South Lake Tahoe City Council
January 18, 2022

TRPA’s existing policies and Code provisions address tree removal through site-specific environmental review and permitting; require development and implementation of project-specific measures to minimize or avoid impacts through the design, siting, and permitting process; and require compensatory or other mitigation for any significant effects as a condition of project approval. Specifically, the TRPA Goals and Policies and Code of Ordinances include provisions limiting tree removal and protecting late seral/old growth forests, and TRPA’s Rules of Procedure require mitigation for any significant impact as a condition of project approval. Additionally, TRPA cannot approve projects that would cause a significant adverse effect on the late seral/old growth ecosystem threshold standard without appropriate mitigation. Specific provisions for tree removal in the Tahoe Basin are provided in the following chapters and sections of the TRPA Code (TRPA 2012): Chapter 61, Vegetation and Forest Health, Section 61.1, Tree Removal, Section 61.3.6, Sensitive and Uncommon Plant Protection and Fire Hazard Reduction, and Section 61.4, Revegetation; Chapter 36, Design Standards; Chapter 33, Grading and Construction, Section 33.6, Vegetation Protection During Construction; and Chapter 62, Wildlife Resources.

Removal of trees greater than 14 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) requires review and approval by TRPA.

Specifically, applicants must obtain a tree removal permit from TRPA prior to removing trees greater than 14 inches dbh, except for certain cases exempt by the TRPA Code. For example, trees of any size marked as a fire hazard by a fire protection district or fire department that operates under a memorandum of understanding with TRPA can be removed without a separate tree permit. A harvest or tree removal plan is required by TRPA where implementation of a project would cause “substantial” tree removal. Substantial tree removal is defined in Chapter 61 of the TRPA Code as activities on project areas of three acres or more and proposing: (1) removal of more than 100 live trees 14 inches dbh or larger, or (2) tree removal that, as determined by TRPA after a joint inspection with appropriate state or federal forestry staff, does not meet the minimum acceptable stocking standards set forth in Chapter 61. 494
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-49 To protect late seral/old growth ecosystems, with limited exceptions, Section 61.1.4, Old Growth Enhancement Protections, of the TRPA Code prohibits the removal of trees larger than 24 and 30 inches dbh in eastside and westside forest types, respectively, for forest management activities and projects located in lands classified by TRPA as conservation or recreation land use or SEZ. The Master Plan would be implemented within the area designated as “westside” but is not within a TRPA-designated conservation or recreation land use area or SEZ. In addition, trees and vegetation not scheduled to be removed must be protected during construction in accordance with Code Chapter 33, Grading and Construction, Section 33.6, Vegetation Protection During Construction.

Because the number of trees by species and size class proposed for tree removal has not been quantified for the Master Plan, the total number of trees 14 inches dbh or greater proposed for removal and subject to a TRPA tree removal permit has not been identified; accordingly, whether Plan implementation would cause substantial tree removal as defined in Chapter 61 of the TRPA Code has not been determined. As part of the required TRPA approval and permitting process for the proposed Master Plan, the applicant would prepare tree removal plans for TRPA review and approval; and, before the removal of any trees 14 inches dbh or greater, the applicant would secure a tree removal permit from TRPA. For any substantial tree removal (as defined in the TRPA Code), a harvest or tree removal plan would be prepared for TRPA review, as required by the TRPA Code, and implemented upon approval. Therefore, approved Plan-related removal of trees would comply with the tree removal and protection provisions of the TRPA Code.

The plan area is not located within late seral/old growth forest, but rather contains patches of open to moderately dense mid-seral forest; and the removal of trees required for the Master Plan would not substantially change the structure or composition of forest habitat in the plan area vicinity. Therefore, the Master Plan would not conflict with TRPA policies or threshold standards for protecting late seral/old growth forest. Additionally, tree removal or other vegetation disturbances would not substantially reduce the size, continuity, or integrity of any common vegetation community or habitat type or interrupt the natural processes that support common vegetation communities in the plan area. Because the plan area is already disturbed and fragmented considerably, potential Plan-related disturbances to the biological functions of common habitats are not considered substantial.

Through compliance with existing tree removal and protection requirements of the TRPA Code, and because Planrelated tree removal would not substantially degrade biological resources, tree removal required for the Master Plan and permitted by TRPA would not conflict with any tree protection policies or ordinances. Master Plan implementation would result in no impact related to potential conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting trees or other biological resources.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Although the precise number of trees by species proposed for removal has not yet been quantified, at the current level of design an estimated 309 trees, 97 of which are greater than 14 inches diameter at breast height (Marino, pers. comm., 2021), would require removal for construction of the building and expanded parking lot and for defensible space purposes near the library. Thus, because fewer than 100 trees greater than 14 inches dbh are estimated for removal, construction of the Multigenerational Center project would not cause substantial tree removal as defined in Chapter 61 of the TRPA Code. As part of the required TRPA approval and permitting process for the Multigenerational Center, the applicant would prepare tree removal plans for TRPA review and approval; and, before the removal of any trees 14 inches dbh or greater, the City would secure a tree removal permit from TRPA. For any substantial tree removal (as defined in the TRPA Code), a harvest or tree removal plan would be prepared for TRPA review, as required by the TRPA Code, and implemented upon approval. Therefore, approved Plan-related removal of trees would comply with the tree removal and protection provisions of the TRPA Code.

For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, construction and operation of facilities for the Multigenerational Center Project would result in no impact related to potential conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting trees or other biological resources. 495
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-50 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. The plan area is not located in an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. Therefore, construction and operation of facilities, changes in services and uses, and other features proposed for the Master Plan would result in no impact related to the provisions of any adopted or approved conservation plan.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, construction and operation of facilities for the Multigenerational Center Project would result in no impact related to potential conflict with the provisions of any adopted or approved conservation plan.

3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for analyzing the cumulative effects on biological resources is the Tahoe Basin. As described in Section 3.4.2, “Discussion,” for biological resources, implementation of the Master Plan and the Multigenerational Center project would result in no impact related to special-status species, wetlands and other sensitive habitats, or potential conflict with a local ordinance protecting biological resources or an adopted conservation plan. Any potential project-related disturbances to native habitats, native wildlife nursery sites, or movements of common animal species would not be substantial. No potential impacts on biological resources considered significant and requiring mitigation were identified.

Present and probable future projects that may affect habitat for special-status wildlife and plants, and other biological resources, in the project vicinity include residential and commercial development, recreation facilities and resort development, and vegetation management/fuels reduction projects. Development projects that overlap with native habitats would be expected to have some level of adverse effects on these resources; however, some vegetation management projects may result in long-term habitat enhancement that would benefit some wildlife and botanical species.

When combined with other past, present, and probable future projects with biological effects, implementation of the proposed Master Plan and the Multigenerational Center project would not substantially contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on biological resources. No special-status plant or animal species are expected to occur regularly in the plan area due to the absence of suitable breeding habitat, high disturbance levels associated with existing urban uses, and no historic documentation of occurrences in the plan area. Because habitats in the plan area are fragmented and highly disturbed, native species occur there in relatively low abundance and diversity. The plan area is within a commercial core and developed recreation area; the Master Plan would be implemented mostly on existing developed lands. Additionally, the area surrounding the plan area includes commercial and residential development, a major highway corridor (US 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard) and other roadways, and disturbed conifer forest in fragmented undeveloped areas. Therefore, the quality and functions of biological resources in the plan area and vicinity would not change substantially with implementation of the Master Plan or the Multigenerational Center project. Additionally, because the Lake Tahoe Basin is recognized as environmentally sensitive, sufficient protections are in place by TRPA, El Dorado County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB) to require that impacts of this project, and any nearby projects, are minimized. For these reasons, construction and operation of facilities, changes in services and uses, and other features proposed for the Master Plan and the Multigenerational Center project would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on biological resources.
496
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-51

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources.

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
This contextual background described below draws from the cultural resources report prepared in support of this environmental document, Historic and Archaeological Resources Report in Support of South Lake Tahoe Master Plan (PaleoWest 2021).

PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW
Prehistoric occupation of the Lake Tahoe region of northeastern California spans a period of approximately 11,000 years beginning in the late Pleistocene continuing throughout the Holocene. Previous archaeological investigations have defined four distinct complexes associated with the occupation of the region: Tahoe Reach (8,000-10,000 calibrated [cal] before present [BP]), Spooner (5,000-8,000 cal BP), Martis both Early (4,000-6,000 cal BP) and Late (1,350-3,500 cal BP), and Kings Beach both Early (1,500-800 cal BP) and Late (800 cal BP to contact). Early inhabitants of the region where primarily highly mobile hunter-gatherer groups utilizing Late Paleolithic stemmed point tools as well as heavy bifaces, cores, and choppers. Like other regions along the Sierra Nevada range there is a dearth of large assemblages associated with these terminal Paleoindian and Early Archaic occupants who would have lived during the Tahoe Reach and early Spooner complexes.

Conversely, during the late Spooner and through the Early Kings Beach complexes archaeologists have observed a substantial rise in evidence of prehistoric occupations. Increased environmental stability between 2,000-7,000 years ago enabled hunter-gatherer groups in the region shift to more sedentary lifeways while developing new technologies including millingstones and handstones to process a wider diversity of foraged foods. During the late Spooner complex big game hunting reduced while seed processing became a primary subsistence strategy. A continued focus on foraged foods showed throughout the Martis complex with primarily basalt flaked stone tool technologies used for small game hunting to supplement a largely plant-based diet.

Occurring in the Late Martis/Early Kings Beach complex (approximately 1,500-2,000 cal BP) is the appearance of bedrock mortars as acorn intensification became the primary subsistence strategy for most indigenous Californians.

An additionally important development during this time was the use bow and arrow technology distinguished by small projectile points made from obsidian and basalt coinciding with an increase in big game hunting and territoriality amongst established hunter gatherer groups. 497
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-52 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

HISTORIC OVERVIEW
The 56-acre South Lake Tahoe Recreation Area is located within the former community of Al Tahoe. In 1907, Sacramentan Almerin Sprague purchased a 273-acre property with lakeside frontage after recouping from exhaustion at Lake Tahoe in the summer of 1906. His appreciation of the location, climate, and his desire to build his own summer home on the lake eventually lead to the purchase of the 273 acres with plans to create a summer resort community for city dwellers. In less than two years, Sprague constructed a pier, a cottage-plan motel called “Liberty Inn,” an apartment house called “Rubicon Cottage,” a store and post office, a steam plant for electricity and laundry, and an icehouse. The post office was designated as the Al Tahoe Post Office and from that point forward, the area around the burgeoning resort town was called Al Tahoe. The Al-Tahoe Company sold their real estate holdings to Los Angeles businessman W.J. Wallace in 1917.

Al Tahoe and other resort communities around Lake Tahoe continued to grow and thrive in the 1920s, the pace of which slowed during the Great Depression of the 1930s and during World War II but increased again in the postWorld War II years. In 1945, Aram Harootunian purchased the Al Tahoe property and nearby parcels and subdivided new lots. Gaming regulations loosened in the 1950s and casinos were erected just across the state border in Nevada, and in 1956 the Heavenly Valley Ski Resort opened, both less than 2 miles east of Al Tahoe.

The 56-acre South Lake Tahoe Recreation Area was originally part of the Eldorado National Forest, the boundaries of which were formed in 1910 out of the Tahoe and Stanislaus national forests. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors purchased 60 acres from the Forest Service just south of the south end of Lake Tahoe, including the 56-acre project site, in 1923 to establish a public campground. After purchase in 1923, the Forest Service, Board of Supervisors, and the State Automobile Association sought funds to build the campground and the Forest Service would operate the campground once completed. At some point the Lake Valley Community Club obtained ownership of the property, then a slightly smaller 56 acres, and donated the land back to El Dorado County in April 1959 to be used for recreational and educational purposes. Following the donation, the property was developed with a library, community hospital, recreation center, upgrades to the municipal campground, two public works facilities, and a county vector control office, which is collectively referred to as the South Lake Tahoe Recreation Area.

In November 1965, voters passed incorporation of the City of South Lake Tahoe by more than two-thirds majority.

The newly incorporated city combined the communities of Tahoe Valley, Al Tahoe, Bijou, and Stateline over approximately 6 square miles and had a collective population of 8,000 to 10,000 residents. By 1970, the population of the City of South Lake Tahoe increased to nearly 13,000 and reached 21,000 in 2010. Today, the buildings constructed on the 56-acre South Lake Tahoe Recreation Area continue to serve recreational and educational purposes. The original library has since been repurposed into a local museum that moved a log cabin and toll house to the site, the community hospital was converted into a senior center, a new library was constructed in 1983, and a new ice rink was constructed in the early 2000s.

