier merely prohibited “insolent” behavior, and that type of expressive activity could, and often likely would, fall well below the level of behavior that actually disturbed or impeded a city council meeting (Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2013)).

Government may regulate time, place and manner of speech, but time, place and manner regulations may not be based upon either content or subject matter of speech; thus, when time, place and manner regulation is found to be facially content-based, government has burden of proving restriction is justified without reference to content of regulated speech (City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc., 31 Cal.App.4th 32 (1994)).

In order for a content-based restriction on speech to satisfy the “least restrictive alternative” requirement of strict scrutiny, the law (1) must advance the government interest, (2) must not be overinclusive, meaning the law may not restrict speech that does not implicate the government interest, and (3) may not be underinclusive, meaning it fails to restrict a significant amount of speech harming the government interest to the same degree as the restrictive speech (Taking Offense v. State, 66 Cal.App.5th 696 (2021)).

Underinclusivity in regulating speech creates a First Amendment concern when the State regulates one aspect of a problem while declining to regulate a different aspect of the problem that affects its stated interest in a comparable way (Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2017)).

In the First Amendment context, a law may be facially invalid as “overbroad” if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep (Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F.Supp.2d 981 (C.D. Cal. 2013), affirmed 827 F.3d 1192.

Because of the potential chilling effect on the protected activities of others, overbreadth analysis is an exception to the general rule that an individual is not permitted to litigate the rights of third parties; an individual may therefore assert this claim without showing that his or her activities are protected by the First Amendment (Gatto v. County of Sonoma, 98 Cal.App.4th 744 (2002)).

As guarantee of ability of the people to make their wishes known to their representatives, petition clause overlaps broad area also protected by right of freedom of speech, and includes acts designed to influence public opinion concerning issue before legislative or administrative body (Zhao v. Wong, 48 Cal.App.4th 1114 (1996), review denied).

Because Roverud's house at " " is a block away from Friedrich's disqualifying one at " " she must recuse herself from influencing the development of "56-Acres ; all city residents have a free speech and grievance petition right to bring political and social changes desired by the people, such as to increase public awareness of improper or unethical behavior, which might lead to the diminish of government corruption. It is also the express policy of the law that "assets and income of public officials which may be materially affected by their official actions should be disclosed and in appropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified from acting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided" (G.C. § 81002(c)). This instant free speech and grievance petition advances that policy of the law. The California Pubic Records Act (CPRA) is both underinclusive and overinclusive towards any purported countervailing government interest in abridging the First Amendment; it is impossible for the City to meet the burden required to withstand strict scrutiny. The CPRA is underinclusive, because it only regulates the content of speech that falls under the auspices of a California public record; it is overinclusive because it restricts speech quoted or derived from the content of records which must be disclosed under other state and federal law or regulation (e.g., G.C. § 81008; 2 CCR § 18313.5; C.C. §§ 1213 & 2934; R.T.C. §§ 327 & 1602; 18 CCR §§ 252 & 266; B.P.C. §§ 5657, 7080.5, & 7081; 16 CCR § 863; Corp.C. §§ 204, 1502, 2117, 6210, 7132, 8210, & 17702.02; U.S. Securities Act of 1933—15 U.S.C. §§ 77f & 77aa; 17 C.F.R. Part 210). Any application of the CPRA to public free speech and grievance redress petitions is a clear instance of overbreadth, because the intent of the enactment was to increase transparency over the government's internal activities, rather than to limit the public's external speech about those activities. The CPRA delineated a statutory public "right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business regarding meeting records for public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies" and was never intended—nor ever permitted—to attenuate or debase the public's prior existing broad constitutional "right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances" which by law include the public's acts designed to influence public opinion concerning issue before legislative or administrative body.

Under James Madison's First Amendment, the non-establishment of religion, free speech, free press, right of assembly, and redress of grievances are one singly comprehensive overarching idea instilling deliberate constitutional protections to every step of the trajectory of realized free and enlightened thought—from the freedom to have a heretical idea (non-establishment), to its discussion and refinement (speech), to its mass dissemination (press), to its politicization (assembly), and ultimately to its realization as government policy (government petitioning) (see, Burt Neuborne. Madison s Music: On Reading the First Amendment (The New Press, 2015)). The interception and killing of the final stage or essences of refined thought, at its most vulnerable tribulation as an exposed redress petition before the potentially wrathful goalposts of governmental change, is the ultimate attack on the essential purpose of the First Amendment. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the CPRA may not be applied to censor or limit the public influence of free speech or grievance petitions.
374
COMMENT #5
Sandra Edwards
375
From: Saundra Edwards
To: California Attorney General
Cc: John Hitchcock aaron mahr@nps gov
Subject: Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment Opposition to CEQA Declaration Date: Friday November 19 2021 10 15 55 PM
Attachments: POEX Map pdf
Dear Attorney General Rob Bonta,
CC: Mr. John Hitchcock;
CC: National Park Service: National Trails Office
The CEQA "negative declaration" for the proposed Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment is deficient, as it does not consider the impact to National Historic resources including the famous Pony Express National Historic Trail, the Lincoln Highway (earliest transcontinental highway route), a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency designated scenic corridor, or to a California State Scenic Highway, and therefore I object.

The project area overbears upon the famous Lincoln Highway National Historic Road:
376
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370m), the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. §§ 300101-320303), the California State analogues (Public Resources Code "at large"), and the federal Tahoe Regional Planning Agency BiState Compact (co-adopted into California Law as Government Code §§ 67040-67132), environmental review must be performed (see also, Public Law 96-551 Articles VI(g) & VII). The project under review will cause the adopted environmental scenic threshold carrying capacities of the region to be exceeded (roadway unit 34). It will destroy an area of national significance. The conclusory negative finding evades discovery of the extent of this harm and exploration of an "analysis of alternative options." Worse, it is the illegal "piecemeal" review "segmenting" "connected actions" into sizes designed to stay below the threshold of a significant environmental finding. The plan area amendment would degrade the area's architectural standards which will clearly result in a cumulative or synergistic environmental impact upon the region when combined with the hideous proposed facility of which it is designed to allow.

The proposal has been the source of tremendous controversy, accusations of corruption, misconduct, malfeasance of office by public officials, and an apparent abusive exploitation of the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Manager and Clerk have suppressed public comment and conversation on the matter, the Developmental Services Director appears to have had a material conflict-of-interest, also her "lieutenant" is married to a TRPA planning officer, two Planning Commissioners involved have conflicts as real estate agents and a third (President Williams) as director of the South Lake Tahoe Lodging Association, and a planner on the Parks & Recreation Commission (Treasurer Bindel), has pushed for this development which is right next to the hotel owned by Vice President Bodine of this very Association. There is outrage that the clearly inappropriate location of this proposed facility is purely myopically motivated as a lodging amenity for the SLTLA at the expense of the local community, and the greater long term state and national interests towards scenic and historic preservation.

To make matters worse, the City Mayor (Middlebrook) is also an employee of the TRPA which is an agency quite visibly "captured" by real estate developers, and thus the City and State have lost a significant check in power on account of said mayoral incompatibility of office.

This conflict is expressly illegal because the Mayor, as an employee of the TRPA, currently holds "lucrative office under the United States or other power" in violation of California Constitution Article VII, Section 7. It is settled law that the TRPA is a federal power (see, Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 402, n.22 (US Supreme Court, 1979) (holding TRPA is not in fact an arm of the State subject to its control)). The TRPA itself in a recent hearing held that it "having been created by an interstate compact, is a creature of federal law" (Staff Report. TRPA Hearings Officer Meeting. p.4, Oct. 14, 2021). Mayor Middlebrook has put tremendous pressures on City officials and may partly be responsible for the aforementioned unethical conduct by the City Manager and City Clerk. A petition to the Attorney General's office for a Writ of Quo Warranto has been pending for well over a year.

Last, there has been tremendous local interest is setting aside this land in its natural state, and having it potentially become a National Monument under the Antiquities Act (54 U.S.C. §§ 320301-320303), run by the National Park Service, with a Museum and Visitor's Center dedicated to the Pony Express Trail & Lincoln Highway and other nearby national trails, but far removed away from view from the scenic bluff. The center would also offer interpretation for Friday's Station National Historic Site. This would bring both federal monies and visitors to the area, but needs time to play out. The proposed indoor recreation center could be placed almost anywhere else as there is abundant vacant land.

Thanks,
Saundra Edwards
377
COMMENT #6
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
378
TRPA Comments
DRAFT IS/ND and IEC for the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments
11/22/21
General:

1. The IEC references the 56-acre property as being within a town center. This property is not located within a town center. It is located with special district #4, but not a town center. Change throughout the document. Does this change any of the justifications provided?

2. The proposed amendments include changing the roof pitch for the entire community plan outside of the 56-acre property to 5:12; however, there is no justification as to why this is being considered. Why is this necessary? Needs further justification.

3. To comply with the Regional Plan Code section 37.5.2.C of allowing up to 42’ for public service and recreation buildings, the amendments and environmental review need to be revised to include Finding 8. These documents currently only reference Findings 1, 3, 4, and 7

4. In a few sections, the height justification refers to compatibility with area plans. Avoid this direct comparison. This subject site is not within an area plan and does not have the same incentives.

Instead frame that these amendments are in-keeping with (1) Regional Plan Code 37.5 and (2) deviation allowances for LTCC and LTUSD properties within the same community plan. These amendments would create a stepped building height transition from residential areas to the TCAP Gateway District with similar allowable height.

5. Suggest adding highlighted, clarifying language to any reference of the project description and the CP amended language: “The proposed amendment would permit building height up to 42 feet for public or quasi-public structures, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements, in the 56-acre project area…”

6. Did the City considering amending the allowable height for the entire district 4? Per the community plan, district 4 is a “centralized public service district”.

7. See staff summary and IEC for the Boys and Girls Club amendments regarding justification for deviating from roof standards. It discusses the nature of public service type buildings and the necessity to deviate from standards to accommodate functionality of services and energy efficiency. I recommend incorporating some of this language into this IEC.

8. Change TRPA point of contact from Paul to Jen. Jennifer Self, Principal Planner, 775-589-5261, [email protected]
Specific:

Page Notes
1 Last sentence, last paragraph of section 1.1. “TRPA serves as the lead agency…” what is meant by this. The City is the lead agency for these amendments. 4 Include the following language after the first sentence of section 1.4 (from the Boys and Girls Club amendment staff summary): “District 4 of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan is a ‘centralized public service district’ where a large concentration of public and institutional 379
uses are located. These include a recreation center, campground, sheriff’s precinct, jail, middle school, ice arena, county offices, forest service offices, and the community college.”
4 Include a summary of CP adoption and amendments.
4 The 56 acre property is located within special district #4 of the community plan, it is NOT within a town center; any reference to a town center needs to be revised 4 Include an overview blip of scenic corridor and recreation area 5 Revise map to clearly show (1) district 4 – centralized public service district, (2) town center boundaries, and (3) the LTCC and LTUSD properties 6 Revise map to clearly show boundaries of the CP
6 Remove “with the TRPA Code for urban development within Area Plans”, this is not an area plan and not subject to the same incentives; instead could include to align with section 37.5 which allows additional height for public service and rec facilities as well as height allowances for public service facilities within District 4 (specifically on the LTCC and LTUSD sites)
11 The project description as written is confusing. Be clear and succinct. Avoid including findings or justification within the description. These can/are included in the subsequent sections.

Suggested:

1. Allow a maximum height of 42’ for public service or recreational facilities within the 56-acre project area of District 4 with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements. Height limits for B/ATCP areas outside of the 56-acre project area would remain unchanged.

2. Reduce minimum roof pitch requirements to 5:12 for the B/ATCP areas outside of the 56-acre project area.
12 Need to add Finding 8 per general notes above.
12 Include a paragraph summarizing setbacks, screening, and design standards. 14 The subject area is not located within a town center. Recommend adding a special setback standard specifically for the 56-acre parcel in addition those listed for the Town Center.

Setback standard specific for the site could serve as mitigation to ensure compatibility with section 37.5.2.C of the code and ensure increased building height could be adequately screened.
18 Change TRPA point of contact
21 Remove J.Hitchcock’s signature. This will be completed by TRPA 25 This document should reference the 2018 threshold update. Contact Jeanne McNamara for more information.
26 Revise project description per previous comment.
26 First paragraph is confusing. Be clear and succinct – what is currently allowed, what is changing, how it complies with regional code and thresholds. Remove reference of town center, not within a town center
26 Add additional narrative to justify why there would not be an impact to scenic vistas or scenic quality
26 Add to narrative regarding recent amendment for the Boys and Girls Club and relation to other public service facilities within this “centralized public service district” 26 Third paragraph – see general comment above about avoiding comparison to area plans, this is not an area plan and not subject to the same incentives 380
27 Heavily forested area and require setbacks; need to include the average height of the existing tree canopy to further justify
27 Need to include finding 8
29 5.4.3-5 Need to reference 2018 threshold update. See note above. Include blip on screening and setbacks to minimize potential impact.
31 Second paragraph – see general comment above about avoiding comparison to area plans, this is not an area plan and not subject to the same incentives 381
EXHBIT 2
PROPOSED AMENDMENT. PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS DOUBLE-UNDERLINED IN BLUE AND DELETED LANGAUGE IS STRUCKTHROUGH IN RED.

SECTION TWO – PUBLIC SERVICE/RECREATION THEME

DISTRICTS MAP AND USE MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Town Center 4
A. PERMITTED USES Refer to use matrix for district uses.

B. HEIGHT
Standard Refer to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 37.

Special Std. The following shall apply to
Lake Tahoe Community College property:

Lake Tahoe Community College and Lake Tahoe Unified School District properties:

Height issues for these sites shall be addressed by TRPA on an individual project basis, and may be in excess of Chapter 37 based on project setback, visibility, or other design criteria.

El Dorado County and City properties located in 56-Acre project area:

For public and quasi-public owned buildings, the maximum height permitted is 42 feet, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements, provided TRPA makes Findings 1, Finding 3, Finding 4, Finding 5, Finding 7, and Finding 8 of Section 37.7.

C. BULK
Standard Refer to Redevelopment Design Element, Sections 1 and 2 D. COVERAGE
Standard Refer to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 30.

E. SETBACKS
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Manual Section 3 of Chapter 1 & 2. 382
EXHBIT 2
Special Std. In addition to the City Wide Design Manual, the following shall apply to specific properties located with the Town Center District, including:

The vacant 7.5 acre parcel north of Al Tahoe and west of Johnson Boulevard (Adjacent to the existing El Dorado County Government Center) shall required a minimum of a 50’ setback from Johnson Boulevard and an increased interior sideyard setback of 20’ in that area of the property adjoining the residentially developed district.

The vacant 12 acre parcel, north of Al Tahoe and east of Johnson Boulevard (adjacent to Bijou Community Park) shall require a minimum of a 50’ setback from Johnson Boulevard for development.

Development on the Lake Tahoe Community College property shall have a minimum setback of 50’ from Al Tahoe Boulevard.

F. SITE DESIGN
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Manual, Section 2, Chapters 1 & 2 Special Std. In addition to the City Wide Design Manual, the following standards shall apply to the entire Town Center:

1. A natural forest setting shall be preserved by designing projects that maintain the maximum number of trees,
shrubs, boulders, and other natural amenities at a project site. Landscaping shall be designed to blend with the native surroundings, including trees, shrubs, ground covers and flowers.

2. Sidewalks shall connect all buildings within project area.

G. ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Standards, Section 2 of Chapters 1 & 2 and City Lighting Standards.

Special Std. In addition to the City Design Standards, the following standards shall apply:

3. Buildings shall be designed with interest (no box forms, variations in elevation, etc.) and shall incorporate
architectural features which blend with the surrounding buildings.
383
EXHBIT 2

4. Wood siding or natural appearing siding shall be used on the exterior of all remodeled newly constructed buildings.

5. Roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 75:12 and a maximum roof pitch of 12:12. Roofs may have a minimum pitch of
0:12 on public and quasi-public owned buildings within El Dorado County and City Properties located in 56-Acres
project area.

6. Real stone shall be incorporated into the building design.

Manufactured stone may be used on a project only if the applicant demonstrates the application of the stone will appear “real.”

7. All projects shall incorporate days use amenities, including; outdoor furniture, bicycle racks and trash receptacles. 384

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL
Proof of Service by Mail
SUBJECT: Ordinance – Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments to allow additional height up to 42 feet, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements for public and quasi-public facilities located in the 56-acres project area (First Reading)
ADDRESS: 1170, 1176 & 3050 Rufus Allen Blvd and 1004 Lakeview Ave APN: 026-050-003, -004, -005, & -006,
DATE OF HEARING: January 4, 2022
TIME OF HEARING: 9:00 a.m.

LOCATION OF
HEARING:

City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF EL DORADO

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
I am an employee of the City of South Lake Tahoe, Development Services Department.

On December 17, 2021, I served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

John Hitchcock
Signature
Executed on 12/17/2021 , by John Hitchcock
Development Service Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
385

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code: the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council will conduct a public hearing on January 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. and January 18, 2022 at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe Airport, to consider the following
Ordinance – Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments to allow additional height up to 42 feet, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements for public and quasi-public facilities located in the 56-acres project area Summary: The City of South Lake City Council will be considering the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and adoption of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments (John Hitchcock, [email protected],530.542.7472) All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on the project or may send their comments to the City Council at [email protected]. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the application in court, you may be limited to raising only those items you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. Any written correspondences should be directed to the South Lake Tahoe City Council, 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Staff reports will be available three days prior to the hearing and can be downloaded from the City of South Lake Tahoe website (https://www.cityofslt.us/84/Watch-City-CouncilPlanning-Commission-Me). For any questions, please contact the staff planner listed above. 386
387
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 1/3
© 2015 ParcelQuest www.parcelquest.com (888) 217-8999
91 90
1334.29 ft 95
3735 36 92 93
31 88 53 94
4 4789
4643 87
45 713.03 ft 40 115567
38424139 158
32 155 48
49 3334 101405
101
106.49 ft
59 565854 100101710281221 2241.93 ft 99
60 57 109120 98 51 110119 97
621 52 111 102 118 621 123
634 103 124117
634
66 65 106 112116
113115 96 114
68 69 125 70 1213.92 ft 50 131841849
126
67 139147 127
146 128 153145
76 129 140151 55 141152
74737271 130 150144
75 131 141243 154
80 132
79 78 131331631731435
77 1272.54 ft 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2425
828384 1
17 16 15 14 13 122627
2 3
18 19 20 21 2223282930 8586
4 100 m  Map data ©2021
388
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 025-010-
007-000
1201 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD

HAMILTON MICHAEL R TR & NANCY EIMER TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8213
2 EDX 025-010-
062-000

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
3 EDX 025-010-
063-000
3030 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7810
4 EDX 025-010-
065-000
1066 LYONS AVE LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
5 EDX 025-930-
001-000
1001 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

ANDERSEN KAREN D TR & MCMURRAY

CHRISTINA S

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
6 EDX 025-930-
002-000
1011 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

URBAN LELAINE INGRAM TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
7 EDX 025-930-
003-000
1019 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

INGRAM M LEILANI SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
8 EDX 025-930-
004-000
1023 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

STUART RICHARD C ETAL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
9 EDX 025-930-
005-000
1029 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

TALBURT JEAN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
10 EDX 025-930-
006-000
1043 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

BONTI LISA A & JENNINGS CHERYL J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
11 EDX 025-930-
007-000
1053 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

HERMANT LADONNA G SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
12 EDX 025-930-
008-000
1056 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

GUSTAFSON KEITH R & LENNOX LISA J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
13 EDX 025-930-
009-000
1048 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

SMITH HOWARD & KAREN BERG SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
14 EDX 025-930-
010-000
1036 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

SOETH WILLIAM NORMAN TR & W TAHOE
TRUST 5/23/16

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
15 EDX 025-930-
011-000
1028 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

DE TARR DARCY SUC CO TR & TARR MARTIN

SUC CO TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
16 EDX 025-930-
012-000
1020 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

LEWIS JAMES R & DOUGLAS W SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
17 EDX 025-930-
013-000

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
18 EDX 025-930-
014-000
1011 TROUT CREEK
AVE

OLWELL JEFFREY B SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
19 EDX 025-930-
015-000
1019 TROUT CREEK
AVE

LAWRIE DEAN C & PEGGY DENEEN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207

389
10/26/21, 10:27 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
20 EDX 025-930-
016-000
1023 TROUT CREEK
AVE

SIMONS STEVEN R & SHIRLEY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
21 EDX 025-930-
017-000
1029 TROUT CREEK
AVE

STAHMER ROBERT T TR & JUANITA TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
22 EDX 025-930-
018-000
1049 TROUT CREEK
AVE

BRADFORD ERNEST E TR & JUDY M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
23 EDX 025-930-
019-000
1053 TROUT CREEK
AVE

MERCER DAVID F & CHRISTINE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8207
24 EDX 025-930-
028-000
1065 LOS ANGELES
BLVD

IRVINE EARNEST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8209
25 EDX 025-930-
029-000
1069 LOS ANGELES
AVE

BONTI DAVID E CO TR & PATRICIA L CO TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8209

390
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
26 EDX 025-930-
030-000
1062 LOS

ANGELES BLVD

STINE SUSAN M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
27 EDX 025-930-
031-000
1068 LOS

ANGELES BLVD

WHITE GARY & IRENE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7809
28 EDX 025-930-
032-000
1059 TROUT

CREEK AVE

PALMER EVAN & LINNARD PALMER LUANNE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
29 EDX 025-930-
033-000
1065 TROUT

CREEK AVE

WEBB CURTIS L & LYNN M & MOORE JOHN J TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
30 EDX 025-930-
034-000
1069 TROUT

CREEK AVE
ALDINGER SALLY L TR & 2004 REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8207
31 EDX 026-040-
003-000

RICCI RISMO & ALFIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
32 EDX 026-040-
005-000

LAUSCHE ALBERT (DECD) SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
33 EDX 026-040-
006-000

ANDERSON KENNETH & DELORES H SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
34 EDX 026-040-
007-000

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
35 EDX 026-043-
009-000
985 LAKEVIEW
AVE 1

DUBNER MARGUERITE TR & SURVIVORS TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7970
36 EDX 026-043-
015-000
999 LAKEVIEW
AVE

BEACHCOMBER INN VACATION & MEMBERSHIP

ASSOC-TRUSTE

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7970
37 EDX 026-043-
017-000
981 LAKEVIEW
AVE

CERESKE WILLIAM H JR CO TR & JEANETTE A CO
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7970
38 EDX 026-046-
005-000
977 MERCED AVE GOLDING GEORGIA M TR & FAM TRUST OF
5/29/97

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7936
39 EDX 026-046-
007-000
993 MERCED AVE FOSTER RICHARD AHL TR & JG&EA RV INTRO

VIVOS TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7936
40 EDX 026-046-
008-000
3171 HARRISON
AVE
TSAI MARGARET Y TR & TRUST 3/4/1992 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
41 EDX 026-046-
009-000
989 MERCED AVE STERKEL DENNIS L TR & D L FAM REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7936
42 EDX 026-046-
010-000
981 MERCED AVE GAINES MARY D TR & CREDIT TRUST 7/30/03 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7936
43 EDX 026-046-
011-000
980 LAKEVIEW
AVE