KNOWN RESOURCES
A California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search was performed at the North Central Information Center (NCIC File #ELD-21-22) to determine the extent to which the plan area had been previously surveyed, as well as the number and type of known cultural resources present within a 0.25-mile radius of the plan area.

The CHRIS records search indicates that a total of eight prior cultural resource studies have been completed within the plan area
The CHRIS records search results indicated that no archaeological resources have been previously recorded in the plan area; one built environment feature was previously recorded within the plan area and three previously recorded historic-age resources were recorded within the 0.25-mile search radius. The previously recorded resource in the plan area is a portion of the Campground by the Lake. The three buildings (a caretaker’s residence, garage, and storage shed) on the north end of the campground were evaluated and determined ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
498
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-53 An archaeological pedestrian survey of the plan area was conducted on April 8, 2021. No archaeological resources were observed. An intensive survey of the built environment within the plan area was conducted on March 25, 2021.

Ten historic-age (50 years or older) features were fully documented and evaluated against California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria. These built-environment features include:
 3050 South Lake Tahoe Boulevard: South Lake Tahoe Senior Center, constructed 1956, 1987, 1991  3058 Lake Tahoe Boulevard: Lake Tahoe Historical Museum, consists of a 1959 building  3058 Lake Tahoe Boulevard: consists of a circa-1933 relocated cabin  3058 Lake Tahoe Boulevard: Osgood Toll House, consists of an 1859 relocated toll house  3062 Lake Tahoe Boulevard: City of South Lake Tahoe Art Building, constructed in 1950  3066 Lake Tahoe Boulevard: former Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce and Lake Tahoe Visitor Authority, constructed circa-1956
 1150 Rufus Allen Boulevard: Campground by the Lake, containing 12 historic-age buildings and structures  1150 Rufus Allen Boulevard: Maintenance Yard, containing a historic-age Maintenance Shop  1160 Rufus Allen Boulevard: City of South Lake Tahoe Public Works Street Division Corporation Yard, constructed between 1952 and 1955
 1170 Rufus Allen Boulevard: El Dorado County Vector Control, constructed in 1963 The evaluation concluded that only one building appears to meet CRHR criteria; the Osgood Toll House at the Lake Tahoe Historical Museum at 3058 Lake Tahoe Boulevard appears eligible for listing in the CRHR at the local level under Criterion 1 for its significant association with important events, the development of travel and recreation at Lake Tahoe, and under CRHR Criterion 3 at the state level because it embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction as an example of a square-log constructed toll house. Therefore, the toll house is a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA.

3.5.2 Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. The cultural resources report identified one built environment feature, the Osgood Toll House located at the Lake Tahoe History Museum, which is eligible for listing in the CRHR; therefore, it is a resource under CEQA. No other built-environment features in the plan area were recommended as eligible. This building would not be demolished or altered as part of the Multigenerational Center project. Therefore, there would be no impact on historical resources.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. Construction of the Multigenerational Center would require removal of a portion of the existing Campground by the Lake (including tent cabins), relocation of an existing restroom at the campground, and the removal of two existing campground buildings associated with the original camp store. As described above, the Campground by the Lake and its buildings were evaluated for listing in the CRHR and determined to be not eligible.

Therefore, these buildings are not resources under CEQA. The existing Recreation and Swim Complex is less than 45- years of age and therefore does not meet the criteria guidance for evaluation under the CRHR and is not considered a resource under CEQA. Therefore, the Multigenerational Center project would have no impact on historical resources.
499
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-54 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The cultural resources study determined that no prehistoric or historic-period archeological resources were found within the plan area, based on the NCIC records search and the pedestrian survey. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that archaeological materials could be encountered during construction-related ground disturbing activities. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Unanticipated Discoveries of Archaeological Resources This mitigation measure applies to the 56 Acres Master Plan.

If a prehistoric archeological site (such as midden soils, stone tools, chipped stone, baked clay, or concentrations of shell or bone) or a historic-period archaeological site (such as structural features, concentrated deposits of bottles, or other historic refuse) is uncovered during grading or other construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. The City will be notified of the potential find and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to investigate its significance. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the appropriate Native American group shall be notified, and Mitigation Measure 3.18-2 shall be implemented. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed.

If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or tribal cultural resource), the archaeologist shall work with the City to follow accepted professional standards such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, as necessary. If artifacts are recovered from significant historic archaeological resources, they shall be housed at a qualified curation facility. The results of the identification, evaluation, and/or data recovery program for any unanticipated discoveries shall be presented in a professional-quality report that details all methods and findings, evaluates the nature and significance of the resources, and analyzes and interprets the results.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources discovered during project construction activities to a less-than-significant level by requiring preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See discussion for 56 Acres Master Plan, above.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources This mitigation measure applies to the Multigenerational Center Project.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources discovered during project construction activities to a less-than-significant level by requiring preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.
500
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-55 c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. There are no known cemeteries or burials in the plan area. However, because earthmoving activities associated with project construction would occur, there is potential to encounter buried human remains or unknown cemeteries in areas with little or no previous disturbance. California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California PRC Section 5097.

These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the County coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following the coroner’s findings, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments, if present, are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.

Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion for 56 Acres Master Plan, above.

3.5.3 Cumulative Impacts
The project would have no impact on historical resources, therefore there would be no cumulative impact and this issue is not discussed further. The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts to archaeological resources and human remains is the Lake Tahoe Basin, where archaeologists have developed a taxonomic framework describing patterns characterized by technology, particular artifacts, economic systems, trade, burial practices, and other aspects of culture.

Because all significant cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, meaning there are a limited number of significant cultural resources, all adverse effects erode a dwindling resource base. The loss of any one archaeological site could affect the scientific value of others in a region because these resources are best understood in the context of the entirety of the cultural system of which they are a part. The cultural system is represented archaeologically by the total inventory of all sites and other cultural remains in the region. As a result, a meaningful approach to preserving and managing cultural resources must focus on the likely distribution of cultural resources, rather than on a single project or parcel boundary. Euro-American development in the Tahoe Basin since 1858 has resulted in an existing significant adverse effect on archaeological resources and human remains.

Cumulative development, including projects described in Table 3.21-1, continues to contribute to the disturbance of cultural resources.

No known unique archaeological resources or human remains are located within the boundaries of the plan area; nonetheless, project-related earth-disturbing activities could damage undiscovered archaeological resources or human remains. Implementation of the Master Plan (including the Multigenerational Center project), in combination with other development in the region, could contribute to ongoing substantial adverse changes in the significance of unique archaeological resources resulting from urban development and conversion of natural lands. Cumulative development could result in potentially significant archaeological resource impacts. 501
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-56 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 and Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 would ensure that the Master Plan’s and Multigenerational Center project’s contribution to cumulatively significant archaeological resource impacts would not be considerable by requiring construction work to cease in the event of an accidental find and the appropriate treatment of discovered resources, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the Master Plan’s contribution to these impacts would be offset. Further, cumulative development would be required to implement similar mitigation to avoid/reduce impacts to archaeological resources. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would ensure that treatment and disposition of the remains occurs in a manner consistent with state guidelines and California Native American Heritage Commission guidance. Therefore, the Master Plan would not have a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to archaeological resources or human remains. 502
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-57

3.6 ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.6.1 Environmental Setting

PHYSICAL SETTING
Energy Types and Sources
California relies on a regional power system comprised of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. One-third of energy commodities consumed in California is natural gas. In 2018, approximately 34 percent of natural gas consumed in the State was used to generate electricity. Large hydroelectric projects generated approximately 11 percent of the electricity used by the State, and renewable energy from solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass combustion generated 31 percent (California Energy Commission 2020).

Electrical service to the City of South Lake Tahoe is provided by Liberty Utilities and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).

Natural gas service is provided to the project site by Southwest Gas Corporation. In 2018, PG&E’s base power plan’s electricity was composed of 39 percent eligible renewable energy resources, as defined by California Energy Commission (CEC), (i.e., biomass combustion, geothermal, small-scale hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 13 percent large-scale hydroelectric resources, and 15 percent natural gas and other fuels (CEC 2019a).

STATE PLANS, POLICIES, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1974 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The act introduced state policy for siting power plants to reduce potential environmental impacts, and additionally sought to reduce demand for these facilities by directing CEC to develop statewide energy conservation measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary uses of energy. Conservation measures recommended establishing design standards for energy conservation in buildings that ultimately resulted in the creation of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code), which have been updated regularly and remain in effect today. The act additionally directed CEC to cooperate with the Office of Planning and Research, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), and other interested parties in ensuring that a discussion of wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy is included in all environmental impact reports required on local projects.

State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 503
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-58 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 2003 California Energy Action Plan (2008 update). The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs; and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access (CEC 2019b).

Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The State has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewables to produce electricity for consumers.

California utilities are required to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011); 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018); 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018); and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018).

Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the State’s Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). The California Energy Code was established by CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years with more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.

The 2019 California Energy Code was adopted by CEC on May 9, 2018 and applies to projects constructed after January 1, 2020. The 2019 California Energy Code is designed to move the State closer to its zero-net energy goals for new residential development. It does so by requiring all new residences to install enough renewable energy to offset all the electricity needs of each residential unit (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section 150.1(c)4). CEC estimates that the combination of mandatory on-site renewable energy and prescriptively required energy efficiency standards will result in a 53 percent reduction in new residential construction as compared to the 2016 California Energy Code. Non-residential buildings are anticipated to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent as compared to the 2016 California Energy Code primarily through prescriptive requirements for high-efficiency lighting (CEC 2018). The Energy Code is enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary due to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards exceed those provided in the California Energy Code.

City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The city of South Lake Tahoe adopted the General Plan on May 17, 2011. Planning and zoning in the City of South Lake Tahoe is guided by the City’s General Plan, which is implemented through joint Plan Area Statements and Community Plans adopted by the City and TRPA. The policies in this General Plan seek to encourage energy conservation that leads to lowering the carbon footprint of South Lake Tahoe. The following goals and policies would help in improving efficiency use of energy and reduce its wastage (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011).

GOAL LU-5: To revitalize and consolidate existing commercial uses while providing incentives and commodities for new resident‐ and visitor‐serving commercial uses.
 Policy LU‐5.3: Commercial Center Enhancement
The City shall encourage the upgrade and/or expansion of existing commercial centers, including improvements to parking and landscaping areas; redesigns to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and transit facilities; and remodeling to include “green” technology and improve energy efficiency. 504
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-59 GOAL LU-9: To become a leader in “green” building technology, energy efficiency, emerging technologies, and sustainable development practices in the Lake Tahoe Basin.  Policy LU‐9.4: Energy Efficient City Buildings and Facilities The City shall incorporate energy efficiency into all City‐owned and operated buildings and facilities.

GOAL PQP‐1: To ensure the timely maintenance, expansion, and upgrade of public facilities and services for the entire community.
 Policy PQP‐1.9: Comprehensive “Green” Infrastructure Strategies The City shall create comprehensive “green” infrastructure strategies to address sustainability objectives in the supply and management of energy, solid waste and materials, water, and wastewater.

GOAL PQP‐10: To relocate and consolidate City‐owned and operated public buildings while making them more energy efficient.
 Policy PQP‐10.2: Energy Efficiency in City Buildings and Facilities The City shall incorporate energy efficiency standards into all City‐owned and operated buildings and facilities.

GOAL NCR‐6: To encourage energy conservation in new and existing developments in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limit their effect on global warming, and to create a more sustainable environment.  Policy NCR‐6.1: Decreasing Reliance on Non‐Renewable Energy Sources The City shall shift away from reliance on non‐renewable sources, should emerging research show net environmental benefits in the use of biofuel.
 Policy NCR‐6.3: Local, Clean, and Renewable Energy Support The City shall increase energy efficiency, reduce emissions and support local, clean, and renewable energy sources.
 Policy NCR‐6.11: Solar Photovoltaic System Program
The City shall promote voluntary participation in programs to increase the use of solar photovoltaic systems in new and existing residential, commercial, institutional, and public buildings.  Policy NCR‐6.14: EPA Energy Star Certified Appliances The City shall encourage the use of “EPA Energy Star” certified appliances (e.g., water heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units) for new private development and public facilities, where feasible.

City of South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan
In 2017, the City passed Resolution 2017-26, Establishing Renewable Energy and Carbon Emissions Reduction Goals.

These goals include achieving 50 percent of municipal energy sources from renewable energy by 2025, 100 percent of municipal energy sources from renewable energy by 2032, and 100 percent community energy sources from renewable electricity by 2032. The City’s first Climate Action Plan (CAP) was developed and adopted by City Council on October 20, 2020 and serves as a long-term plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from community activities and improve the reliance on renewable energy, as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. The goals and policies in the CAP are aligned with the goals and policies mentioned for the General Plan, above. 505
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-60 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.6.2 Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Thresholds that define when energy consumption is considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary have not been established in federal or State law or in the State CEQA Guidelines. Future facilities built under the Master Plan would comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, which would result in energy-efficient buildings. However, compliance with building codes does not adequately address all potential energy impacts during construction and operation. The construction activities associated with implementation of the Master Plan would increase energy consumption but would be temporary and short-term. Operation of the facilities built under the Master Plan would generate an increase in energy consumption from fuel consumption and electricity demand but would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary as the Master Plan is aligned with the City’s General Plan and Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan for developing a civic and recreational center, reducing the reliance on automobile and improving movement of people, goods, and services.

Construction
Energy would be required to operate and maintain construction equipment and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical buildings and facilities and infrastructure associated with the proposed project would be non-recoverable. Most energy consumption would result from operation of offroad construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips associated with construction worker commute trips and vendor haul truck trips.

The energy consumption associated with proposed project construction was estimated by year using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 and off model calculations. Most of the construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and waste using on-road haul trucks for all phases of construction. An estimated 92,616 gallons of gasoline and 53,096 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during project construction as shown in Table 3.6-1. Refer to section 3.3, “Air Quality” for details about the methodology and Appendix A for assumptions and modeling results.

Table 3.6-1 Construction-Related Energy Consumption for the Master Plan Construction Years Gasoline (gal/year) Diesel (gal/year) 2025 31,908 18,712
2026 33,829 18,203
2027 26,679 16,127
2028 201 54
Total (All Vehicle Types) 92,616 53,096
Note: gal/year = gallons per year
Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2021
The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Associated energy consumption for construction would be typical of that associated with similar facilities in the area. Automotive fuels would be consumed to transport construction workers and materials to and from the project site. Energy would be required for construction elements and transport of construction materials. The energy expenditure required to construct the physical infrastructure associated with the project would be non-recoverable. Because the energy consumption related with the construction of the Master Plan would temporary and short-term, it would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 506
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-61 Operation
The Master Plan would increase energy consumption in the region relative to existing conditions. However, the new buildings would, at a minimum, comply with 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the estimated energy consumption associated with the first full year of operation in 2040. Energy consumption was estimated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 and off model calculations, like the approach used for the air quality and GHG analyses (see Sections 3.3, “Air Quality,” and 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”).

Table 3.6-2 Annual Operational Energy Consumption of Master Plan at Buildout (2040) Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption Units
On-Site Operations
Electricity (from the grid) 894 MWh/year
Natural Gas 14,575 therms/year
Transportation
Gasoline 102,566 gal/year
Diesel 4,087 gal/year
Notes: MWh/year= megawatt-hours per year; gal/year = gallons per year Source: Calculations performed by Ascent Environmental in 2021 Operation of the Master Plan would include the use of electricity for lighting and use of natural gas for heating.

Gasoline and diesel would be used for transportation and delivery of goods to the project site. Energy use would also include the consumption of electricity associated with wastewater treatment and water well pumping, as well as automotive fuels used for solid waste removal.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for 2019 would be integrated into all facilities included in the Master Plan to reduce energy demands. In addition, the proposed project’s gasoline and diesel consumption would be subject to state and federal regulations regarding fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. For these reasons, the Master Plan’s consumption of electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

The City’s CAP provides strategies to reduce grid source energy demand with the increased use of renewable energy sources (Measure RE-4). The electricity demand would be met by Liberty Utilities. Liberty Utility’s energy sources are consistent with California’s RPS program to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resource to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020, 50 percent by 2026, and 60 percent by 2030. Liberty Utilities has a goal of achieving 75 percent renewable generation capacity by 2023 (Liberty Utilities 2020).

Hence, the Master Plan would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation and the impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The Multigenerational Center would comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, which would result in energy-efficient buildings. However, compliance with building codes does not adequately address all potential energy impacts during construction and operation. The construction activities associated with the Multigenerational Center would increase energy consumption but would be temporary and short-term.

Operation of the Multigenerational Center would generate an increase in energy consumption from fuel consumption and electricity demand but would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary as the facility is aligned with the City’s General Plan and Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan for developing a civic and recreational center, reducing the reliance on automobile and improving movement of people, goods, and services.

Construction
Energy would be required to operate and maintain construction equipment and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical buildings and facilities and infrastructure associated 507
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-62 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND with the proposed project would be non-recoverable. Most energy consumption would result from operation of offroad construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips associated with construction worker commute trips and vendor haul truck trips.

The energy consumption associated with construction of the Multigenerational Center was estimated by year using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 and off model calculations. Most of the construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and waste using on-road haul trucks for all phases of construction. An estimated 3,574 gallons of gasoline and 12,946 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during project construction as shown in Table 3.6-3. Refer to section

3.3, “Air Quality” for details about the methodology and Appendix A for assumptions and modeling results.

The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Associated energy consumption for construction would be typical of that associated with similar facilities in the area. Automotive fuels would be consumed to transport construction workers and materials to and from the project site. Energy would be required for construction elements and transport of construction materials. The energy expenditure required to construct the physical infrastructure associated with the project would be non-recoverable. Since the energy consumption related with the construction of the project would temporary and short-term, it would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region. Hence, the impact would be less than significant.

Table 3.6-3 Construction-Related Energy Consumption of the of Multigenerational Center Construction Years Gasoline (gal/year) Diesel (gal/year) 2022 174 2,186
2023 3,400 10,760
Total (All Vehicle Types) 3,574 12,946
Note: gal/year = gallons per year
Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2021
Operation
The Multigenerational Center would increase energy consumption in the region relative to existing conditions.

However, the new buildings would, at a minimum, comply with 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Table 3-8 summarizes the estimated energy consumption associated with the first full year of operation. Energy consumption was estimated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 and off model calculations, which was also used to estimate emissions for the air quality and GHG analyses. Refer to Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” for details about the methodology and Appendix A for assumptions and modeling results. Table 3.6-4 shows the annual energy consumption of Master Plan for the buildout year (2024).

Table 3.6-4 Annual Operational Energy Consumption of Multigenerational Center for Buildout (2024) Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption Units
On-Site Operations
Electricity (from the grid) 260 MWh/year
Natural Gas 2,148 therms/year
Transportation
Gasoline 3,493 gal/year
Diesel 107 gal/year
Notes: MWh/year = megawatt-hours per year; gal/year = gallons per year Source: Calculations performed by Ascent Environmental in 2021 508
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-63 Operation of the project would include the use of electricity for lighting and use of natural gas for heating. Gasoline and diesel would be used for on-site auxiliary equipment, utility vehicles, and transportation. Energy use would also include the consumption of electricity associated with wastewater treatment and water well pumping, as well as automotive fuels used for solid waste removal.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for 2019 would be integrated into the project to reduce the project’s energy demands. The Multigenerational Center would also install on-site photovoltaic system in some capacity to meet electricity demand as a compliance to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification that the buildings would be applicable for. In addition, the proposed project’s gasoline and diesel consumption would be subject to state and federal regulations regarding fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. For these reasons, the project’s consumption of electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. With implementation of LEED standards, the Multigenerational Center would also reserve 5 percent of the parking for electric vehicle charging, which would reduce the fuel consumption related to visiting the project site.

The City’s CAP provides strategies to reduce grid source energy demand with the increased use of renewable energy sources (Measure RE-4). The electricity demand would be met by Liberty Utilities. Liberty Utility’s energy sources are consistent with California’s RPS program to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resource to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020, 50 percent by 2026, and 60 percent by 2030. It has a goal of achieving 75 percent renewable generation capacity by 2023 (Liberty Utilities 2020).

Hence, the Multigenerational Center would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation and this would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The objective of the proposed Master Plan is to develop and operate a nationally renowned civic and recreational space for the residents and visitors in the South Lake Tahoe city. Another objective of the plan is to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access, including enhancing pedestrian access throughout the plan area and the beach/lakefront area and connections to surrounding destinations and the regional network. Construction of facilities proposed in the Master Plan would increase the energy consumption but would be temporary. The buildings in the Master Plan would be either repurposed or replaced or newly constructed and these building would be designed to be more energy efficient than the existing buildings in the plan area. Hence, it would not conflict with the State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The Master Plan is proposed to develop a nationally renowned civic space for enjoyment of the visitors and the residents. The Master Plan would be consistent with the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan and the General Plan related to reducing the dependency on automobile and improving the movement of people, goods, and services within the Bijou/Al Tahoe area, and Lake Tahoe region. The General Plan also provides policy direction for the expansion of recreation and civic center facilities within the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan area. The Master Plan would enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access throughout the plan area, including the beach/lakefront area and connections to surrounding destinations and the regional network. This would be consistent with the City’s CAP strategy related to transportation, which promotes development of regional and local transit network for tourism, and improvement of the bike and pedestrian network. Also, the buildings proposed under the Master Plan would be designed to be energy efficient and hence would be more energy efficient than the existing buildings in the plan area. This would also be consistent with City CAP strategy related to building energy, which promotes efficient buildings and usage of renewable energy.

In addition, as discussed under item a), above, construction activities for the Master Plan would increase the consumption of diesel and gasoline used by the construction equipment, but this would be short term and temporary use of fuels. Hence, the Master Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impact would be less than significant. 509
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-64 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The objective of the proposed Multigenerational Center is to develop and operate a nationally renowned civic and recreational space for the residents and visitors in the South Lake Tahoe city.

Construction of the Center would increase the energy consumption but would be temporary. In addition, the Multigenerational Center would be designed to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards. This would essentially result in adoption on measures that would promote energy efficiency and replacement of conventional sources with renewable energy.

The Multigeneration Center is proposed to be developed as the first stage in developing the civic and recreational hub in City of South Lake Tahoe. As the Multigenerational Center would be a part of the Master Plan, this would also be consistent with the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan and the General Plan and would contribute to reducing dependency on automobile and improving the movement of people, goods, and services within the Bijou/Al Tahoe area, and Lake Tahoe region. The Multigenerational Center project also proposes to maintain pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access, including maintaining connections to surrounding destinations and the regional network. This would be consistent with the City’s CAP strategy for transportation, which promotes development of regional and local transit network for tourism, and improvement of bike and pedestrian network. Also, the Multigenerational Center building would be designed to meet LEED standards and would aim to achieve a gold or platinum LEED certification. This would imply that the building would incorporate sustainable features like providing bike facilities, reserving 5 percent of the parking for electric vehicle charging, reducing outdoor and indoor water use, installing on site renewable energy systems, etc. Regardless of which sustainable features the building achieves, the building would be consistent with the City’s CAP strategies for transportation, building energy, and water and solid waste.

In addition, as discussed under item a), above, the construction activities would increase the consumption of diesel and gasoline required by the construction equipment, but this would be short term and temporary. Hence, the Multigenerational Center would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impact would be less than significant.

3.6.3 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed Master Plan and Multigeneration Center. The construction of facilities under the Master Plan and the Multigenerational Center would result in an increase in the energy consumption, but construction energy use would be temporary and short-term. The operations of both the Master Plan and the Multigenerational Center would also increase energy consumption in the form of electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fuel use. This would not have a substantial impact as both the buildings would be designed to be more energy efficient with respect to existing buildings in the plan area. In addition, the Multigenerational Center would aim to obtain a gold or a platinum LEED certification, which would indicate the building would reduce energy consumption even further than required by Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for 2019. Therefore, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not combine with other cumulative projects identified in the cumulative project list (see Table 3.21-1) to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to energy. 510
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-65

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
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
California Geological Survey Special Publication

42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) 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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as
updated), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) 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?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The Tahoe Basin was formed more than 2 million years ago by a combination of block faulting and damming of the outlet, at the north end of the basin, and by repeated episodes of volcanic activity and glacial advances (Saucedo 2005). The plan area is located in the southern portion of the Tahoe Basin, where Pleistocene-Holocene glacial till and moraines dominate the geology (Saucedo 2005). The existing site topography is flat with a gradual slope towards 511
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-66 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Lake Tahoe in the north. The plan area is located in a seismically active area. There are three major fault zones within the Tahoe Basin: the West Tahoe-Dollar Point Fault (the longest at 45 kilometers); the Stateline-North Tahoe Fault; and the Incline Village Fault (Brothers et al. 2009). Relative to the plan area, the West Tahoe-Dollar Point Fault is located approximately 6 miles to the west and runs toward the north, the Stateline-North Tahoe Fault is approximately 11 miles to the north, and the Incline Village Fault is approximately 16 miles to the north. Recent studies indicate that all three of these faults have experienced large rupture events within recent geologic time (Dingler 2007). The nearest mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is located along the Genoa Fault, approximately 5 miles east of the plan area (CGS 2021).