WALL TRENT M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
44 EDX 026-046-
014-000
988 LAKEVIEW
AVE

PHILLIPS DAVID & MARIA ISABEL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968

391
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
45 EDX 026-046-
015-000
976 LAKEVIEW
AVE

BROCATO DOMINIC & MCCREADY ROBERT A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7968
46 EDX 026-046-
016-000
978 LAKEVIEW
AVE 1

SMITH STEVE A & ANNE M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7965
47 EDX 026-046-
018-000
992 LAKEVIEW
AVE

AMIRI SERIO TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
48 EDX 026-049-
001-000
968 MERCED AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7938
49 EDX 026-049-
002-000
993 SAN JOSE AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7944
50 EDX 026-050-
003-000
1170 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8210

392
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
51 EDX 026-050-004-
000
1176 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
8211
52 EDX 026-050-005-
000
3050 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD
COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7810
53 EDX 026-050-006-
000
1004 LAKEVIEW AVE COUNTY OF EL DORADO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 2555
54 EDX 026-080-001-
000
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
55 EDX 026-080-002-
000
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
56 EDX 026-083-003-
000
984 SAN JOSE AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7942
57 EDX 026-083-005-
000
3131 HARRISON AVE WILLIAMS RONALD S TR & JACQUELINE
H TR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7924
58 EDX 026-083-007-
000
3135 HARRISON AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7923
59 EDX 026-083-009-
000
972 SAN JOSE AVE 3135 HARRISON CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7942
60 EDX 026-083-010-
000
979 ALAMEDA AVE WILLIAMS RONALD S TR & JACQUELINE
H TR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7949
62 EDX 026-086-006-
000
3121 HARRISON AVE TDL ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
62 EDX 026-086-006-
000
3121 HARRISON AVE TDL ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
64 EDX 026-086-011-
000
3115 HARRISON AVE MCKEEN MICHAEL S & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
64 EDX 026-086-011-
000
3115 HARRISON AVE MCKEEN MICHAEL S & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
65 EDX 026-086-012-
000
CEFALU JOHN N & JUDY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
66 EDX 026-086-013-
000
3111 HARRISON AVE CEFALU JOHN N TR & JUDY A TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7925
67 EDX 026-089-006-
000
3092 RIVERSIDE AVE
3 KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7822
68 EDX 026-089-007-
000
3101 HARRISON AVE KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7929

393
10/26/21, 10:28 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
69 EDX 026-089-009-
000
972 TALLAC AVE A KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7995
70 EDX 026-089-010-
000
3091 HARRISON AVE
97 KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS INC &

CA CORP
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7979
71 EDX 026-113-007-
000
3069 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
7803
72 EDX 026-113-008-
000
981 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
73 EDX 026-113-009-
000
977 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
74 EDX 026-113-010-
000
973 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838
75 EDX 026-113-011-
000
969 MODESTO AVE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150- 7838

394
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
76 EDX 026-113-
014-000
3079 HARRISON
AVE

THE PRESS PROJECT CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7976
77 EDX 026-114-
022-000
3045 HARRISON
AVE

MCKEEN MICHAEL S TR & LORI W TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7926
78 EDX 026-114-
023-000
3053 HARRISON
AVE

OAKLAND HILLS TENNIS CLUB, INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7957
79 EDX 026-114-
026-000
966 MODESTO
AVE

COBRAE DARREN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7836
80 EDX 026-114-
027-000
3059 HARRISON
AVE

CALI COFFEE CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7926
81 EDX 026-200-
008-000

AL TAHOE CO SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
82 EDX 026-241-
008-000
963 LOS ANGELES
AVE

MALLATT MARKLEY L & MCMAHON MALLATT

DEBORAH MARY

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7841
83 EDX 026-241-
009-000
973 LOS ANGELES
AVE

GENASCI PATRICIA D SURV TR & REV TRUST OF
9/24/98

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7841
84 EDX 026-241-
010-000
3043 HARRISON
AVE

WANZER JOHN LEWIS & GAYLE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8271
85 EDX 026-242-
007-000
970 LOS ANGELES
AVE

BENEDEK GABRIEL & LE TRANG SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7840
86 EDX 026-242-
008-000
974 LOS ANGELES
AVE

GEORGE CARL F & ROSEMARY VIRGINIA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7840
87 EDX 026-290-
001-000
3181 HARRISON
AVE

ROSENBAUM DAVID H II TR & DAVID H II RV
TRUST

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
88 EDX 026-290-
002-000
996 LAKEVIEW
AVE

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7968
89 EDX 026-290-
003-000

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
90 EDX 027-010-
014-000
3291 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
91 EDX 027-010-
017-000
3311 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7927
92 EDX 027-170-
002-000
3284 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7906
93 EDX 027-170-
009-000
1030 FREMONT
AVE

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8135

395
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
94 EDX 027-170-
012-000
1050 FREMONT
AVE

ESOTERIC HOLDINGS TX LTD PTNSP SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8135
95 EDX 027-170-
015-000
3300 LAKE TAHOE
BLVD

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7910
96 EDX 027-221-
001-000
1108 CRAIG AVE MARTINEZ JOHN L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
97 EDX 027-221-
005-000
1084 CRAIG AVE GRASTEIT CRAIG R SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8145
98 EDX 027-221-
006-000
1080 CRAIG AVE BARTOLI WIBLE PATRICIA TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8145
99 EDX 027-221-
007-000
1079 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

SILVA M LORRIE TR & JAMES E TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251
100 EDX 027-221-
008-000
1071 RUFUS

ALLEN BLVD

BONOTTO VINCENT CHARLES TR & PAMELA D
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251

396
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
101 EDX 027-221-
009-000
3293 DEER PARK
AVE

GIUFFRA CHARLES E TR & FAM TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
102 EDX 027-221-
034-000
1088 CRAIG AVE CRIVELLI WILLIAM H & RHONDA L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8145
103 EDX 027-221-
035-000
1095 RUFUS ALLEN
BLVD

HOLDEN ERIC D SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8251
104 EDX 027-221-
039-000
3301 DEER PARK
AVE

DENISON RICHARD TR & KATHLEEN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
105 EDX 027-221-
040-000
3303 DEER PARK
AVE

YARWASKY FRANK A & CAROLYN J SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8152
106 EDX 027-221-
047-000
1100 CRAIG AVE ORR WILLIAM DAVID SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8145
107 EDX 027-222-
001-000
1071 CRAIG AVE GARCIA LUIS M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
108 EDX 027-222-
002-000
3298 DEER PARK
AVE

ROGERS JAMES E & JAMES E & WILLIS

HARRIET E TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
109 EDX 027-222-
003-000
1081 CRAIG AVE JONES ALLISON SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
110 EDX 027-222-
004-000
1085 CRAIG AVE BENTZ RUGENE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8147
111 EDX 027-222-
005-000
1087 CRAIG AVE BENTZ/IVERS MARGO TR & M REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
112 EDX 027-222-
007-000
1101 CRAIG AVE WAGGONER STACY TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
113 EDX 027-222-
008-000
1103 CRAIG AVE WAGGONER STACY LYNN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
114 EDX 027-222-
009-000
3295 PICKETT AVE BREWSTER STEVEN LANE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
115 EDX 027-222-
010-000
1108 JUNIPER AVE DOG BLUE PROPERTIES CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
116 EDX 027-222-
011-000
1100 JUNIPER AVE FAIRES DAVID C TR & ANN MARIE TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
117 EDX 027-222-
012-000
1096 JUNIPER AVE VOGT BRUCE L JR TR & LINDA M TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
118 EDX 027-222-
013-000
1092 JUNIPER AVE FLOOD BAILEY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8118

397
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
119 EDX 027-222-
014-000
1084 JUNIPER AVE BENNIS CAROL LYNNE & TERESSA LYNNE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8118
120 EDX 027-222-
015-000
1082 JUNIPER AVE BROWN GEORGE DOUGLAS & CATHERINE

CARDINALE TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8118
121 EDX 027-222-
017-000
3306 DEER PARK
AVE

ROMERO DAVID A & LITTLEJOHN JOCELYN

TEN EYCK

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
122 EDX 027-222-
018-000
3302 DEER PARK
AVE

DENNEY CRAIG S TR & FRIDLAND VALERIE M
TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
123 EDX 027-222-
019-000
1091 CRAIG AVE HOLMAN DIANE B & RICHARD A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
124 EDX 027-222-
020-000
1095 CRAIG AVE CLAYTON CONNLEY N & ROBIN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8147
125 EDX 027-231-
001-000
3282 PICKETT AVE RUSH PATRICK & CONSTANCE M SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8101

398
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/3
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
126 EDX 027-231-
002-000
1120 CRAIG AVE BEBOUT ALEXANDER J JR TR & A J JR LIV REV TRUST

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
127 EDX 027-231-
003-000
1124 CRAIG AVE GILMAN PEGGY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
128 EDX 027-231-
004-000
1128 CRAIG AVE ALVARADO GILBERT G & LYNNA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
129 EDX 027-231-
005-000
1132 CRAIG AVE BLACK JAN P TR & DIANE L TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
130 EDX 027-231-
006-000
1144 CRAIG AVE CANTFIL WENDY DIANE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8146
131 EDX 027-231-
007-000
1148 CRAIG AVE DOHERTY HUGH TR & ANNE TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
132 EDX 027-231-
008-000
1150 CRAIG AVE WIESENFELD WILLIAM WARREN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8146
133 EDX 027-231-
009-000
3292 CAPE

HORN RD
SMITH JUDITH M TR & REV TRUST OF 6/28/1999 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8156
134 EDX 027-231-
011-000
3300 CAPE

HORN RD

SALLE CHARLES A & PATRICIA A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8140
135 EDX 027-231-
012-000
3302 CAPE

HORN RD

LANGFORD LAURIE & JANINE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8140
136 EDX 027-231-
038-000
3294 CAPE

HORN RD

CHIN WARREN Y & ARDEN L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8156
137 EDX 027-231-
039-000
3298 CAPE

HORN RD

MUNGUIA KIMBERLY & JOSE LUIZ SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8156
138 EDX 027-232-
001-000
1117 CRAIG AVE
1 DOBSON RHONDA R & MARK S SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
139 EDX 027-232-
002-000
1125 CRAIG AVE NG DENNIS K TR & JENNIFER C TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148
140 EDX 027-232-
005-000
1135 CRAIG AVE WILLIAMS RICHARD STANLEY JR TR & MAUREEN

MCEVOY TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
141 EDX 027-232-
006-000
1139 CRAIG AVE ROBERSON STUART & DIANA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148
142 EDX 027-232-
008-000
3305 CAPE

HORN RD

JONES WARREN A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
143 EDX 027-232-
009-000
1144 JUNIPER
AVE

HAMILTON RICHARD R TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119

399
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/3
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
144 EDX 027-232-
010-000
1142 JUNIPER
AVE

HANDSAKER-TURK MARLA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
145 EDX 027-232-
012-000
1130 JUNIPER
AVE

SPEARS TERRY R TR & LYLA K TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
146 EDX 027-232-
013-000
1122 JUNIPER
AVE

REID LAURENCE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
147 EDX 027-232-
014-000
1120 JUNIPER
AVE

CHALPIN GREGORY C TR & TRUST OF
10/20/1998

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
148 EDX 027-232-
015-000
3300 PICKETT
AVE

WILKINSON CHAD EVAN TR & KYMBERLEE

ANNETTE TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8101
149 EDX 027-232-
016-000
1116 JUNIPER
AVE