There is one soil type in the plan area: the Christopher-Gefo complex on 0-5 percent slopes (Table 3.7-1; NRCS 2021) which is a loamy coarse sand and gravelly coarse sand. This soil is not rated as a hydric soil. The Christopher-Gefo complex was formed from outwash derived from granodiorite (NRCS 2021). The depth to the water table is over 80 inches (NRCS 2021). The potential for expansive soil is low in the plan area. The erosion hazard is also low. All disturbed soil would be stabilized through ground cover or revegetation at project completion per TRPA Code Section 60.4 and Lahontan RWQCB Tahoe Construction General Permit requirements. Table 3.7-1 provides a summary of the soil map unit and relevant soil characteristics in the plan area.

Table 3.7-1 Soils in the Plan Area
Map Symbol Soil Name Soil Expansion Potential Erosion Hazard1 7444 Christopher-Gefo complex 0-5 percent slopes Low (1 percent linear extensibility) 0.10-0.15 1 Erosion factors range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water.

Source: NRCS 2021
Soil liquefaction occurs when ground shaking from an earthquake causes a saturated sediment layer to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a fluid. Factors determining the liquefaction potential are soil type, the level and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Loose sands and peat deposits are susceptible to liquefaction, while clayey silts, silty clays, and clays deposited in freshwater environments are generally stable under the influence of seismic ground shaking (CGS 2008). Liquefaction poses a hazard to engineered structures. The loss of soil strength can result in bearing capacity insufficient to support foundation loads, increased lateral pressure on retaining or basement walls, and slope instability. The potential for liquefaction, or subsidence and lateral spreading is generally low for the plan area because of the depth to groundwater and relatively dense granular texture of the soils (NV5 2021).

The TRPA Bailey Land Capability System is used to classify the sensitivity of land in the Tahoe Basin. The Land Capability Districts (LCDs) range from 1 to 7, with 1 being the most environmentally sensitive and 7 being most suitable for supporting development. Most of the plan area is classified as LCD 7 man-modified, which is not considered sensitive land. The area adjacent to Lake Tahoe is classified as LCD 1b, one of the most sensitive land classifications. For land within LCD 7, 30 percent of the area is allowed to be covered (i.e., developed with impervious surfaces) and for lands within LCD 1b, 1 percent of the area is allowed to be covered. Existing and proposed coverage in the project area are shown in Table 3.7-2. The plan area currently exceeds the amount of coverage allowed under the TRPA Code. The location of proposed coverage at build-out of the Master Plan and associated the Multigenerational Center Project (Phase 1 of the Master Plan) is shown in Figure 3.7-1. With build out of the Master Plan there would be a net decrease in coverage in the plan area.

Table 3.7-2 Existing and Proposed Coverage in the Plan Area Land Capability
District (LCD)
Allowable
Coverage
Plan Area
(sq. ft.)
Allowable
Coverage (sq. ft.)
Existing Coverage
(sq. ft.)a
Proposed Coverage
(sq. ft.)
Reduction/Increase in
Coverage (sq. ft.)
1b 1% 15,200 152 2,724a 2,724 0
7 30% 2,493,406 748,021.8 1,148,836b (46%) 956,061 (38%) -192,775 Total 2,743,113 1,151,530 958,785 -192,775
Note: sq. ft. = square feet; does not include any coverage associated with US 50 512
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-67 a The existing coverage includes an existing stair/ramp at Lakeview Commons that was not included in the TRPA-verified coverage calculation. b This number includes 156,422 sq. ft. of soft coverage.

Source: Cardno 2021; compiled by Ascent Environmental, Inc in 2021 513
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-68 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Source: data downloaded from California Department of Conservation in 2011 Figure 3.7-1 Proposed Land Coverage
514
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-69

3.7.2 Discussion
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
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 California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The Alquist-Priolo Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2621– 2630) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures designed for human occupancy. The plan area is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is located along the Genoa Fault, approximately 5 miles to the east of the plan area (CGS 2021). No known faults are mapped as crossing or trending towards the plan area; therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low.

Earthquakes centered on regional faults in the area, such as the West Tahoe Fault or Genoa Fault, would likely result in higher ground motion at the site than earthquakes centered on smaller faults that are mapped closer to the site.

The buildings associated with the Master Plan would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards included in the 2019 California Building Code Section 1613 and in accordance with American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards, specifically ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, this impact would be less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. As indicated in item a-i), the plan area could experience seismic shaking due to its proximity to regional fault systems. However, the plan area is not located on a known fault and to avoid substantial adverse effects due to seismic shaking, the buildings associated with the Master Plan would be constructed in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code Section 1613 and with ASCE standards, specifically ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic shaking would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, this impact would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Soil type, depth to groundwater, and intensity of seismic ground motions are factors that determine the potential for liquefaction. Loose sands and peat deposits are susceptible to liquefaction, while clayey silts, silty clays, and clays deposited in freshwater environments are generally stable under the influence of seismic ground shaking (CGS 2008). It is unlikely that liquefaction could occur in the plan area based on the soil type and the over 80-inch depth to groundwater. The proposed buildings in the Master Plan would be designed and constructed in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code Section 1613 and with ASCE standards that are intended to reduce the risk of injury or property damage from seismic hazards, including liquefaction. The 2019 California Building Code (CBC), states that all structures would be designed to resist earthquake motions in 515
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-70 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND accordance with ASCE standards, specifically ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.

Impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The lake terrace deposits underlying the plan area have a low potential for liquefaction (NV5 2021). For this reason and the reasons described above for the Master Plan, this impact would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. A landslide or mudslide is the downhill movement of earth material under the force of gravity. The factors contributing to landslide potential are steep slopes, unstable terrain, and proximity to earthquake faults. The majority of the plan area is located in a relatively flat area that does not contain any steep slopes; therefore, it is not subject to landslides and there would be no impact. The cantilevered boardwalk associated with Lakeview Commons Phase 2 would be located on a steep slope directly adjacent to Lake Tahoe. After detailed design plans are prepared for the boardwalk, the City would obtain permits from TRPA and would be subject to subsequent environmental review by TRPA to review the proposed slope stabilization, erosion control, and stormwater infiltration BMPs prior to approval of the project to minimize the risk of landslide. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be no impact. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Grading associated with implementation of the Master Plan could result in exposure of soil to wind and water erosion until the site is effectively stabilized or revegetated. To minimize erosion potential during construction, Lahontan RWQCB, TRPA and City of South Lake Tahoe would require implementation of best management practices (BMPs), a dewatering plan (if groundwater is encountered), and revegetation specifications.

Temporary and permanent BMPs, as required by TRPA Code Section 60.4, minimize the potential for soil erosion and the potential for the loss of topsoil. Additionally, grading associated with the Master Plan would be required by the Lahontan RWQCB to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit (Order No. R6T-2016-0010) and would require a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would document the erosion and sediment-control measures (e.g., management, structural, and vegetative controls) that would be required for all construction activities.

Grading operations would be required to eliminate direct routes for conveying runoff to drainage channels, and specific measures would be required for stabilizing soils before winter (October 15). Implementation of the required BMPs and compliance with General Permit Order No. R6T-2016-0010 would reduce the potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil to a less-than-significant level. The long-term potential for soil erosion from stormwater runoff is addressed in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” The cantilevered boardwalk associated with Lakeview Commons Phase 2 would be located on a steep slope directly adjacent to Lake Tahoe. After detailed design plans are prepared for the boardwalk, the City would obtain permits from TRPA and would need to comply with all previously stated regulations. Additionally, the boardwalk would be subject to subsequent environmental review by the TRPA to review the proposed slope stabilization, erosion control, and stormwater infiltration BMPs prior to approval of the project to minimize erosion.

Implementation of the Master Plan would not affect impervious area (coverage) in sensitive lands. It would result in a decrease in coverage of approximately 93,000 sq. ft. Even with a reduction in coverage, the proposed coverage within Land Capability District 7 would still exceed the percent allowable as determined by the TRPA; however, because there would be a net reduction in coverage, this impact would be less than significant when compared to existing conditions.
516
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-71 Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Like the requirements described above for the Master Plan, the Multigenerational Center Project would also be required to implement temporary and permanent BMPs as required by the TRPA and the City of South Lake Tahoe. Because the project would disturb over 1 acre of soil, it would need to comply with the Construction General Permit (Order No. R6T-2016-0010), which requires a SWPPP that documents project specific erosion and sediment control measures. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

The Multigenerational Center would result in 137,214 sq. ft. of coverage in Land Capability District 7. Because the Center is a part of the larger plan area, the percent of coverage on the parcel for just the Center coverage associated with the Multigenerational Center is included in the net change in coverage associated with the Master Plan. New coverage associated with construction of the Multigenerational Center would be offset by reductions in land coverage resulting from removal of the existing recreation center, El Dorado County vector control facilities, and a reduction in the coverage associated with the City public works maintenance yard, and campground. TRPA would verify all existing and proposed coverage, and confirm the Center complies with TRPA land coverage requirements (TRPA Code Chapter 30) prior to issuing a permit for the Center. While the Multigenerational Center would result in new coverage, that coverage would be offset by reductions elsewhere in the plan area and the coverage associated with the project would comply with TRPA Code requirements intended to avoid erosion resulting from the creation of land coverage. This impact would be less than significant. c) 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in item a-iv), above, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in on- or off-site landslide. Linear extensibility of the soil in the plan area is 1.0 percent; therefore, the lateral spreading potential is very low (NRCS 2021). Subsidence is the motion of the surface of the earth as it shifts downward and is commonly caused by groundwater pumping. No groundwater pumping is proposed as part of the Master Plan that could result in subsidence. As discussed in item a-iii), above, it is unlikely that liquefaction could occur in the event of a large magnitude earthquake based on the soil type associated with the plan area. Collapsible soils are generally dry, low density, silty soils with high void space between the soil grains. The Christopher-Gefo complex soil present in the plan area is a loamy coarse sand and therefore is not likely to collapse. Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC states that all structures would be designed to resist earthquake motions in accordance with ASCE standards, specifically ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The project would comply with existing codes and requirements and impacts associated with unstable soils would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. A geotechnical report prepared for the Multigenerational Center concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed development and that no highly compressible or potentially expansive soil conditions were encountered (NV5 2021). For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Linear extensibility can be used to determine the shrink-swell or expansive potential of soils. As discussed in item c), the linear extensibility of the soil in the plan area is 1.0 percent, and therefore the expansive potential of the soil is low (NRCS 2021). Risks to life or property related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
517
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-72 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. A geotechnical report prepared for the Multigenerational Center stated that no potentially expansive soil conditions were encountered, and the site is suitable for the proposed development (NV5 2021). For this reason and the reasons described above for the Master Plan, this impact would be less than significant. e) 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be no impact. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Paleontological resources are evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the geologic record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., tracks, burrows, prints) that are more than 5,000 years old. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features in the plan area or in the region. Surfaces in the Tahoe Basin were created by geologic uplift and generally have deep granitic bedrock and shallow surface soils. Because the region is not underlain with sedimentary rock formations (which are most likely to contain fossils), it is not likely to contain major paleontological resources.

Because of the low likelihood of the plan area to contain paleontological resources, the impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be a less-thansignificant impact.

3.7.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative context for geology and soils is the Tahoe Basin. Impacts related to seismic and other geologic and soils hazards are localized in nature and do not accumulate to cause broader environmental consequences. For example, implementation of the Master Plan components would not increase or decrease the effects of expansive soils on the adjacent parcel. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Master Plan and Multigenerational Center project would have no cumulative impact relative to unstable geology or expansive soils.

Ground disturbance in the areas has the potential to result in a cumulative impact due to erosion. The Master Plan and Multigenerational Center project and the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 would be required to comply with regulations set forth by the City, TRPA, and Lahontan RWQCB to minimize erosion. Implementation of the required erosion and sediment controls would prevent a significant increase in soil erosion. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Master Plan and Multigenerational Center project together with the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 would result in less-than-significant cumulative effects related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil and would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Bailey land classification system (Bailey 1974) provides guidance for land development within the Lake Tahoe Basin. This system directs development toward the most capable soils and protects more sensitive areas.