MAGRUDER DANIELLE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
150 EDX 027-232-
017-000
1143 CRAIG AVE SEN ARINDAM & BISWAS SATHI TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8148

400
10/26/21, 10:30 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/2
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
151 EDX 027-232-019-
000
1134 JUNIPER AVE HAVEN PATRICK & GILBOY CHERILYN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8119
152 EDX 027-232-020-
000
1138 JUNIPER AVE CUELLAR SERVANDO & HENDERSON

NICHOLE

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8119
153 EDX 027-232-023-
000
1127 CRAIG AVE ARMLIN CHARLOTTE P SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
154 EDX 027-232-024-
000
1147 CRAIG AVE TAYLOR JODIE L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8148
155 EDX 027-381-004-
000
3302 TREEHAVEN
CT
RUSSO HORACE & EMILY HILL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
156 EDX 027-660-001-
000
3305 TREEHAVEN
CT 1
BATKIN WILLIAM SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
157 EDX 027-660-002-
000
3305 TREEHAVEN
CT 2
BATKIN WILLIAM SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
158 EDX 027-660-005-
000

SANO D CHRISTOPHER & DONALD

CHRISTOPHER
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

401

MICHAEL R & NANCY EIMER

HAMILTON
33152 VIA MAYOR
SAN JUAN CAPISTRA CA 92675-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 911
MARYSVILLE CA 95901

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT
PO BOX 1279
HAYFORK CA 96041-1279

LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DIST
337 PLACERVILLE DR
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

KAREN D & MCMURRAY

CHRISTINA S ANDERSEN
PO BOX 928
NEWCASTLE CA 95658

LELAINE INGRAM URBAN
1011 LOS ANGELES AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

INGRAM M LEILANI
5613 DIVOT PL
LAS VEGAS NV 89130

RICHARD C STUART
2470 PALMIRA PL
SAN RAMON CA 94583

JEAN TALBURT
5662 DRAKES DR
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94505-9372

LISA A & JENNINGS CHERYL J
BONTI
3218 MAX CT
CARMICHAEL CA 95608-3776

LADONNA G HERMANT
356 OMNI DR
SPARKS NV 89441-7266

KEITH R & LENNOX LISA J

GUSTAFSON
4961 8TH AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95816

HOWARD & KAREN BERG SMITH
2408 MCGARVEY AVE
REDWOOD CITY CA 94061-1335

SOETH WILLIAM NORMAN TR &
W TAHOE TRUST 5/23/16
20809 WOODLAND CV
GARDEN RIDGE TX 78266

DE TARR DARCY SUC CO TR &

TARR MARTIN SUC CO TR
26 VICTORIA RD
BURLINGAME CA 94010-2957

JAMES R & DOUGLAS W LEWIS
33 HARVEST DR
OAKLEY CA 94561-4315

AMER LEGION TAHOE RESORT
7787 GREENRIDGE WAY
FAIR OAKS CA 95628

JEFFREY B OLWELL
2731 LAND PARK DR
SACRAMENTO CA 95818

DEAN C & PEGGY DENEEN
LAWRIE
102 MCDERBY CT
FOLSOM CA 95630-2256

STEVEN R & SHIRLEY A SIMONS
211 ST FRANCIS WY
RIO VISTA CA 94571

ROBERT T & JUANITA STAHMER
845 PEAR AVE
SUNNYVALE CA 94087

ERNEST E & JUDY M BRADFORD
4720 HIXON CIR
CARMICHAEL CA 95608-8024

DAVID F & CHRISTINE A
MERCER
730 EDWARDO AVE
BEN LOMOND CA 95005-9406

EARNEST IRVINE
758 CHANNING AVE
PALO ALTO CA 94301

BONTI DAVID E CO TR &

PATRICIA L CO TR
5713 ASHBROOK LN
ORANGEVALE CA 95662-5525

SUSAN M STINE
581 39TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95816-3934

GARY & IRENE WHITE
1505 PEPPERTREE CT
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95691-

EVAN & LINNARD PALMER

LUANNE PALMER
382 IRWIN ST
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-5120

CURTIS L & LYNN M WEBB
105 COBB CT
FOLSOM CA 95630
ALDINGER SALLY L TR & 2004

REV TRUST
PO BOX 1279
HAYFORK CA 96041
402

RISMO & ALFIA RICCI
RON RICCI 3604 ARDEN CREEK
SACRAMENTO CA 95864

ALBERT LAUSCHE
PO BOX 878
ROUGH AND READY CA 95975

KENNETH & DELORES H

ANDERSON
1501 SECRET RAVINE PKWY # 820
ROSEVILLE CA 95661-6008

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

DUBNER MARGUERITE TR &

SURVIVORS TRUST
4412 STRIPED MAPLE CT
CONCORD CA 94521-4329

BEACHCOMBER INN VACATION
& MEMBERSHIP ASSOC-TRUSTE
999 LAKEVIEW AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CERESKE WILLIAM H JR CO TR
& JEANETTE A CO TR
1193 S KINGFISHER WAY
BOISE ID 83709-1237

GOLDING GEORGIA M TR & FAM
TRUST OF 5/29/97
PO BOX 563
SANTA MARGARITA CA 93453

RICHARD AHL & JG FOSTER
9275 APPLE RIDGE LN
SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9623

TSAI MARGARET Y TR & TRUST
3/4/1992
43502 MODENA DR
TEMECULA CA 92592-9235

STERKEL DENNIS L TR & D L

FAM REV TRUST
1343 BERWICK DR
MORRO BAY CA 93442-1809

GAINES MARY D TR & CREDIT
TRUST 7/30/03
3502 SCHOONER DR
STOCKTON CA 95219-4566

TRENT M WALL
14868 GUADALUPE DR
RANCHO MURIETA CA 95683

DAVID & MARIA ISABEL

PHILLIPS
4146 MARSTON LANE
SANTA CLARA CA 95054

DOMINIC & MCCREADY ROBERT

A BROCATO
20430 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070-5935

STEVE A & ANNE M SMITH
PO BOX 89
MONTARA CA 94037

SERIO AMIRI
11040 BOLLINGER CANYON RD
SAN RAMON CA 94582

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
360 FAIR LN
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

RONALD S & JACQUELINE H

WILLIAMS
2315 LUPINE TRL
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
3135 HARRISON CA LLC
548 MARKET STREET #55801
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

RONALD S & JACQUELINE H

WILLIAMS
2315 LUPINE TRL
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
403

TDL ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOX 18834
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

TDL ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOX 18834
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JOHN N & JUDY A CEFALU
753 LAKEVIEW AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

JOHN N & JUDY A CEFALU
3100 NEVADA AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
16010 VALLEY VISTA BLVD
ENCINO CA 91436-3457

KAZEMI & BEHMARD ENTRPRS

INC & CA CORP
144 N VERDUGO RD
GLENDALE CA 91206-3933

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 AIRPORT RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

THE PRESS PROJECT CA LLC
3079 HARRISON AVE STE 12
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

MICHAEL S & LORI W MCKEEN
1120 EAST CT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

OAKLAND HILLS TENNIS CLUB,
INC
5475 REDWOOD RD
OAKLAND CA 94619

DARREN COBRAE
966 MODESTO AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CALI COFFEE CA LLC
1509 WALKUP RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

AL TAHOE CO

ADDRESS UNKNOWN

ADDRESS

MARKLEY L & MCMAHON MALL

ATT DEBORAH MARY MALLATT
PO BOX 17074
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

GENASCI PATRICIA D SURV TR
& REV TRUST OF 9/24/98
973 LOS ANGELES AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

JOHN LEWIS & GAYLE WANZER
3043 HARRISON AVE APT B
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

GABRIEL & LE TRANG BENEDEK
755 MORSE ST
SAN JOSE CA 95126

CARL F & ROSEMARY VIRGINIA
GEORGE
PO BOX 1024
GRASS VALLEY CA 95945

ROSENBAUM DAVID H II TR &

DAVID H II RV TRUST
6705 GLEN SPRINGS CT
LOUISVILLE KY 40222

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC
1473 RIFLE RANGE RD
EL CERRITO CA 94530-2506

ERF ENTERPRISES LLC
1473 RIFLE RANGE RD
EL CERRITO CA 94530

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
404

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

ESOTERIC HOLDINGS TX LTD
PTNSP
PO BOX 171077
ARLINGTON TX 76003

AZURE TAHOE RESORTS CA LLC
3300 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JOHN L MARTINEZ
486 PEAR AVE APT 102
VENTURA CA 93004

CRAIG R GRASTEIT
PO BOX 13164
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

WIBLE PATRICIA BARTOLI
42710 42ND STREET WEST
LANCASTER CA 93536

SILVA M & JAMES E LORRIE
MARCEAU 178 BAYLINE CIR
FOLSOM CA 95630-8075

VINCENT CHARLES & PAMELA D

BONOTTO
3406 TWIN OAKS DR
NAPA CA 94558-5228

GIUFFRA CHARLES E TR & FAM
TRUST
3957 E PELTIER RD
ACAMPO CA 95220-9539

WILLIAM H & RHONDA L

CRIVELLI
7160 GRANDVILLE AVE
DOS PALOS CA 93620-9473

ERIC D HOLDEN
1092 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RICHARD & KATHLEEN DENISON
PO BOX 128
DUNNIGAN CA 95937

FRANK A & CAROLYN J

YARWASKY
1229 SPRINGTIME DR
GARDNERVILLE NV 89460-9602

WILLIAM DAVID ORR
PO BOX 562907
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

LUIS M GARCIA
1071 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JAMES E & JAMES E ROGERS
2736 MISSION AVE
CARMICHAEL CA 95608

ALLISON JONES
1081 CRAIG AVENUE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RUGENE BENTZ
6343 LANDMARK RD
STOCKTON CA 95215

BENTZ/IVERS MARGO TR & M

REV TRUST
4750 LAGORIO RD
STOCKTON CA 95215-1811

STACY WAGGONER
5590 SAUNDERS AVE
LOOMIS CA 95650

STACY LYNN WAGGONER
5590 SAUNDERS AVE
LOOMIS CA 95650

STEVEN LANE BREWSTER
PO BOX 796
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

DOG BLUE PROPERTIES CA LLC
4901 PARK RD
BENICIA CA 94510

DAVID C & ANN MARIE FAIRES
2017 RICHMOND ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-0433

BRUCE L & LINDA M VOGT
403 LIGHTHOUSE AVE
PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950-2814

BAILEY FLOOD
51 CALDWELL PL APT 3
SPRINGFIELD NJ 07081

CAROL LYNNE & TERESSA

LYNNE BENNIS
1620 10TH ST
MINDEN NV 89423

GEORGE DOUGLAS & CATH

ERINE CARDINALE BROWN
PO BOX 16456
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
405

DAVID A & LITTLEJOHN J

OCELYN TEN EYCK ROMERO
3531 J ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95816-5423

CRAIG S & FRIDLAND VALERIE

M DENNEY
2760 STARR MEADOWS LOOP
RENO NV 89519-7357

DIANE B & RICHARD A HOLMAN
266 KING ST
REDWOOD CITY CA 94062-1942

CONNLEY N & ROBIN CLAYTON
PO BOX 24
EL NIDO CA 95317

PATRICK & CONSTANCE M RUSH
3909 EDGEVALE CT
FAIR OAKS CA 95628

BEBOUT ALEXANDER J JR TR &

A J JR LIV REV TRUST
1120 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

PEGGY GILMAN
6252 CHESAPEAKE CIR
STOCKTON CA 95219

GILBERT G & LYNNA

ALVARADO
668 MISTY RIDGE CIR
FOLSOM CA 95630

JAN P & DIANE L BLACK
35001 GRAPE AVE
YUCAIPA CA 92399-2937

WENDY DIANE CANTFIL
15631 SW 12TH ST
PEMBROKE PINES FL 33027-2238

HUGH & ANNE DOHERTY
PO BOX 2800
EL GRANADA CA 94018

WILLIAM WARREN WIESENFELD
1420 CURCI DR UNIT 412
SAN JOSE CA 95126-3983

SMITH JUDITH M TR & REV
TRUST OF 6/28/1999
1356 SAN CLEMENTE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95831-2866