Implementation of the proposed Master Plan and construction of the Multigenerational Center and many of the cumulative projects would create additional land coverage within the cumulative analysis area. However, all projects 518
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-73 within the Tahoe Basin are required to comply with TRPA land coverage regulations. Although development prior to the implementation of the Bailey land classification system resulted in an adverse cumulative condition relative to land coverage, TRPA’s existing regulatory framework is structured to protect soil resources and reduce land coverage in sensitive LCDs. Implementation of the Master Plan would result in a reduction in 92,991 sq. ft. of coverage in the plan area compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the contribution of the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center project to cumulative land coverage impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 519
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-74 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

3.8.1 Environmental Setting

SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. The earth has a much lower temperature than the sun; therefore, the earth emits lower frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead trapped, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Human-caused emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcing (IPCC 2014:3, 5).

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe.

Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013:467).

The quantity of GHGs that ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; but is enormous; no single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.
520
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-75

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES
GHG emissions are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural emissions sectors (CARB 2017a).

In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (CARB 2017a).

Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from offgassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Nitrous oxide is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water), respectively, two of the most common processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, was signed into law.

AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also requires that (a) the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit remain in effect unless otherwise amended or repealed, (b) the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020, and (c) [CARB] shall make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to continue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020 [California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5, Part 3, Section 38551]. For the purposes of AB 32 and other legislation in California, GHGs are expressed in carbon-dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). CO2e is a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 20, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The EO aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments such as the 28-nation European Union, which adopted the same target in October 2014. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, discussed above). California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 sets the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed under Executive Order S-3-05 to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and rising sea levels.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016
In August 2016, SB 32 and AB 197 were signed into law, which serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EOs S-3-05 and B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

Climate Change Scoping Plan and Updates
In December 2008, CARB adopted its first version of its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contained the main strategies California will implement to achieve the mandate of AB 32 (2006) to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In May 2014, CARB released and subsequently adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching the goals of AB 32 (2006) and evaluate the progress made between 2000 and 2012 (CARB 2014). After releasing multiple versions of proposed updates in 2017, CARB adopted 521
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-76 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND the next version titled California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) in December of that same year (CARB 2017b). The 2017 Scoping Plan indicates that California is on track to achieve the 2020 statewide GHG target mandated by AB 32 of 2006 (CARB 2017b:9). It also lays out the framework for achieving the mandate of SB 32 of 2016 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by the end of 2030 (CARB 2017b).

The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies the GHG reductions needed by each emissions sector.

The 2017 Scoping Plan also identifies how GHGs associated with proposed projects could be evaluated under CEQA (CARB 2017b:101-102). Specifically, it states that achieving “no net increase” in GHG emissions is an appropriate overall objective of projects evaluated under CEQA if conformity with an applicable local GHG reduction plan cannot be demonstrated. CARB recognizes that it may not be appropriate or feasible for every development project to mitigate its GHG emissions to zero and that an increase in GHG emissions because of a project may not necessarily imply a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change. The latest 2022 Scoping Plan Update aims to assess progress towards achieving the Senate Bill 32 2030 target and lay out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by no later than 2045.

Senate Bill X1-2, the California Renewable Energy Resources Act of 2011 and Senate Bill 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
SB X1-2 of 2011 requires all California utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. SB X1-2 sets a three-stage compliance period requiring all California utilities, including independently owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators, to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewables by December 31, 2013; 25 percent by December 31, 2016; and 33 percent by December 31, 2020. SB X1-2 also requires the renewable electricity standard to be met increasingly with renewable energy that is supplied to the California grid from sources within, or directly proximate to, California. SB X1-2 mandates that renewables from these sources make up at least 50 percent of the total renewable energy for the 2011-2013 compliance period, at least 65 percent for the 2014–2016 compliance period, and at least 75 percent for 2016 and beyond. In October 2015, SB 350 was signed into law, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
The El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) has not adopted specific thresholds of significance for analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA. At present, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) along with a committee of EDCAQMD and other regional air districts (i.e., Placer County Air Pollution Control District [PCAPCD], Feather River Air Quality Management District, and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District) use guidance from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association to develop draft threshold concepts for evaluating project-level GHG emissions. The goal of the thresholds is to capture at least 90 percent of GHG emissions from new stationary sources and land development projects. The nearby PCAPCD has developed thresholds of significance for analyzing climate change impacts in consideration of this strategy. PCACPD has adopted a 10,000 and 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) bright-line thresholds of significance for analyzing construction and operational emissions, respectively. In lieu of adopted thresholds of significance governed by EDCAQMD and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), these thresholds of significance were applied to the project.

City of South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan
In 2017, the City passed Resolution 2017-26, Establishing Renewable Energy and Carbon Emissions Reduction Goals.

These goals include achieving 50 percent of municipal energy sources from renewable energy by 2025, 100 percent of municipal energy sources from renewable energy by 2032, and 100 percent of community energy sources from renewable electricity by 2032. The resolution additionally outlines the emissions reduction targets of a 50 percent reduction in community-wide emissions by 2030 and an 80 percent reduction in community-wide emissions by 2040.

After establishing these reduction targets, the City completed a community-wide GHG emissions inventory to identify the emissions-generating sources in the community. This inventory was used as the foundation for developing the City’s first Climate Action Plan, and City Council adopted it on October 20, 2020. It serves as a long-term plan to reduce GHG emissions from community activities and prepare for the impacts of climate change. 522
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-77 City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
GOAL NCR‐5: To incorporate air quality improvements and emission reductions directly with land use and transportation planning.
 Policy NCR‐5.12: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Support The City shall support local, TRPA, and statewide efforts to reduce emission of greenhouse gases linked to climate change.
 Policy NCR‐5.13: Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory The City shall develop a citywide greenhouse gas emission inventory and establish regular time frames for updating the inventory.
 Policy NCR‐5.14: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Target The City shall establish a greenhouse gas emission reduction target consistent with AB 32 and SB 375 reduction efforts.
 Policy NCR‐5.15: Carbon Emission Analysis and Mitigation The City shall analyze and mitigate significant increases in carbon emissions during project review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

GOAL NCR‐6: To encourage energy conservation in new and existing developments in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limit their effect on global warming, and to create a more sustainable environment.  Policy NCR‐6.1: Decreasing Reliance on Non‐Renewable Energy Sources The City shall shift away from reliance on non‐renewable sources, should emerging research show net environmental benefits in the use of biofuel.
 Policy NCR‐6.2: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy The City shall develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions and climate impacts.  Policy NCR‐6.20: Protection from Climate Change
The City shall develop strategies to protect the city from the impacts of climate change, such as reduced snowpack, lower lake levels, and natural disasters.

Thresholds of Significance
Since EDCAQMD has not adopted a threshold of significance for evaluating operational emissions of GHGs within El Dorado County, it recommends using PCAPCD’s bright-line threshold of significance of 10,000 MTCO2e/year and a de minimis threshold of significance of 1,100 MTCO2e/year to determine whether a project’s construction and operations would have significant GHG impact. Using this threshold of significance, the project would result in a significant impact to climate change if:
 The operational GHG emissions exceeded the De Minimis Level of 1,100 MTCO2e for the full buildout year.  The construction GHG emissions exceeded bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

3.8.2 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The Master Plan would result in GHG emissions due to its construction and operational activities. EDCAQMD recommends using PCAPCD’s thresholds of significance for evaluating the construction- and 523
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-78 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND operations-related GHG emissions. These thresholds are consistent with the GHG goals established by SB 32. The Master Plan would not exceed the threshold of significance of 10,000 and 1,100 MTCO2e per year for construction and operational activities. Thus, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Temporary construction-related activities for the proposed Master Plan would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. The GHG emissions from construction activities were calculated by using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 with design information provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe and CalEEMod defaults where the information was not available. Due to the long-term horizon of the Master Plan, the exact timing and duration of construction activities for various land uses is unknown. Therefore, CalEEMod default phasing and duration of construction activities were used to provide an estimate of potential construction emissions.

CalEEMod estimates a construction duration of four years based on the size and types of land uses under the Master Plan. Construction would likely occur up to 20 years, but construction emissions were conservatively modeled to occur over a four-year period to avoid understating the maximum annual emissions. Construction of other facilities under the Master Plan would be expected to occur after the construction of the Multigenerational Center; therefore, early 2025 was assumed as the start date for construction. It should be noted that this construction scenario is intended to provide a representative analysis of maximum construction emissions that could occur under a rapid buildout of the Master Plan although buildout of the Master Plan is planned to occur over a 20-year period.

Therefore, full operation of the Master Plan was assumed to be in 2040.

Existing land uses in the plan area include an ice arena, campgrounds and cabins, historical museum, library, senior center, art center, chamber office, park and outdoor event spaces, maintenance yards, vector control facility, and fire training facility. Under the Master Plan, a new civic center and new outdoor recreation and event space would be constructed, and the fire training facility, vector control, and the two maintenance yards would be relocated. The modeling evaluates GHG emissions from construction of new and expanded uses in the plan area. The construction worker trip numbers and lengths were estimated based on CalEEMod default values. Table 3.8-1 summarizes the estimated construction-related annual GHG emissions over four years of construction. Refer to Appendix A of this document for detailed modeling assumptions and results.

Table 3.8-1 Summary of Greenhouse Emissions Associated with Master Plan Project Construction Activities (MTCO2e/year)
Year GHG Emissions
2025 795
2026 795
2027 644
2028 3
Maximum 795
PCAPCD Thresholds1 10,000
Exceed Thresholds? No
Notes: PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District, GHG = greenhouse gas, MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 1 EDCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for GHG emissions but recommends using the PCAPCD Threshold of Significance of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. in 2021
As shown in Table 3.8-1, maximum annual GHG emissions would reach 795 MTCO2e/year, which would be well below the applicable emissions thresholds of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

The Master Plan would also result in GHG emissions from operational activities from new and expanded land uses.

Operations would result in mobile-source GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips to and from the project (i.e., project-generated vehicle miles traveled [VMT]); area-source emissions from the operation of landscape maintenance 524
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-79 equipment; water-source emissions from water use and the conveyance and treatment of wastewater; and wastesource emissions from the transport and disposal of solid waste.

The daily VMT in the traffic analysis shows the change in VMT from the existing uses and was estimated as 1,176 net daily VMT for both the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center. Refer to Table 3.17-1 in Section 3.17, “Transportation,” for a breakdown of net change in VMT by different land uses. Table 3.8-2 provides a summary of operational emissions estimated for the proposed Master Plan. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed description of all calculations, model runs, and assumptions used to support the modeling. As shown in Table 3.8-2, annual GHG emissions would reach 504 MTCO2e/year, which would be well below the applicable emissions threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e/year.

Since operation and construction of the Master Plan would result in annual GHG emissions below the applicable thresholds, the impact would be less than significant.

Table 3.8-2 Summary of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Master Plan Project Operation (MTCO2e/year)
Operational Source GHG Emissions
Area <0.1
Energy 135
Mobile 193
Waste 78
Water 79
Total Annual Emissions 485
Applicable Thresholds1 1,100
Exceed Thresholds? No
Notes: PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District, GHG = greenhouse gas, MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 1 EDCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for GHG emissions but recommends using PCAPCD’s Threshold of Significance of 1,100 MTCO2e/year.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. in 2021
Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Temporary construction-related activities for the proposed Multigenerational Center would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. GHG emissions from construction activities were calculated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 with design assumptions provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe and CalEEMod defaults where the information was not available. The construction start date for the Multigenerational Center would be in early 2022. Demolition and site preparation would occur in 2022, and building construction, paving, and architectural coatings would be completed in 2023. Full operation of the Multigenerational Center would begin 2024. The existing Recreation and Swim Complex would eventually be demolished as part of the Master Plan, but its recreation uses would be moved to the new Multigenerational Center as soon as the Center is operational. The construction worker trip numbers and lengths are assumed as CalEEMod defaults. Table 3.8-3 summarizes the estimated construction-related annual GHG emissions over a year of the construction period. Refer to Appendix A of this document for detailed modeling results.

As shown in Table 3.8-3, maximum annual GHG emissions would reach 240 MTCO2e/year, which would be well below the applicable emissions thresholds of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

The Multigenerational Center would also result in GHG emissions from its operational activities. Operational emissions would result from mobile-sources associated with vehicle trips to and from the project (i.e., projectgenerated VMT); area-source emissions from operation of landscape maintenance equipment; energy-source emissions from natural gas and electricity; water-source emissions from water use and the conveyance and treatment of wastewater; and waste-source emissions from the transport and disposal of solid waste. 525
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-80 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Table 3.8-3 Summary of Greenhouse Emissions Associated with Multigenerational Center Project Construction Activities (MTCO2e/year)
Year GHG Emissions
2022 35
2023 240
Maximum 240
SMAQMD Thresholds1 10,000
Exceed Thresholds? No
Notes PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District, GHG = greenhouse gas, MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 1 EDCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for GHG emissions but recommends using PCAPCD’s Threshold of Significance of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. in 2021
The daily VMT for Multigenerational Center was estimated to be 796. Refer to Table 3.17-1 in Section 3.17, “Transportation” for the breakdown of net change in VMT by different land uses. Table 3.8-4 provides a summary of operational emissions for the proposed Multigenerational Center. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed description of all calculations, model runs, and assumptions used to support the modeling. As shown in Table 3.8-4, annual GHG emissions would reach 276 MTCO2e/year, which would be well below the applicable emissions threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e/year.

Table 3.8-4 Summary of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Multigenerational Center Operation (MTCO2e/year)
Operational Source GHG Emissions
Area <0.1
Energy 75
Mobile 54
Waste 184
Water 12
Total Annual Emissions 326
Applicable Thresholds1 1,100
Exceed Thresholds? No
Notes: PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District, GHG = greenhouse gas, MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 1 EDCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for GHG emissions but recommends using PCAPCD’s Threshold of Significance of 1,100 MTCO2e/year.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. in 2021
Because operation and construction of the Multigenerational Center would result in annual GHG emissions below the applicable threshold and it would not conflict with State or local policies for reducing GHG emissions, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Master Plan Project
Less-than-significant impact. The Master Plan proposes to build facilities to promote recreational activities in the area.

As described in item a), above, the GHG emissions would not exceed PCAPCD’s threshold of significance, as recommended by EDCAQMD. Because PCAPCD’s threshold of significance is based on the State’s SB 32 2030 goal, the Master Plan would not interfere with State’s GHG reduction goals. 526
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-81 The Master Plan is consistent with South Lake City’s General Plan and Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan and the underlying goal of reducing the dependency on automobile and improving the movement of people, goods, and services within the Bijou/Al Tahoe area, and Lake Tahoe region. The Master Plan also commits to improving pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access, including pedestrian access throughout the plan area and the beach/lakefront area and connections to surrounding destinations and the regional transportation network. The improvement in the pedestrian and bike access would also reduce the dependency on the automobiles and would reduce the GHG emissions from automobile use associated with the Master Plan. The buildings proposed under the project would be designed to current building codes and hence would be more energy efficient than the buildings built earlier in that area. This would help in creating more sustainable infrastructure in the area and would be consistent with the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Climate Action Plan’s building energy, transportation, water and solid waste goals. Hence, the Master Plan’s construction and operation activities would not conflict with the State plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The Multigenerational Center proposes to build a recreational center with aquatics facilities to promote recreational activities in the area. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions due to its construction and operation activities. As mentioned in item a), above, the GHG emissions would not exceed PCAPCD’s threshold of significance. Since PCAPCD’s threshold of significance is consistent with the State’s SB 32 2030 goal, the project would not interfere with State’s carbon reduction goal.

The Multigenerational Center project would be consistent with South Lake City’s General Plan and Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan and their goal of reducing the dependency on automobile and improving the movement of people, goods, and services within the Bijou/Al Tahoe area and Lake Tahoe region. The reduction in dependency on the automobile would help in reducing the GHG emission associated with it. The project also commits to improving pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access, including pedestrian access throughout the plan area and the beach/lakefront area and connections to surrounding destinations and the regional network. The improvement in the pedestrian and bike access would also reduce the dependency on the automobiles and would reduce the GHG emissions from automobile use associated with the Multigenerational Center. The building proposed under the Multigenerational Center would aim to achieve gold or platinum LEED certification and would include sustainable features like providing bike facilities, reserving 5 percent of the parking for electric vehicle charging, reducing outdoor and indoor water use, installing on site renewable energy systems, etc. The incorporation of sustainable features into the building design would help to reduce the overall GHG emitted from operation of the Multigenerational Center.

This would also be consistent with the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Climate Action Plan’s building energy, transportation, water, and solid waste goals. Thus, the project’s construction and operation activities would not conflict with State plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.

3.8.3 Cumulative Impacts
Impacts from GHGs are inherently cumulative from the standpoint of CEQA. As discussed under item a), above, annual construction GHG emissions for the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would be well below the applicable emissions thresholds of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Furthermore, Master Plan and Multigenerational Center operational GHG emissions would not exceed the most applicable mass emission thresholds of 1,100 MTCO2e/year, which was developed to show consistency with the GHG emissions reduction targets in SB 32. Both the Master Plan and the Multigenerational Center would also be consistent with State and local plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, the proposed project’s construction and operational GHG emissions would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. 527
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-82 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and/or accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) 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?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 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?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
The plan area currently includes a parks maintenance facility within the campground and City public works maintenance yard located northwest of the ice arena. The property is used as a maintenance and parking facility for vehicles used in road maintenance and improvement including snowplows, wheel loaders, and dump trucks. These facilities use and store the types of hazardous materials typical of a municipal maintenance facility, such as fuel, oil, paint, solvents, and household cleaners. Currently, an aboveground storage tank for diesel fuel is located at the Public Works maintenance yard. The El Dorado County Vector Control Facility stores pesticides. Hazardous materials that are stored at the Recreation and Swim Complex include pool maintenance chemicals and household cleaners. 528
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-83 Several buildings that are proposed for removal as part of the Master Plan were constructed prior to 1978 and, thus, have the potential to contain asbestos-containing building materials and lead-based paint. Construction of the building at the public works maintenance yard was completed by 1955. The maintenance shop building at the parks maintenance yard was built in 1962 and the vector control building was completed by 1963. The Recreation and Swim Complex was constructed in 1975 (PaleoWest 2021).

HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Based on a June 17, 2021 search of the Geo Tracker database maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Envirostor database maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), two records of sites potentially containing hazardous materials were identified within or in proximity to the plan area.

Envirostor records indicate that pesticide-contaminated flooring of a pesticide shed at the vector control facility in the plan area was removed from the site in 1987, and that the site clean-up order was rescinded. The potential for soil contamination is indicated, but specific contaminants are not identified (DTSC 2021).

A Leaking Underground Storage Tank site associated with the former Express Gas/Pioneer Center was located approximately 220 feet west of the plan area, at 3101 Harrison Avenue. Records indicate that soil contamination with diesel occurred. Cleanup for the site was completed and the case was closed in 1991 (SWRCB 2021). Because this site was cleaned up and no off-site concerns related to soil or groundwater contamination were identified, including within the plan area, this site is not discussed further in the analysis.

SCHOOLS
There are three schools within 0.25 mile of the plan area. The Saint Theresa Catholic School, Tahoe Parents Nursery School, and South Lake Tahoe Middle School are all located approximately 550 feet south of the plan area, adjacent to Lake Tahoe Boulevard. A fourth school, the Bijou Community School, is located approximately 0.7 mile east of the plan area. No schools are located within the plan area.

AIRPORTS
The Lake Tahoe Airport is located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the plan area, east of the portion of US 50 also known as Emerald Bay Road. No private airstrips are observed in proximity to the plan area.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND EVACUATION PLANS
The City’s draft All Hazards Community Evacuation Plan (El Dorado County Sheriff, Office of Emergency Services 2021) was prepared in collaboration with the El Dorado County Sheriff, Governor’s Office Emergency Services (CAL OES), California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), FireSafe Council, and other agencies and stakeholders. The City identifies US 50 as a primary evacuation route serving the plan area (City of South Lake Tahoe 2021). Primary and secondary temporary refuge centers are identified at the CVS pharmacy location on Lake Tahoe Boulevard east of the plan area, and at Lake Tahoe Middle School located south of the plan area.

WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS
The Tahoe region is at a high risk of wildfire spread because of the climate, steep topography, and high level of available fuel. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) are mapped by CAL FIRE for the entire state. FHSZs are based on an evaluation of fuels, fire history, terrain, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather and are intended to identify areas where urban fires could result in catastrophic losses. FHSZs are categorized as: Moderate, High, and Very High. The plan area is located within a Very High FHSZ within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (CAL FIRE 2009). 529
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-84 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Federal laws require planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and if such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or mitigate injury to health or the environment. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are primarily contained in CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the CFR, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. In California, both federal and state community right-to-know laws are coordinated through Cal OES. The federal law, Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act Title III or Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, described above, encourages, and supports emergency planning efforts at the state and local levels and to provide local governments and the public with information about potential chemical hazards in their communities. Because of the community right-to-know laws, information is collected from facilities that handle (e.g., produce, use, store) hazardous materials above certain quantities.

If a contractor uses or plans to use hazardous materials at levels that reach applicable state (Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code) and/or federal thresholds, businesses are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which would include hazardous materials and hazardous waste management procedures and emergency response procedures, including emergency spill cleanup supplies and equipment. The plan is submitted to the administering agency, in this case the El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management, Hazardous Waste Division (Certified Unified Program Agency [CUPA]), to implement and enforce.

The DTSC, a division of the California Environmental Protection Agency, has primary regulatory responsibility over hazardous materials in California, working in conjunction with EPA to enforce and implement hazardous materials laws and regulations.

TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates transport of hazardous materials between states and is responsible for protecting the public from dangers associated with such transport. The federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S. Code (USC) 5101 et seq. is the basic statute regulating transport of hazardous materials in the United States.

The State of California has adopted U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations for the movement of hazardous materials originating within the state and passing through the state; state regulations are contained in 26 California Code of Regulations (CCR). State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the CHP and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Together, these agencies determine container types used and license hazardous waste haulers to transport hazardous waste on public roads.

WORKER SAFETY
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (federal OSHA) is the agency responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals identified in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596, 9 USC 651 et seq.). OSHA has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to worker safety, contained in CFR Title 29. These regulations set standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to the handling of hazardous materials.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations within the state. Cal/OSHA standards are typically more stringent than federal OSHA regulations and are presented in Title 8 of the CCR. Cal/OSHA conducts on-site evaluations and issues notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices. 530
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-85

3.9.2 Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Implementation of the Master Plan would include construction of new facilities throughout the plan area (e.g., Lakeview Commons Phase 2 boardwalk, Civic Center, outdoor event space, Main Street, share-use paths, nature and adventure play area) and would include demolition and removal or relocation of some facilities (e.g., campground, vector control building, Park maintenance facility, Public Works maintenance yard, Recreation and Swim Complex).

Construction of the new Master Plan facilities would require tree removal, paving and grading activities, and use of motorized heavy construction equipment and vegetation removal equipment that requires hazardous and flammable materials such as fuels and lubricants. Hazardous materials that may be used during construction include fuels (such as gasoline and diesel), lubricant, paint, and asphalt and pavement. Use and storage of hazardous materials during operation and maintenance of the recreational facilities and land uses proposed as part of the Master Plan would be similar to those used under existing conditions and include household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. However, relocation of the vector control building, park maintenance facility, and public works maintenance yard outside of the plan area would result in the removal of uses in the plan area that use and store hazardous materials, such as fuel, oil, paint, solvents, and pesticides.

Hazards and hazardous materials are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local agencies, including the federal OSHA, USDOT, Cal/OSHA, DTSC, SWRCB, CHP, Caltrans, and El Dorado County Environmental Management Department (EDCEMD). Regulations that would minimize potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan include:
 OSHA has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to worker safety, contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR). These regulations set standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to the handling of hazardous materials and those required for excavation and trenching.  Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California.

Cal/OSHA standards, which typically are more stringent than federal OSHA regulations, are presented in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (8 CCR). Cal/OSHA conducts onsite evaluations and issues notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.  Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), DTSC has the authority to implement permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs to ensure that people who manage hazardous waste follow state and federal requirements. The Hazard Communication Standard defined in 29 CFR Part 1910 requires that workers be informed of the hazards associated with the materials they handle. USDOT has also developed regulations (10 CFR and 49 CFR) pertaining to the transport of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes by all modes of transportation.
 California has adopted USDOT regulations for the movement of hazardous materials originating within the state and passing through the state; state regulations are contained in 26 CCR. State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are CHP and Caltrans. Together, these agencies determine container types used and license hazardous waste haulers to transport hazardous waste on public roads.
 The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Construction Stormwater General Permit for the Lake Tahoe Basin issued in March 2016 (Order No. R6T-2016-0010), as further described under Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” in Section 3.7, “Geology and Soils.” Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to regulate discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States.