CHARLES A & PATRICIA A SALLE
2343 MAXIMILIAN DR
CAMPBELL CA 95008-3817

LAURIE & JANINE LANGFORD
20 DUFFY CT
PLEASANT HILL CA 94523-1708

WARREN Y & ARDEN L CHIN
2723 WESTGATE AVE
SAN JOSE CA 95125-4123

KIMBERLY & JOSE LUIZ

MUNGUIA
9690 STABLEGATE RD
WILTON CA 95693-9216

RHONDA R & MARK S DOBSON
2225 MORRO DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

DENNIS K & JENNIFER C NG
752 HOLBROOK PL
SUNNYVALE CA 94087-1802

RICHARD STANLEY & MAUREEN

MCEVOY WILLIAMS
18396 PURDUE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070-4713

STUART & DIANA ROBERSON
438 CAPRI DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

WARREN A JONES
3985 MCKINLEY BLVD
SACRAMENTO CA 95819

RICHARD R HAMILTON
PO BOX 445
RIO VISTA CA 94571

MARLA HANDSAKER-TURK
1142 JUNIPER AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

TERRY R & LYLA K SPEARS
237 E GLASGOW AVE
STOCKTON CA 95210

LAURENCE A REID
11769 LAKESORE SOUTH
AUBURN CA 95602

CHALPIN GREGORY C TR &
TRUST OF 10/20/1998
4413 NORTH PARK DR
SACRAMENTO CA 95821-4301

CHAD EVAN & KYMBERLEE

ANNETTE WILKINSON
PO BOX 1684
PLACERVILLE CA 95667

DANIELLE MAGRUDER
1210 MALCOLM DIXON RD
EL DORADO HILLS CA 95762

ARINDAM & BISWAS SATHI SEN
1143 CRAIG AVENUE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
406

PATRICK & GILBOY CHERILYN
HAVEN
PO BOX 592
KENTFIELD CA 94904

SERVANDO & HENDERSON

NICHOLE CUELLAR
1702 GROVE ST #2
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117

CHARLOTTE P ARMLIN
2758 BENT TREE CT
FAIRFIELD CA 94534

JODIE L TAYLOR
1147 CRAIG AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

HORACE & EMILY HILL RUSSO
2994 COLTON RD
PEBBLE BEACH CA 93953-2943

WILLIAM BATKIN
3305 TREEHAVEN DR #1
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

WILLIAM BATKIN
3305 TREEHAVEN DRIVE #1
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

SANO D CHRISTOPHER
3305 TREEHAVEN DR #3
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
407

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC

HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE

TAHOE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING

NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that in
accordance with Sections
65090 and 65091
(Planning and Zoning
Law) of the Government
Code: the City of South
Lake Tahoe City Council
will conduct a public
hearing on January 4,
2022 at 9:00 a.m., or
as soon thereafter as
possible, in the City
Council Chambers, 1901
Lisa Maloff Way, South
Lake Tahoe Airport, to
consider the following
Ordinance – Bijou/Al
Tahoe Community Plan
Amendments to allow
additional height up to
42 feet, with no minimum
cross slope or roof pitch
requirements for public
and quasi-public facilities
located in the 56-acres
project area (First
Reading)
Summary: The City of
South Lake City Council
will be considering the
Initial Study/Negative
Declaration and
adoption of the Bijou/
Al Tahoe Community
Plan Amendments (John
Hitchcock, jhitchcock@
cityofslt.us,530.542.7472)
All interested persons
are invited to attend and
speak on the project or
may send their comments
to the City Council
at PublicComment@
cityofslt.us. Pursuant
to Government Code
Section 65009(b)(2),
if you challenge the
application in court,
you may be limited to
raising only those items
you or someone else
raised at the Public
Hearing described
in this notice, or in
written correspondence
delivered to the City
Council at, or prior to,
the Public Hearing. Any
written correspondences
should be directed to
the South Lake Tahoe
City Council, 1052
Tata Lane, South Lake
Tahoe, CA 96150. Staff
reports will be available
three days prior to the
hearing and can be
downloaded from the
City of South Lake Tahoe
website (https://www.
city ofslt.us/84/WatchCity-CouncilPlanningCommission-Me). For any questions, please
contact the staff planner
listed above.

Published: December
17, 2021
408
Ordinance 2022-XX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
January 18, 2022
Amending the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan

BACKGROUND
A. The Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan/Specific Plan was adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council 1995.

B. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan may be prepared and adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.

C. The proposed amendment would the community plan standards to allow up to 42 of height, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements for public and quasi-public facilities located within the 56-acres project area.

D. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to encourage energy efficient and sustainable redevopment in the 56-acres project area for large public or quasipublic facilities that typically require sheds roofs based on their large size.

Additonal height and lower roof pitch will reduce energy consumption and operational costs to ensure long-term sustainability
E. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070, the City of South Lake Tahoe has prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments. The public comment period began on October 22, 2001 and ended on October 27, 2021.

F. On December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, took public comments on the proposed amendment, considered all the evidence in the record, and adopted Resolution 2021-18 recommending that the City Council adopt the IS/ND pursuant to CEQA, determine that the Project would 409
Ordinance 2022-XX January 18, 2022 Page 2 of 6
not have a significant effect on the environment and that the City Council adopt the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments.

G. The City of South Lake Tahoe, as the lead agency, has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendments would result in a significant effect on the environment.

Now, Therefore, the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 The Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan is hereby amended as designated in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction; such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3 The City Clerk is directed to certify this ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

SECTION 4 This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on January 18, 2021 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:
410
Ordinance 2022-XX January 18, 2022 Page 3 of 6
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.

First Reading: January 4, 2022
Published:TBD
Second Reading: January 18, 2022
Effective: February 17, 2022
411
Ordinance 2022-XX January 18, 2022 Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT 1
Amendment is blue and underlined. Language that would be deleted is red and is struck through. No other changes to the TCAP are proposed.

SECTION TWO – PUBLIC SERVICE/RECREATION THEME

DISTRICTS MAP AND USE MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Town Center 4
A. PERMITTED USES Refer to use matrix for district uses.

B. HEIGHT
Standard Refer to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 37.

Special Std. The following shall apply to
Lake Tahoe Community College property:

Lake Tahoe Community College and Lake Tahoe Unified School District properties:

Height issues for these sites shall be addressed by TRPA on an individual project basis, and may be in excess of Chapter 37 based on project setback, visibility, or other design criteria.

El Dorado County and City properties located in 56-Acre project area:

For public and quasi-public owned buildings, the maximum height permitted is 42 feet, with no minimum cross slope or roof pitch requirements, provided TRPA makes Findings 1, Finding 3, Finding 4, Finding 5, Finding 7, and Finding 8 of Section 37.7.

C. BULK
Standard Refer to Redevelopment Design Element, Sections 1 and 2 D. COVERAGE
Standard Refer to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 30.

E. SETBACKS
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Manual Section 3 of Chapter 1 & 2. 412
Ordinance 2022-XX January 18, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Special Std. In addition to the City Wide Design Manual, the following shall apply to specific properties located with the Town Center District, including:

The vacant 7.5 acre parcel north of Al Tahoe and west of Johnson Boulevard (Adjacent to the existing El Dorado County Government Center) shall required a minimum of a 50’ setback from Johnson Boulevard and an increased interior sideyard setback of 20’ in that area of the property adjoining the residentially developed district.

The vacant 12 acre parcel, north of Al Tahoe and east of Johnson Boulevard (adjacent to Bijou Community Park) shall require a minimum of a 50’ setback from Johnson Boulevard for development.

Development on the Lake Tahoe Community College property shall have a minimum setback of 50’ from Al Tahoe Boulevard.

F. SITE DESIGN
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Manual, Section 2, Chapters 1 & 2 Special Std. In addition to the City Wide Design Manual, the following standards shall apply to the entire Town Center:

1. A natural forest setting shall be preserved by designing projects that maintain the maximum number of trees,
shrubs, boulders, and other natural amenities at a project site. Landscaping shall be designed to blend with the native surroundings, including trees, shrubs, ground covers and flowers.

2. Sidewalks shall connect all buildings within project area.

G. ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT
Standard Refer to City Wide Design Standards, Section 2 of Chapters 1 & 2 and City Lighting Standards.

Special Std. In addition to the City Design Standards, the following standards shall apply:

3. Buildings shall be designed with interest (no box forms, variations in elevation, etc.) and shall incorporate
architectural features which blend with the surrounding buildings.
413
Ordinance 2022-XX January 18, 2022 Page 6 of 6

4. Wood siding or natural appearing siding shall be used on the exterior of all remodeled newly constructed buildings.

5. Roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 75:12 and a maximum roof pitch of 12:12. Roofs may have a minimum pitch of
0:12 on public and quasi-public owned buildings within El Dorado County and City Properties located in 56-Acres
project area.

6. Real stone shall be incorporated into the building design.

Manufactured stone may be used on a project only if the applicant demonstrates the application of the stone will appear “real.”

7. All projects shall incorporate days use amenities, including; outdoor furniture, bicycle racks and trash receptacles. 414
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 10.

Agenda Item: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Appropriation for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Capital Projects
Executive Summary: On August 17, 2021 City Council discussed the results of a community survey representing a variety of projects and programs to assist the city in providing economic assistance from the negative impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. The list of projects included among others; the renovations to the existing City skate park and Improvements to the City’s paved bike trail network. The action contemplated herein is the appropriation of SLFRF funds for three projects: the renovations of the existing city Skate Park, improvements to the city’s bike trail network, and preliminary planning for the Greenway Phase 1C Bicycle Trail Project.

The budget appropriation and assignment of capital improvement fund account numbers will allow staff to initiate the projects.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution appropriating SLFRF funds in the amount of $250,000 for the proposed renovations to the City's skate park; $50,000 for proposed improvements to the City's paved bike trail network; and $200,000 towards the preliminary planning of the Greenway Phase 1C Bicycle Trail Project.

Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Projects Manager Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Projects Manager (530) 542-6027 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report ARPA Funds.docx
02-Resolution-ARPA Fund Appropriation.docx
415
Council Agenda Report January 04, 2022 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Title: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Appropriation for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Capital Projects
Location: Bijou Community Park and Various Bike Trail Locations Citywide Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Projects Manager (530) 542- 6027
Background: On March 11, 2021 the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was signed into law and established the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). This program is intended to provide support to State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments in responding to the economic and public health impacts of COVID-19 in the efforts to contain impacts on communities, residents, and businesses.

On August 17, 2021 City Council discussed the results of a community survey representing a variety of projects and programs to assist the city in providing economic assistance from the negative impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. The list of projects included among others; the renovations to the existing City Skate Park and Improvements to the City’s paved bike trail network.

Issue and Discussion: The action contemplated herein is the formal budget appropriation of SLFRF funds for three projects; the renovations of the existing city Skate Park, improvements to the city’s bike trail network, and preliminary planning of the Greenway Phase 1C Bicycle Trail Project.

The proposed skate park project proposes to renovate, change or improve features, and upgrade the existing facility. Also contemplated, is the design and construction of a minor to moderate expansion of the facilities. In an effort to maximize scope, staff will attempt to leverage the SLFRF funds with appropriate grant opportunities if available. It must be noted however, that ARPA funds may not be used as non-Federal Match for other Federal Programs (Interim Final Rule p.86).