The NPDES permit and Construction Stormwater General Permit require that permit registration documents be filed for construction projects with greater than 1 acre of disturbance. The documents must include a notice of 531
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-86 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND intent and a SWPPP that identifies proposed best management practices and includes a site-specific construction site monitoring and reporting plan developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. Although a major focus of the SWPPP is managing stormwater on the construction site, it also must address proper use and storage of hazardous materials, spill prevention and containment, and cleanup and reporting of any hazardous materials releases if they do occur.
 EDCEMD is responsible for promoting a safe and healthy environment in El Dorado County and for enforcing hazardous waste laws and regulations at a local level. EDCEMD, as the local CUPA, monitors the proper use, storage, and cleanup of hazardous materials; monitoring wells; removal of leaking USTs; and permits for the collection, transport, use, or disposal of refuse.

Project construction and operation would also be required to implement and comply with these federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and manufacturer’s instructions related to hazardous materials to reduce the potential for exposure of the public or environment to hazards resulting from routine use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials or from accidental release or upset. These existing regulations specify mandatory and prescriptive actions about how to fulfill the regulatory requirements as part of the project definition, leaving little discretion in their implementation.

Construction of any of the facilities proposed as part of the Master Plan that would disturb an area greater than 1 acre would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP (see b) under Section 3.7.2 in Section 3.7, “Geology and Soils”). Implementation of the SWPPP would contain stormwater onsite for infiltration and/or treatment, which would prevent potential accidental releases of hazardous materials off-site. The required TRPA permit would also include best management practices to prevent releases of hazardous materials and contain and clean up any accidental releases that might occur during construction activities (such as rupture of a hydraulic line on a piece of equipment releasing hydraulic fluid).

The level of use of hazardous materials in construction and operation of the Master Plan would be typical for recreation and public service land uses, some existing uses and storage of hazardous materials would be relocated offsite reducing the use and storage of hazardous materials in the plan area, and the Master Plan would be required to implement and comply with existing federal, state, TRPA, and local hazardous materials regulations. For these reasons, the Master Plan would not create significant hazards to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials or from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.

Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Potential uses of hazardous materials associated with this project would result from construction activities and from maintenance and operation of the aquatic center proposed as part of the Multigenerational Center Project. Construction of the Multigenerational Center may involve use of hazardous and/or flammable materials, such as fuels, lubricant, paint, and asphalt and pavement.

Operation and maintenance of the aquatic center would result in the use and storage of chemicals commonly used for pool maintenance such as sodium hypochlorite, hydrochloric acid solutions, or cyanuric acid similar to existing conditions at the existing Recreation and Swim Complex. These chemicals are used to maintain the pH (or acidity) of the pool to discourage growth of harmful bacteria and algae, and to maintain safety and comfort for facility users.

Use of chemicals associated with pool maintenance would be stored inside, consistent with recommended safety practices to avoid the potential release into the environment. Chemicals would not be accessible to patrons of the project. Storage of pool chemicals and maintenance of the facility would be required to comply with applicable regulations. For example, the EDCEMD require that a new or updated public pool facility be inspected for appropriate drainage, sewage connections, and filtration. Per state regulation CCR Title 22, Section 65523, public pool facilities are to monitor and keep a daily record of for information regarding operation, including readings of disinfectant (e.g., chlorine) residual, pH, and maintenance procedures such as cleaning of filters and quantity of chemicals used. This data is subject to inspection by the EDCEMD.
532
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-87 Hazardous materials involved during construction of the Multigenerational Center would be temporary for the duration of construction and limited in quantity to what is required for construction activities. Additionally, as described above for the Master Plan, the handling, transport, storage, and disposal of the hazardous materials would be like those mentioned above for the Master Plan and would be subject to existing agency requirements and regulations also described above (e.g., 29 CFR, 8 CCR, RCRA, CWA, and EDCEMD regulations). Therefore, use and storage or hazardous materials associated with construction of the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste or materials.

Operation and maintenance of the Multigenerational Center would represent a continuation of existing conditions in the plan area at the Recreation and Swim Complex, including continued use and storage of chemicals commonly used for pool maintenance. Pool maintenance activities would occur in compliance with existing regulations and would be subject to inspection by EDCEMD. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine use, transport, or disposal of substantial quantities of potentially hazardous materials because compliance with existing regulatory requirements would minimize the risk associated with hazardous materials use resulting from project. This impact would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As noted in the discussion above for item a), construction of proposed facilities for the Master Plan would involve the use of heavy construction equipment, which uses small amounts of hazardous and flammable materials such as fuels and lubricants that are typically associated with construction activities. Additionally, other hazardous materials that may be used during construction include paint, asphalt, and pavement. Operation and maintenance of proposed and existing uses within the plan area, such as government office buildings, a cultural center and museum, and recreational uses, etc. are not of the nature that, in their operation, would involve storage, use, or transport of large quantities of hazardous substances; however, some typical hazardous materials would be used for operation and maintenance of these facilities, such as household cleaners and pesticides. As described above, compliance with existing regulations, including standards for construction staging, storage, labeling, disposal, and notification of appropriate agencies in case of release, would minimize risk of accidental release and risk of hazards to the public or the environment.

The Recreation and Swim Complex, vector control building, Public Works maintenance building, and Parks maintenance building could contain asbestos and lead-based paint and, if not handled properly, construction workers could be exposed to these materials when this building is demolished. Federal and state regulations govern the demolition of structures where materials containing lead and asbestos could be present. Asbestos and lead abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the California Department of Health Services. Additionally, demolition of structures containing asbestos would be a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Regulated Facility subject to a thorough asbestos inspection and testing of materials to determine whether asbestos is present. Cal/OSHA regulations in Section 1532.1 in Title 8 of the CCR identify procedures that must be undertaken to properly identify and dispose of lead-based coatings and protection measures for workers. Compliance with these regulations would require that the presence of these materials be verified and remediated, which would eliminate potential health risks associated with exposure to asbestos or lead during building demolition.

As described above under Section 3.9.1, Envirostor records indicate that pesticide-contaminated flooring of a pesticide shed was removed from the vector control facility in the plan area in 1987, and that a site clean-up order was subsequently rescinded. Implementation of the Master Plan would result in relocation of vector control facility to an off-site location and a parking lot would be constructed in this portion of the plan area. Although cleanup has occurred at the site, the nature of the vector control building and facility used for pesticide storage could have resulted in past, unidentified release of pesticides in this area. Thus, there is the potential for ground disturbance and 533
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-88 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND grading activities to encounter contaminated soils resulting in the potential for accidental exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials.

The Parks maintenance yard supports storage of equipment and vehicles that are used for landscape maintenance, snow removal, and trash removal at City park facilities, including those within the plan area. The public works maintenance yard includes vehicle fueling, snow removal equipment storage, and supports the maintenance and repair of city streets. Due to the nature of these facilities to store and maintain equipment, there is the potential for previously unidentified leaks of hazardous materials (e.g., oil, fuel) to have occurred. Implementation of the Master Plan would result in relocation of these facilities to off-site locations. The Master Plan proposes to locate portions of the Main Street, campground, and campground entrance at the existing site of the Parks maintenance facility and the Public Works maintenance yard would be replaced by parking, southern portion of the camping cabins, and open space. Thus, there is the potential for ground disturbance and grading activities as part of constructing these facilities to encounter contaminated soils resulting in the potential for accidental exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials.

Implementation of the Master Plan would not result in land uses that would result in routine use or transport of significant amounts of hazardous materials and construction activities and operation of the new facilities would be subject to existing hazardous materials regulations such that these activities would have a low potential to result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials. However, construction activities associated with Master Plan facilities that would be located at the current locations for the vector control facility, parks maintenance facility, and public works facility could encounter soils with previously unidentified hazardous materials contamination resulting in potential accidental exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Conduct Soil Investigation
This mitigation measure applies to the 56 Acres Master Plan.

Before initiating construction, demolition, or other ground disturbing activities within the existing public works maintenance yard, parks maintenance yard, or vector control district site, the City or construction manager shall retain a qualified environmental contractor to sample surface soils located within the public works maintenance yard, parks maintenance yard, and vector control district site. If soil contamination is detected, contaminated soil shall be removed from site and the site must be remediated. The soil investigation and removal, if contaminated soils are found, shall include the following:
 Soil sample results shall be provided to EDCEMD and Lahontan RWQCB.  Based on the soil sample results, the construction manager and qualified environmental contractor shall coordinate with EDCEMD and Lahontan RWQCB to determine the appropriate methods for soil removal and extent of soil removal required, if any.
 A qualified environmental contractor shall be retained for removal of contaminated soils, if necessary.

Contaminated soils shall be removed and disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. The qualified environmental contractor shall provide proof of disposal to EDCEMD.  Soils shall be resampled and, if necessary, as determined by EDCEMD or Lahontan RWQCB, additional contaminated soil shall be removed.
 Construction may commence in the public works maintenance yard, parks maintenance yard, and/or vector control district site after soils are determined by EDCEMD or Lahontan RWQCB to no longer contain contamination.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would require that any contaminated soils encountered at the public works maintenance yard, parks maintenance yard, and/or vector control district site are identified, removed, and properly disposed. This would minimize the risk of an accidental release of hazardous substances that could adversely 534
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-89 affect human health or the environment during construction, reducing this impact for the Master Plan to a less-thansignificant level.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. As noted in the discussion above for item a), construction of the Multigenerational Center would involve the use of heavy construction equipment, which uses small amounts of hazardous and flammable materials such as fuels and lubricants that are typically associated with construction activities. Additionally, other hazardous materials that may be used during construction include paint, asphalt, and pavement. Operation and maintenance of the aquatic center would result in the use and storage of chemicals commonly used for pool maintenance such as sodium hypochlorite, hydrochloric acid solutions, or cyanuric acid similar to existing conditions at the existing Recreation and Swim Complex. As described above, compliance with existing regulations, including standards for construction staging, storage, labeling, disposal, notification of appropriate agencies in case of release, and transport of hazardous materials would minimize risk of accidental release and risk of hazards to the public or the environment.

Similar to existing conditions associated with operation of the existing Recreation and Swim Complex, because construction activities for and operation of the Multigenerational Center would be subject to existing hazardous materials regulations such that the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials would have a low potential to result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. As described in Section 3.9.1 above, “Environmental Setting,” there are three schools located within 0.25 mile of the proposed project area: Saint Theresa Catholic School, Tahoe Parents Nursery school, and South Lake Tahoe Middle School approximately 550 feet (approximately 0.1 mile) south of the plan area. A fourth school, the Bijou Community School, is located approximately 0.7 mile east of the plan area.

As described in the discussions under items a) and b) above, hazardous materials involved with implementation of the proposed Master Plan would result primarily from construction activities. Potentially hazardous substances involved in construction of the proposed project include fuels such as gasoline and diesel, lubricant, paint, and asphalt, and pavement. Compliance with existing regulations, as described above, including standards for construction staging, storage, labeling, disposal, and notification of appropriate agencies in case of release would minimize potential emissions of hazardous substances during construction.

Handling of hazardous materials associated with implementation of the Master Plan within 0.25 mile of schools would occur during construction activities and would be temporary in nature. Compliance with existing regulations during construction and operation, including standards for construction staging, storage, labeling, disposal, and notification of appropriate agencies in case of release would minimize the risk of hazardous materials emissions in proximity to schools identified within 0.25 mile of the plan area. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The schools identified in proximity to plan area are located over 0.3 miles, outside of a quarter-mile radius, from the proposed site for the Multigenerational Center Project. No other schools or educational institutions are identified within a quarter mile of the project site. However, for the reasons described above for the Master Plan, the potential hazards associated with the use of hazardous materials for construction and operation of the Multigenerational Center would be a less-than-significant impact. 535
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-90 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND d) 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See the discussion for the Master Plan under b), above. Envirostor records indicate that the vector control facility in the plan area was identified as the site of a hazardous materials contamination that was cleaned up and the site clean-up order was subsequently rescinded. Thus, construction at this site could result in exposure to a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Conduct Soil Investigation
This mitigation measure applies to the 56 Acres Master Plan.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 would require that any contaminated soils encountered at the vector control district site are identified, removed, and properly disposed. This would minimize the risk of an accidental release of hazardous substances that could adversely affect human health or the environment during construction, reducing this impact for the Master Plan to a less-than-significant level.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. The proposed site for the Multigenerational Center project is not located on, within, or adjacent to any sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a hazard to the public or environment as a result of being located on such a site. The project would have no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. The Lake Tahoe Airport is located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the plan area. No private airstrips are observed in proximity to the plan area. No airports are located within 2 miles of the plan area. The plan area is within the airport influence area for the airport land use compatibility plan of the Lake Tahoe Airport Airport (Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission 2019:1-5). Specifically, the plan area is within Review Area 2, which consists of the areas within the 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces, and overflight notification area. The standards for determining obstructions to air navigation are established in Subpart C, Obstruction Standards, 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. This regulation defines a set of imaginary surfaces with relation to an airport’s runway(s). The height of the buildings proposed under the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center project would not extend into the approach surface for the airport runway (City of South Lake Tahoe 2019:4-36). Because the Master Plan would not include residential uses, no overflight notification would be required (City of South Lake Tahoe 2019:4-43). Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in safety hazards or excessive noise for people within the plan area as a result of proximity to an airport. Therefore, the plan would result in no impact related to airports.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. 536
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-91 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The City identifies eastbound US 50 as a primary evacuation route for the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan Area in the City. Secondary evacuation routes identified are westbound US 50 and Pioneer Trail via Al Tahoe Boulevard (City of South Lake Tahoe 2021). However, in the event of an emergency, evacuation routes and evacuation centers may vary based on conditions of the emergency and would be communicated to the community. Potential emergency situations requiring the initiation of emergency or evacuation plans include events such as wildfire, hazardous waste release, and winter storm events, or other events would be determined and communicated to public members based on (El Dorado County Sheriff, Office of Emergency Services).