Staff will also partner with local representatives of the skateboard community to assist with design, and if possible, create a public/private partnership similar to the effort on the city’s bike park. The final design and scope of the project will be contingent upon the final appropriated budget.

Improvements to the City’s bike trail network contemplate various on-trail improvements such as bike racks, repair stands, wayfinding signage, enhanced striping, and safety improvements. The funds will also be used for planning efforts to enhance and/or further the development of new trails listed as priorities for the region’s transportation network such as the Greenway Trail Phase 1C Project.
416
Council Agenda Report January 04, 2022 Page 2 of 3
Financial Implications: The SLFRF funding is subject to the requirements specified in the Interim Final Rule adopted by Treasury, which describes whether a program, project, or services is an eligible use.

Prohibited uses clearly outlined in Treasury guidance include:
• Deposits to Reserves or Rainy-Day Funds
• Deposits to Pension Funds for unfunded liabilities (current service costs may be eligible) • Debt Service Payments
• Offset to tax cuts caused by a change in local law.

Outside of these restrictions, the City has substantial discretion to use the funds in ways that best suit the needs of the community – as long as the use fits into one of the following four statutory categories:

A. To respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;
B. To respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers; C. For the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue (“revenue loss”) due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency; and D. To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.

Within the allowable statutory categories above, Category A suffices for the use of the funds under US Department of Treasury Expenditure Categories (Appendix A Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Guidance on Recipient Compliance and Reporting Responsibilities) listed below:

2. Negative Economic Impacts

2.11 Aid to Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality

3. Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities

3.9 Healthy Childhood Environments: Other*
The attached Resolution (Attachment 02) details the budget appropriation as outlined below:
 $250,000 SLFRF funds to support the design and construction of Skate Park Renovations; and
 $50,000 SLFRF funds to support the purchase and installation of various bike trail improvements; and
 $200,000 SLFRF funds to support the preliminary planning efforts for the Greenway Phase 1C Bike Trail Project.

Capital Improvement accounts (301 funds) will need to be developed for the budget appropriations and project development.

Environmental Considerations: The appropriation of funds for the above mentioned projects are Categorically Excluded from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 exempts the operation, maintenance, repair or minor alteration of existing public facilities.
417
Council Agenda Report January 04, 2022 Page 3 of 3
The Greenway Trail Phase 1C will require CEQA analysis which will be included in the scope of work during the development of design documents at a later date.

Policy Implications: There are no anticipated policy implications with the funding, development, and implementation of the projects listed above. 418
Resolution 2022-XXX January 04, 2022 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
January 4, 2022
Authorizing $500,000 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for use toward Capital Improvement Projects

BACKGROUND
A. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) (Public Law No. 117-2) was signed into law by the President of the United States on March 11, 2021.

B. The Act appropriated Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds for allocation by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to states, counties, metropolitan cities, and small cities with population under 50,000 (referred to as non-entitlement units of local government).

C. On June 15, 2021 the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-052 establishing the special fund “Local Fiscal Recovery Fund” and authorizing the Director of Finance to accept all funds received under the American Rescue Plan Act and deposit them in the Local Fiscal Recovery Fund.

D. On August 17, 2021 the City Council considered a list of potential projects for ARPA funding and the Improvements to the City’s Skate Park and Bike Trail Network was chosen by City Council as viable uses of ARPA funding and directed staff to move forward in developing and implementing the projects.

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

1. Finds that the improvements to the City’s skate park, various improvements to the City’s bike trail network, and the preliminary planning study for the proposed Greenway Bike Trail Phase 1C are suitable uses of ARPA funds under the statutory category A, to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality.

2. Authorizes the establishment of capital improvement project fund accounts (301) for:
a. Renovations and improvements to the city’s existing skate park ($250,000) b. Various improvements to the city’s existing paved bike trail network ($50,000) c. Preliminary planning and studies for the Greenway Phase 1C Bike Trail Project ($200,000)

3. Appropriates ARPA (SLFRF) funds base on the approved use as follows:
419
Resolution 2022-XXX January 04, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Fund/Account Description Revenue (Increase)
Decrease
Expense Increase
(Decrease)
264-01952-33132 Appropriate Funds into ARPA
Revenue Account
(500,000)
264-01952-XXX Transfer out to CIP 500,000
301-XXXXX-36375 Transfer in from ARPA (264) (500,000)
301-60075-48030 Skate Park Renovations (250,000)
301-50041-48030 Paved Bike Trail Improvements (50,000)
301-50041-42020 Greenway Trail Phase 1C (200,000)
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on January 4, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
420
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 11.

Agenda Item: Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment to Support Department of Public Works Streets Operations
Executive Summary: Receive TRPA funds, and proceeds from sale of surplus equipment to fund the purchase of one (1) Elgin Street Sweeper. Utilize approved FY 21_22 budget appropriations to purchase one (1) Asphalt Patch Truck, and one (1) Loader Mounted Asphalt Zipper for the streets maintenance division.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: (1) Pass a Resolution accepting and appropriating $150,000 of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Air Quality & Water Mitigation Funding and appropriating $140,410 in proceeds from the Sale of Surplus Vehicles & Equipment; and (2) Pass a Motion authorizing the purchase of (1) Asphalt Patch Truck for $265,372.91, (1) Loader Mounted Asphalt Zipper for $222,953, and (1) Street Sweeper for $288,390.90 via cooperative purchasing agreements from fund 210 (Vehicle Replacement).

Responsible Staff Members: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Project Manager and Phil Harwood, Fleet Services Manager
Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Project Manager (530) 542-6027 and; Phil Harwood, Fleet Services Manager (530) 542-6086
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report Street Operations Vehicles and Equipment Purchase.docx 02-Resolution Street Operations Vehicle and Equipment Purchase.docx 03-Vehicle Descriptions Quotes and Contracts.pdf
04-Zero Emission Sweeper M4ZE Data Sheet Final.pdf
421
Council Agenda Report January 4, 2022 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Title: Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment for the Department of Public Works Operations Divisions
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member(s): Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Project Manager (530) 542- 6027; Phil Harwood, Fleet Supervisor (530) 542-6086.

Background: City Council formally adopted the FY 21_22 annual budget at the August 17, 2021 City Council meeting. Within the budget adoption was the appropriation to purchase several vehicles and pieces of equipment for the Department of Public Works Streets Division.

The approved action transferred $500,000 in Measure S funds for the purchase of:
(1) Asphalt Zipper Loader Attachment
(1) Asphalt Patcher Truck
Issue and Discussion: The two pieces of equipment listed above were sourced through cooperative purchasing agreements with the respective manufacturers/dealers. The financial Implications section below outlines the purchase cost, and fund source. Attachment 03 details the agreements.

Subsequent to the annual budget adoption for the above-mentioned equipment, a street sweeper that the division utilizes suffered catastrophic failure. The mechanical failure of the nearly 14 year old unit resulted in the division renting a replacement unit to perform the required sweeping operations. Realizing the immediate need to order a new sweeper, staff worked towards funding the purchase without the use of undesignated general funds. Staff successfully petitioned the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to utilize $150,000 in Air Quality and Water Quality Mitigation Funds available to the City. In addition, staff recommended the use of $140,410 in funds derived from surplus city equipment auction proceeds. The combination of the TRPA funds, and the auction proceeds is enough to fund the sweeper cost of $288,390.90.

Financial Implications: The purchase of the vehicles and equipment will be secured through Fund 210 (Vehicle Replacement) and as such, no additional general funds are required. Table A below details the expenditures and fund information. The attached resolution (Attachment 02) details the receipt and appropriation of the TRPA Mitigation funds and Surplus Equipment Proceeds into Fund 210 to support the purchases.

Fund Balance – Pre-purchase Existing New Appropriation
Fund 21003010 – 46130 Existing Balance* $499,117.29
Revenue Code 33311 AQ Mitigation + $75,000
Revenue Code 33312 WQ Mitigation + $75,000
Revenue Code 36220 Sale of Real Property + $140,410
Amended Fund Total $789,527.29
*As of 12-8-21
422
Council Agenda Report January 4, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Fund Balance – Post Purchase Cooperative Purchase
Contract #
Expense
Patch Truck & Box NJPA 052417-PBL $265,372.91
Asphalt Zipper Loader Attachment H-GAC 20-00858 $222,954.00 Elgin Street Sweeper NJPA 122017-FSC $288,390.90
Expense Total $776,717.81
Fund 210 Post Expense Balance
Fund 210 Balance $12,809.48
Table A – Fund balance before/after expenses
Environmental Considerations: This purchase is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies).

Policy Implications: Strategy EV-2 in the Climate Action Plan adopted by City Council on October 20, 2020, states that the city will “convert public agency fleets to EVs [electric vehicles] or alternative fuels.” Staff researched options and availability of Electric Vehicles for supply of the vehicles and equipment contemplated herein. At the time of this report, no compatible EV options existed for the patch truck or zipper attachment. However, one EV option exists for the Sweeper. Staff contacted the manufacturer for information for the Global Environmental Products M4ZE sweeper (see attachment 04 for information).

The M4ZE Sweeper is the first Zero Emission production model sweeper in the United States but in conversation with the manufacturer there were only two currently placed in municipal operation (New York City). The cost of the EV option is estimated to be $669,337 with tax which is over 2.3 times the cost of the internal combustion engine option recommended herein. In addition, staff researched federal monetary incentives for the sweeper, and the most the city could obtain would be approximately $6,000. This vehicle is not listed in the California HVIP Eligible Vehicle list for point-of-sale discount.

California’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) plays a crucial role in the deployment of zero-emission and near-zero-emission technologies. HVIP accelerates commercialization by providing point-of-sale vouchers to make advanced vehicles more affordable. The current list of eligible vehicles for point-of-sale incentives can be found here:
https://californiahvip.org/vehiclecatalog/
Presently, staff does not recommend the purchase of the EV option due to the cost, ineligibility of HVIP incentives, manufacturing schedule, and minimal data on successful use in a municipal operation.

Note: all internal combustion vehicles and equipment contemplated for purchase herein will meet the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 requirements.

The purchase of the vehicles contemplated herein will be via Cooperative Purchasing Contracts as shown in Table A and detailed in Attachment 03.

City Code Section 3.45.090 allows for Cooperative Purchasing: “Where another governmental agency performs a solicitation and/or bid process for the city and/or multiple agencies or jurisdictions, and where the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment is based on an agreement or cooperative purchasing program pursuant to authority granted by statute or ordinance, pursuant to contractual arrangement between the city and said governmental agency, or pursuant to a determination by the city manager that the governmental agency conducted a competitive bidding process, the city may purchase materials, supplies and equipment based upon the governmental agency’s solicitation and/or bid process without complying with the bidding requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1069 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 1109 § 1 (Exh. A). Code 1997 § 22-8)”.
423
Resolution 2022-XXX January 4, 2022 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
January 4, 2022
Accept and Appropriate TRPA Air Quality & Water Mitigation Funding ($150,000); and Receive and Appropriate Proceeds from the Sale of Surplus Vehicles & Equipment ($140,410)

BACKGROUND
A. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) administers the collection and distribution of Air Quality and Water Quality Mitigation Funding for qualifying environmental improvement projects.

B. Public Works identified the replacement of a Street Sweeper as a priority project.

C. The vehicle contemplated for replacement is 14 years old and has suffered catastrophic mechanical failure.

D. The City requested $75,000 of Air Quality Mitigation Funds, and $75,000 in Water Quality Funds from TRPA for support of the purchase of the new vehicle.

E. The TRPA Governing Board approved the City’s request for $150,000 of TRPA Air Quality and Water Quality Mitigation Funds at the November 17, 2021 Governing Board meeting.

F. On October 12, 2021 the city held public auction of surplus vehicles in which the city generated $140,410 in proceeds.

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

1. Accepts $75,000 of TRPA Air Quality Mitigation Funds, and $75,000 in TRPA Water Quality Mitigation Funds.

2. Receives $140,410 in proceeds from the sale of surplus vehicles and equipment.

3. Appropriates the above-mentioned funds to Vehicle Replacement Fund 210 for the purpose of purchasing one Elgin Street Sweeper as follows:
424
Resolution 2022-XXX January 4, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Fund/Account Description Revenue
(Increase)/Decrease
Expense
Increase/(Decrease)
210-03010-36220 Appropriate funds for auction sale proceeds (140,410) 210-03010-33311 Appropriate Funds for TRPA AQ Mitigation (75,000) 210-03010-33312 Appropriate Funds for TRPS WQ Mitigation (75,000) 210-03010-46130 Increase Vehicles purchase budget for
additional revenue
290,410
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on January 4, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
425
Asphalt Zipper Model 480XI-260 reclaimer
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
2021 PB PATCHER TRUCK
440
PB Loader Corporation
5778 W. Barstow • Fresno, California 93722-5024 • Telephone (559) 277-7370 • Fax (559) 277-7375 Toll free 800-350-8521 • Web www.pbloader.com

QUOTATION
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE DATE: 12/10/2021
1700 D ST TERMS: NET 30
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150-6227 F.O.B: FRESNO
SOURCEWELL MEMBER ID # 19333 MFG PRODUCT: SEE BELOW
INSTALL: SEE BELOW
QTY PART NO. DESCRIPTION PRICE EXTENSION
PB LOADER CONTRACT NO. 052417-PBL

SOURCEWELL CONTRACT - LISTED PRICES

PATCHER BOX & ACCESSORIES
1 51535-00 MODEL B-5 (5 CUBIC YARD CAPACITY) $82,634.00

ABOVE MODEL EQUIPPED WITH RADIANT HEATER,

THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED LPG BURNER, HYDRAULIC
TOP LIDS AND DOORS, MODEL 316 SHOVELING APRON,
NTEA CLASS 50 HOIST, HAND TORCH, 25 GAL. LPG TANK,

INSTALLATION AND PAINT BLACK
1 50630-01 ELECTRIC HEATING SYSTEM - 220V - 6KW $2,922.00 1 7065-50 50' POWER CABLE 220 VOLT $748.00
1 50560-00 SOLVENT PUMP & WAND $1,330.00
1 5978-00 AIR BLOW GUN W/ 25' HOSE $1,612.00
1 50635-00 CAB CONTROLS (TOP LIDS) $636.00
1 6024-00 THERMOMETER 0-300 $216.00
1 7000-20 TOOL BASKET $614.00
1 5437-00 HOSE REEL - 3/8" X 25' FOR SOLVENT $460.00
1 5437-00 HOSE REEL - 3/8" X 25' FOR TORCH $460.00
1 5437-00 HOSE REEL - 3/8" X 25' FOR AIR $460.00
1 5438-00 HOSE REEL - 1/2" X 25' FOR EMULSION $518.00
1 7000-36 TOOL BOX 36" $966.00
1 2120-00 DUAL ASPHALT LUTE HOLDER - BRKT $166.00
2 7300-00 FRONT BUMPER CONE HOLDER (MALE) $162.00 $324.00 1 8200-00 HITCH PLATE W/ D-RINGS W/ 7 WIRE SOCKET $1,261.00 1 7050-30 45 TON PINTLE (PREMIER 580J) W/O AIR $655.00

AIR COMPRESSOR & EQUIPMENT
1 7700-00 VANAIR 160 CFM (100 PSI) UNDERDECK AIR COMPRESSOR $18,702.00 1 7020-40 AIR HAMMER APT 60# W/ ASPHALT CUTTER AND TAMPER PAD $2,154.00 1 7024-01 LOCKABLE HAMMER HANGER $321.00

COMPACTOR LIFT OR ROLLER LIFT & ACCESSORIES
1 50640-00 COMPACTOR LIFT PLATFORM - HYDRAULIC $3,016.00 1 7100-31 COMPACTOR PLATE - WACKER WP1550AW HONDA $2,916.00

LIGHTS & SAFETY EQUIPMENT
1 7807-00 WHELEN TA45B72 (LED) 72" WIDE TRAFFIC ADVISOR W/ TACTL5 CTRL $2,883.00 1 7999-40 TRIANGLE KIT $42.00
1 7999-20 FIRE EXTINGUISHER 10# $298.00 $298.00
2 MODS-23 WHELEN MODEL L31HAF STROBE W/L360BGB BRANCH GUARD $1,644.00 $3,288.00

EMULSION SYSTEM & ACCESSORIES
1 BH-153-21 PB MODEL BH-153-21 EMULSION SPRAY UNIT HEATED BY $12,131.00

TRUCK COOLING SYSTEM, Y STRAINER, FILL BASKET,
HYDRAULICALLY POWERED, 21 GAL. SOLVENT TANK, 132 GAL.

EMULSION, WAND WITH 25' HOSE , AUXILIARY ELECTRIC HEAT

SYSTEM, INSTALLATION AND PAINT BLACK
1 MODS-09 EXTRA 'Y' STRAINER SCREEN $56.00
1 MODS-11 FOLD DOWN LADDER ON EMULSION TANK $704.00

CHASSIS
1 FRTLINR-04 $83,046.00
SUB TOTAL: $225,539.00
3% SOURCEWELL DISCOUNT: ($6,766.00)

NON LISTED ITEMS
1 CUSTOM DOOR IN SHOVELING APRON FOR PINTLE HITCH ACCESS $1,509.00 1 SIGN STORAGE BOX WITH PARTITIONS $9,871.00
1 ADDITIONAL SOLVENT FILTER AND OIL RETURN FILTER $87.00 1 DIP TANK - SHOVEL SIZED WITH SLOTTED LID - LIKE OLD UNIT $1,035.00 ADD FOR 2023 MODEL YEAR CHASSIS ILO ABOVE $8,884.00
TOTAL: $240,159.00
SALES TAX (8.75%): $21,013.91
FREIGHT AND PDI: $4,200.00
TOTAL WITH FREIGHT: $265,372.91
NOTES:

Delivery times are approximate.

NO. 10894R

1.LEAD TIME FOR BODY PRODUCTION IS 90 DAYS, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 90-120 DAYS TO INSTALL AFTER RECIEPT OF CHASSIS AND BODY.

2. PB LOADER REQUIRES A 126" CAB TO AXLE. REQUIREMENT MUST BE

MUTUALLY AGREED UPON WITH PB LOADER PRIOR TO ORDERING THE CHASSIS. PB LOADER WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FRAME CHANGES DUE TO INSUFFICIENT CHASSIS FRAME SPACE.

3. LEAD TIME SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT TIME OF ORDER

4. CHASSIS REQUIRES PTO AND AUXILIARY SWITCHES IN DASH.

5. DELIVERY DATE FOR CHASSIS TO PB LOADER MUST BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON
2022 FREIGHTLINER M2 106 W/ CUM L9 300HP, ALLISON 3500 RDS AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION W/ PTO PROVISION, 12,000 LB FRONT LEAF SPRING AXLE, 23,000 REAR LEAF SPRING AXLE 50 GAL ALUMINUM FUEL TANK, STEEL WHEELS, CAB PAINTED WHITE.
441
442
443
Quote: City of South Lake Tahoe
Purchase Order No. Terms
Sales Region
Chad Medina
Order Qty Description Net Unit Price extended Price
ADD:
1130043 A-TOOL BOX LH-RM
1130044 A-TOOL BOX RH-RM
*********************************************************

1.000 1 REGENX-RM REGENX-RM

1.001 1 1130001 RM-JD 74 HP T4F-M2

1.002 1 1132032 2020 FL M2 106 WB=176

1.003 1 1061886 O-HYD OIL LVLfTHERMO

1.004 1 1070639 O-LED STOPfTURNfTAIL

1.005 1 1081188 A-KEY,M2 CHASSIS SPARE

1.006 1 1081365 A-AIR FLTR CAB LT

1.007 1 1081748 0-1 BOS AIR 905 CLTH

1.008 1 1081912 A-DL ARM RST FL M2

1.009 1 1095548 A+SIDE CAM LEFT HAND

1.010 1 1109607 A-12 IN. CONVEX MIRRORS

1.011 1 1118356 A-2.5 LB FIRE EXT, M2 J/MV/RM

1.012 1 1120793 O-TURBO II PRECLNR J/MV/MX-T4F

1.013 1 1123271 A+BAT DISCONNECT SW-CHASSIS

1.014 1 1130040 ALTS-FREIGHTLINER M2 CHS-RM
'
R5542565C_ELGSO001.cfp6 (ELGSO001 I 7780721) CONTINUED NEXT PAGE 444 Line No. Order Qty Part Number Description Net Unit Price Extended Price

1.015 1130042 A+INSPECTION DOOR RH-RM

1.016 1130049 O+FRT/RR LED BCN/RR ARWSTK-RM

1.017 1130055 0-IN CAB HOPPER DUMP.RM

1.018 1130056 O+URETHANE LINED HPR-RM

1.019 1130776 O+HOPPER DELUGE-RM

1.020 1131222 0-LH SIDEBROOM TILT

1.021 1131223 0-RH SIDEBROOM TILT

1.022 1131236 0-AUX HYO PUMP W/ IN CAB DUMP

1.023 1131536 O+HPR W/6 IN. DR LIFELAST RM

1.024 1 1132252 A-LED SB LTS/RR FLOOD LTS-RM

1.025 1 1132629 AY-T4F LOGO PKG-RED

1.026 1132709 0-PNEUMATIC W/ SCRUB SBRM AY

1.027 1 1132945 O+PM10 REGENX

1.028 1 1132957 0-VARIABLE SPD BRM-RM

1.029 1 1133102 O+FRONT SPRAY BAR W PM10-RM

1.030 1 4810001 WHT FREIGHTLINER

1.031 1 4820001 WHT FREIGHTLINER

1.032 1 1130043 A-TOOL BOX LH-RM

1.033 1 1130044 A-TOOL BOX RH-RM

2.000 1 0701678 REGEN-X OPERATORS MANUAL

3.000 0701705 AIR PRODUCTS MACH DELIVERY PKT

4.000 1 0702020 ELGIN SAFETY MANUAL

5.000 1 0702256 REGEN-X PARTS BOOK

6.000 0702472 REGEN-X SERVICE MANUAL

7.000 1 0704005 FREIGHTLINER M2 PARTS

8.000 1 0704006 FREIGHTLINER M2 OPERATOR

9.000 1 0704007 FREIGHTLINER M2 SERVICE

10.000 1 0704046 JD 4045TFC03 T4F OPER MANUAL

11.000 1 0704047 JD 4045TFC03 T4F PARTS BOOK

12.000 1 0704048 JD 4045TFC03 T4F SERV MANUAL

13.000 1 0730166 BROOM MEASUREMENT RULER

14.000 1 1032481 A-16'8"HOSE-EFGJLPSY

15.000 1 6063004 A-D-1 KEY,IGN
RSS4256SC_ELGS0001.cfp6 (ELGSO00l / 7780721) CONTINUED NEXT PAGE 445 Line No.I Order Qty Part Number I Description Net Unit Price Extended Price BY:

DATE:

I
SUBTOTAL $275,256.00
SALES TAX $24,084.90
CA

MUNICIPAL

DISCOUNT
$10,950.00
TOTAL DUE $288.390.90 446
447
448
ZERO Emissions Street Sweeperis Finally Here! Global Environmental Products continues industry-leading innovative engineering with the
introduction of the World’s 1st purpose-built
electric hybrid then fuel cell electric & full plugin electric street sweeper.

Global Environmental Products equipment
oers uncompromising performance, consistent
quality, durability and reliability. Our comprehen -
sive range of machines provides the right cleaning
equipment for your application.

Global M4 ZE-Series Street Sweeper is a high-perfor -
mance Heavy Duty Street Sweeper that utilizes a High
Capacity Hopper and Robust Sweeping System. Powered
by Electrical System , we are proud to oer
a Street Sweeper that produces ZERO EMISSIONS at
all times! Electric Drive System and Sweeping System is Ultra Quiet yet very powerful!
Global M4 ZE-Series
Rear Dump and Side Dump Hopper Available.

Extremely quiet operation.

Always ZERO EMISSIONS !
Electric Motor Drives the Sweeper.

Highway Travel Speed.

Up to 12 MPH Sweeping speed.

Heavy-Duty Sweeping System.

Sweeps up to 3-Tons of sand per minute.

Global Environmental Products
Reliable / Durable Equipment
Innovative Engineering / Design
Industry Leading Reputation
Dedicated Customer Service
Outstanding Sales Professionals
Fast Parts and Service
National Dealer Network
M4 ZE-Series
1stHeavy-Duty
FULLY ELECTRIC Powered
Street Sweeperin USA!
Protecting our Future
with Zero Emissions!

MADE IN THE USA
449
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 12.

Agenda Item: City Council Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee Executive Summary: To harmonize CIP priorities with the 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, staff desires to re-format the CIP process and the CIP document to embrace trending initiatives such as sustainability, open clear dialogue with city departments and senior staff, continue and improve upon asset condition assessments and indexes, and update and refine criteria for project evaluation.

The action recommended herein is the selection of two (2) City Council members to serve on an ad hoc sub-committee working group that would participate in the analysis of the existing Capital Improvement Program evaluation criteria and assist with the selection of priority projects aligning with the 2021-2026 Strategic Plan and in conformance with the City’s General Plan.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to establish an ad hoc Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee and appoint two council members to serve as part of a working group to evaluate and update the City's Capital Improvement Program Policies, Evaluation Criteria, and Project Prioritization.

Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Manager Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Manager (530) 542-6027 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report City Council CIP Subcommittee.docx
450
Council Agenda Report January 04, 2022 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Title: City Council Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Jim Marino, Capital Improvements Projects Manager (530) 542- 6027
Background: On February 25, 2020, City Council held a public Vision and Strategic Planning Workshop in an effort to refine strategic priorities developed via workshops in 2019, and at the City Council’s March 25, 2020 special meeting, the City Council directed staff to bring forward an action item to establish a Council Ad Hoc subcommittee, known as the Transformative Change Committee (“Committee”), to conduct an examination of a long-term economic development and recovery strategy for the City of South Lake Tahoe. The City Council voted to approve the formation of the Committee on April 1, 2020.

The Committee developed the “Recommendations Report.” The recommendations in the report were utilized and meant to act as a guiding document for developing a set of strategic priorities, with the ultimate objective to develop a 5-year Strategic Plan to serve as a “blueprint” for the City Council. The City Council held a “Strategic Planning Advance” on January 19, 2021 facilitated by City Manager Irvin to discuss and validate the Strategic Plan Priorities, Goals and Action Items to be included in the 2021-2026 Strategic Plan.

On March 2, 2021 City Council approved the 2021-2016 Strategic Plan.

Issue and Discussion: The Capital Improvement Program addresses the City’s needs relating to the acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and replacement of long-lived assets. The CIP serves as a planning instrument to identify needed capital projects and coordinate the financing and timing of improvements in a way that maximizes the return to the public. It provides a planned and programmed approach to utilizing the City’s financial resources in the most responsive and efficient manner to meet its service and facility needs. It serves as a “blueprint” for the future of the community and is a dynamic tool, not a static document. A critical element of a balanced CIP is the establishment of funds to both preserve or enhance existing assets and provide new assets to respond to changing service needs and community evolution.

To harmonize CIP priorities with the 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, staff desires to re-format the CIP process and the CIP document to embrace trending initiatives such as sustainability, open clear dialogue with city departments and senior staff, continue and improve upon asset condition assessments and indexes, and update and refine criteria for project evaluation.

The action recommended herein is the selection of two (2) City Council members to serve on an ad hoc sub-committee working group that would participate in the analysis of the existing Capital 451
Council Agenda Report January 04, 2022 Page 2 of 3
Improvement Program evaluation criteria and assist with the selection of priority projects aligning with the 2021-2026 Strategic Plan and in conformance with the City’s General Plan.

Financial Implications: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. While there will be budget appropriations specific to future Capital Improvement Program projects, those fiscal impacts will be provided to Council for approval on an annual basis at the time of budget adoption.

Environmental Considerations: The discussion in this report is not considered a project under CEQA, as it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Policy Implications: The selection of CIP Sub-committee members does not negatively impact the City’s existing financial policy for the preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan as listed below:

A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) shall be prepared for the upcoming budget year and the next five fiscal years. The purpose of the CIP is to systematically plan, schedule and finance capital projects to ensure cost effectiveness as well as conformance with established funding and construction policies. The CIP shall reflect a balance between capital replacement projects that repair, replace, or enhance existing facilities, equipment or infrastructure, and capital facility projects that significantly expand or add to the City’s existing fixed assets.

A. Annual Adoption of CIP
The City Council shall adopt the annual CIP that addresses all capital investments planned for the budget year and for the subsequent budget years at the same time as adoption of the Annual Budget.

B. Annual Appropriation Requirement
The capital budget represents only the first year of the CIP. The primary difference between the capital budget and the CIP is that, through the annual Appropriation Resolution passed by the City Council, the Capital Budget legally authorizes expenditures during the upcoming fiscal year. The CIP includes the first-year projections as well as future projects for which financing has not been secured or legally authorized. The funding allocation for future years of the CIP is therefore subject to change.

C. Project Manager
Every capital improvement project will have a project manager who prepares the project proposal, ensures that required phases are completed on schedule, authorizes all project expenditures, ensures that all regulations and laws are observed, and periodically reports project status.

D. Statement of Fiscal Impact on the Operating Budget
Each approved CIP project will contain a statement of fiscal impact on the annual operating budget and the source of funding.
452
Council Agenda Report January 04, 2022 Page 3 of 3
The creation of City Council Subcommittees conforms to City Council Protocols. City Council Protocols, Section VII., (2) Subcommittees, states:
“City Council subcommittees are formed on an as needed basis with a clearly defined purpose and term. Subcommittees will consist of two Councilmembers agreed upon by a consensus of the Council. Meetings of the Council subcommittees are not open to the public, unless specified by the Council.”
453
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 13.

Agenda Item: Agenda Planning Calendar
Executive Summary:

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Identify, with consent of at least two Council members, any desired future agenda items, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.

Responsible Staff Member: Joseph Irvin, City Manager
Responsible Staff Member:

Reviewed and Approved By:

Attachments:

APC - December 28, 2021.pdf
454
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar Updated 12/28/2021
Department Agenda Item Agenda Section
Jan. 18 5:30 p.m. City Attorney Formal agreement with El Dorado County for 56-Acres City Clerk Citizen Appointments to Boards and Commissions Campaign Contribution Limits
Presentation - South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce (Bruce Grego) City Manager Tahoe Way - Strategic Plan Amendment
TRPA’s proposed RTP funding structure discussion
Dev Serv Movable Tiny Homes ordinance (first reading)
56-Acre Master Plan IS/ND
Ordinance - Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Amendment (second reading) Agreement with Alpine Corporation for affordable housing project Finance Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Consent Public Works Award Contract Third part Plan Review Services - Rec & Aquatic Center Award Contract for Lake Tahoe Blvd Bike Trail Project
Feb.1, 9 a.m. City Attorney Cannabis Ordinance Amendments City Clerk Citizen Appointments to Boards and Commissions Dev Services Movable Tiny Homes ordinance (second reading) 455
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar Updated 12/28/2021
Finance Transfer of Unclaimed Check Funds
FD/PD/PW Annual Reports
Pub. Works Master PSA Airport Arch.l, Eng., Const. Mgmt, & DBE Compliance Support Serv.

Underground Storm Drain Pipe Focused Condition Assessment Draft RFP for Braodband Services
Feb. 15, 5:30 p.mDev Serv Property Management rental incentive PSA Plan Area Statement Update for Tourist Accommodation Uses TRPA Comodity Apprasal
Finance Fiscal Year 2021-22 Quarterly Financial Status Report – QE December 31, 202 Consent Investment Portfolio Report – December 31, 2021 Consent Public Works EIP Project update Presentation
Mar. 1, 9 a.m. DevServices PLHA Moderate Income Homebuyer Administration PSA Local Housing Revenue feasibility study PSA
456
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar Updated 12/28/2021
Reach Code PSA
Public Works Award Contract PD - Community Recource Center Renovations SW Gas Prestentation Renewable Energy Goals
Award PSA Fire Station II Feasability Study
Mar. 15, 5:30 p.mFinance 2021-2022 Master Fee Schedule NB Ski Run Business Improvement District Annual Assessment NB 2021-2022 Fiscal Year Budget Mid-Year Adjustments NB
5-year plan NB
2020-2021 Small Business Sustainability (SBS) Loans Update Mar. 29, 9 a.m. Strategic Planning Advance
April 5, 9 a.m. Finance City Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) FY ended 09/30/2021 Consent Ski Run BID Levy of Assessment for Business License Year 2022/2023 PH Dev Serv Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment: 3828 Montreal Rd May 3, 9 a.m.

May 17, 5:30 p.m Pub. Works Award FY 2023 Airport Master Plan RFQ June 7, 5:30 p.m.

June 21, 5:30 p.m.
457
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar Updated 12/28/2021
Aug. 9, 9 a.m.

Aug. 23, 9 a.m. Budget Workshop
Sept. 6, 9 a.m.

Sept. 20, 5:30 p.m.

Oct. 4, 9 a.m.

Nov. 1, 9 a.m.

Nov. 15, 5:30 p.m.

Dec.13, 9 a.m.

City Attorney Parking Garage License Agreement with Verizon City Attny/PW Undergrounding Utilities
Amendments to Small Cell Policy
Liberty Utilities Franchise Agreement
City Clerk Records Management Policy (Updated)
Pride Month Proclamation (June)
Policy - Use of Personal Devices for City Business
City Manager Economic Development Strategy
Unscheduled/Pending
458
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar Updated 12/28/2021
Juvenile Treatment Center Discussion
Non Profit Community Benefit Grant Policy
ARPA Project Funding List (If 5M is allocated to Ski Run Affordable Housing Project) Potential new City slogan
Customer satisfaction survey(s)
Dev Services Inclusionary housing ordinance
RFP for consulting firms for Bijou / Al Tahoe Area Plan and Bijou Parks Master Plan Plan Area Statement 111 amendment
Single Room Occupancy Program Amendments
Outside Eating Code Review (coverage, seating, parking etc) HOME grant application resolution
Fire
Police
Public Works Award Engineering and Construction Contract South Hangar Taxi Lane Rehab SEED Solar Photovoltaic Project PPA
Award - James and Eloise Drainage Improvement Project Phase 1 Award FY 2023 Airport Master Plan RFQ
459
2022 Agenda Planning Calendar Updated 12/28/2021
Facility Condition Assessment & Plan – Parking Garage
Airport Deferred Maintenance Plan
Award 5-Year Lease/Concession for Airport Suite # 105
Lake Tahoe Blvd Class 1 Bike Trail (Viking Way to Y)
Recreation Bijou Park Master Plan
Bijou Golf Course "Rock the Lake" Event and Review
460