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in the construction of new or updated buildings or facilities within the plan area. While some facilities may be added, such as the outdoor event space, playground, and other public spaces, and transportation facilities such as multipurpose paths and parking, others would be relocated off-site or reduced in capacity, such as the County’s vector control facility, parks maintenance yard, public works maintenance yard, and the campground. The Recreation and Swim Complex would be demolished. Several attractions within the plan area, including the museum, senior center, and art center would not be altered. Thus, proposed improvements would not represent a substantial permanent change in types or intensity of land uses within the plan area compared to existing conditions and would not result in an increase that could conflict with the adopted emergency plans or procedures adopted within the plan area. For example, the Master Plan does not introduce land uses that are new to the plan area, such as housing or lodging, that could potentially result in a permanent increase in people residing within a fire hazard zone.

Because construction activities resulting from implementation of the Master Plan would occur within the plan area, including staging construction equipment and supplies, it is unlikely that temporary road closures would be required and, thus, would not interfere with emergency access to locations within the plan area. Subsequent construction projects under the Master Plan would implement standard construction BMPs and would maintain emergency access in and out of the plan area and post signage along public roadways at access points to and within the plan area, as necessary, notifying drivers and the public of construction activities and that heavy duty trucks might be entering and exiting the roadway.

Currently, special events are hosted at Lakeview Commons and athletic events are held at the ice arena and Recreation and Swim Complex, which result in temporary increases in vehicle traffic on roadways surrounding the plan area. These events would continue to occur in the plan area, with athletic events at the Recreation and Swim Complex shifted to the Multigenerational Center. Implementation of the Master Plan would increase the number of special events in the plan area with the new Main Street and outdoor event space. Up to 10 events could be held at each of these facilities each year, with the Main Street closed to traffic during events in that area. The events could attract from 250-500 people at each event. The City Parks and Recreation Department manages scheduling events at facilities in the plan area through the event application process such that overlapping events would not be scheduled that would have parking demand that would exceed available on-site parking and would minimize the increase in vehicle traffic. The Special Event Application Guidelines provide a list of requirements for event planners to meet that would minimize adverse effects related to traffic, parking, alternative transportation, notifications to surrounding residents and businesses, and accessibility for all abilities (Thomaselli, pers. comm., 2021). Some of these requirements include preparation of a Traffic Plan for minimizing disruptions to traffic flows and encouragement and facilitation of alternative transportation methods. Because the City limits the number of events that occur at one time and require event planners to implement measures to manage traffic, the additional events would not substantially interfere with emergency response or evacuation.

Construction activities would not result in road closures or closures of public access to roads surrounding the plan area and would implement BMPs to avoid any potential impacts on emergency access or evacuation, such as posting signage related to the construction activities along roads and public access points. For the reasons described above, the Master Plan would not represent a substantial permanent change in types or intensity of land uses within the plan 537
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-92 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND area compared to existing conditions and would not result in an increase in use that could conflict with the adopted emergency plans or procedures adopted within the plan area. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Resource Assessment Program FHSZ Geographic Information System data, the plan area is located within a Very High FHZ within an LRA (CAL FIRE 2009).

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” tree thinning would be implemented as new facilities are constructed to defensible space of at least 100 feet from structures per California PRC Section 4291, which would reduce fire fuels within the plan area. Construction of new structures would also be required to implement other applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code, including ignition-resistant construction, automatic interior fire sprinklers, onsite fire hydrant minimum flows, and adequate emergency and fire apparatus access. Additionally, facilities constructed as part of the Master Plan would be subject to design and defensible space requirements that are intended to protect development from loss due to wildfire included in Section 13.5.3.F.4.a of TRPA Code of Ordinances, which requires use of native vegetation whenever possible, consistent with fire defensible space requirements. The relocated campground would include campfire rings, the same as under existing conditions, and their use by campers would continue to be subject to fire restrictions that are implemented by South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue during times of elevated risk of severe and catastrophic fire. Because the number of campsites would be reduced from 172 campsites to 135 campsites, there would be a reduction in the number of fire rings and an associated reduction in potential for risk of fire compared to existing conditions. No other components of the Master Plan would include any outdoor fire rings or fireplaces that would pose a wildfire ignition threat.

As described under item f) above, implementation of the Master Plan would result in the construction of new or updated buildings or facilities within the plan area and relocation of some facilities off-site. Thus, proposed improvements would not represent a substantial change in types or intensity of land uses within the plan area compared to existing conditions and would not result in an increase exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Implementation of the Master Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks because capacity for recreational fires would be somewhat reduced, and their use would be subject to fire restrictions during periods of high fire risk. Additionally, defensible space would be maintained in the plan area and construction would comply with all applicable fire-related codes and regulations. Although the Master Plan would increase the number of people in the plan area associated with additional special events, the number of visitors exposed to wildfire risk would not be a substantial increase over existing conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Refer to discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above.

3.9.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 consists of improvements to roadway facilities, shore stabilization and lake public access, and a new shared-use trail. These projects would not result in permanent increases in the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with types of projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would result primarily from construction activities. Disposal of construction waste and fuels associated with motorized construction equipment would be temporary in nature.

As described above, implementation of the Master Plan and the Multigenerational Center Project would result in lessthan-significant impacts pertaining to risks associated with hazardous materials, including with implementation of 538
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-93 Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 as part of the Master Plan to minimize the risk of an accidental release of hazardous substances that could adversely affect human health or the environment during construction. The project would not combine with other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 to result in a cumulative permanent increase in risk associated with or use of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact related to hazardous materials. See Section 3.20, “Wildfire,” below for a discussion of potential cumulative impacts pertaining to wildfire hazards.
539
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-94 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) 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:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
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; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

3.10.1 Environmental Setting

REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
Lake Tahoe is located in a basin that is fed by 63 tributary streams that drain directly into the lake. The Truckee River at the northwest end of the Tahoe Basin is the lake’s only outlet, ultimately flowing to Pyramid Lake in Nevada. A dam constructed at Tahoe City in the early 1900s regulates water flow to the Truckee River from the natural rim (6,223 feet above sea level) to the maximum legal lake level of 6,229.1 feet. The lake is 12 miles wide and 22 miles long with 72 miles of shoreline. Average precipitation is almost 16 inches each year in South Lake Tahoe (WRCC 2021) and generally falls as snow in the higher elevations and as a mix of snow and rain in the lower elevations from October to May. Peak stream runoff is typically triggered by spring snowmelt in May and June. The snowpack at lake level melts before the peak in snowmelt and runoff from the higher elevations. 540
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-95

LOCAL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The plan area is located in the Bijou Creek Watershed (Figure 3.9-1). It is adjacent to Lake Tahoe and contains no natural drainage features. The Bijou Creek Watershed extends from Heavenly Mountain Resort and includes Bijou Meadow, which Bijou Creek runs through, and then drains to Lake Tahoe via an outfall through the Bijou Shopping Center. There are no hydrologic resources in the plan area, but it is located directly adjacent to Lake Tahoe and stormwater runoff drains to storm drain infrastructure that ultimately flows into Lake Tahoe. There are two outfalls to Lake Tahoe that are located in the plan area that convey stormwater directly to the lake. Potential sources of nutrients and pollutants from the plan area include urban runoff, irrigation, pet waste, fertilizer, road deicers and traction abrasives, and vehicle use, washing, and maintenance.

Groundwater was encountered at 30 and 31 feet below ground surface in the plan area (NV5 2021). A study performed in 2003 found that organic nitrogen plus ammonia, ammonia, and biologically available iron concentrations generally were greater in the groundwater in the Bijou Creek watershed than those observed in groundwater elsewhere in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Allander 2005). Nitrate concentrations were similar in the two groups. Phosphorus and orthophosphate concentrations generally were lower in the groundwater of the Bijou Creek watershed compared to groundwater from elsewhere in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Allander 2005). Specific conductance and pH of groundwater were similar between the Bijou Creek watershed and elsewhere in the Lake Tahoe Basin, but the temperature of groundwater was generally greater in the Bijou Creek watershed (Allander 2005).

There were no obvious spatial distribution patterns for nutrient concentrations or field parameters in the Bijou Creek watershed. Groundwater in the Bijou Creek watershed discharges to Lake Tahoe and may contribute to the higherthan-normal turbidity of the Lake in the area (Allander 2005).

3.10.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Development as a result of implementation of the Master Plan would require grading and excavation, which would expose sediment. Excavation is not expected to occur deeper than 9 feet and groundwater measured in the plan area was approximately 30 feet below ground surface (NV5 2021). Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would not directly impact groundwater. Exposed sediment could directly impact surface water quality. All projects in the Tahoe Basin, including implementation of the Master Plan, are required to comply with TRPA water quality protections. Temporary construction BMPs that would be required through existing regulations, such as Chapter 33 and Section 60.4 of the TRPA Code (TRPA 2012), would include temporary erosion control BMPs, dust control measures, requirements to minimize soil disturbance, winterization by October 15, stockpile stabilization, spill prevention plans, tracking prevention, and permanent stabilization of any disturbed areas.

All construction projects in the Tahoe Basin must be consistent with TRPA requirements (including Chapter 4.5 of the TRPA BMP Handbook; TRPA 2014), the federal antidegradation policy, and maintain designated beneficial uses of Lake Tahoe.

Any projects that would disturb over one acre of soil would also be required to comply with Lahontan RWQCB Tahoe Construction General Permit (Order No. R6T-2016-0010). The Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP, which identifies temporary BMPs (e.g., tarping of any stockpiled materials or soil; use of silt fences, fiber rolls, dust control, tracking control, etc.) and permanent BMPs (e.g., structural containment, revegetation, stabilization) for use in all construction areas to reduce or eliminate the discharge of soil, surface water runoff, and pollutants during all excavation, grading, trenching, repaving, or other ground-disturbing activities. The SWPPP will also include BMPs for hazardous waste and contaminated soils management and a spill prevention and control plan, as appropriate. 541
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-96 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Source: Data downloaded from USFWS in 2020 and received from TRPA in 2016 Figure 3.10-1 Subwatersheds and Rivers
542
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-97 TRPA, Lahontan RWQCB, and the City of South Lake Tahoe have substantial experience with review, approval, and enforcement of project-specific permit conditions for projects in the Tahoe Basin, and they have been shown to be effective. Because regulatory protections are in place to minimize erosion and transport of sediment and other pollutants and because the intention of the project is to improve water quality, this impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Implementation of the Multigenerational Center project would include construction of a new pool that would require excavation of 9 feet below ground surface (NV5 2021). For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be a less-than-significant impact. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Implementation of the Master Plan would include the creation of impervious area (buildings, roads, parking, multi-use paths) but would also include the removal and restoration of existing impervious area. Overall impervious area would decrease by almost 93,000 sq. ft. with implementation of the Master Plan. Storm drain systems would be designed to infiltrate the 20-year one inch per hour storm event as required by TRPA Code Section 60.4. Therefore, infiltration of stormwater would still occur in the plan area and implementation of the Master Plan would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. For this reason, the potential effects to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Two stormwater basins and additional BMPs are proposed to infiltrate stormwater from impervious areas of the Multigenerational Center. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be a less-than-significant impact.
c) 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:
i) Result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation; 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The majority of the plan area contains no drainage features and its susceptibility to erosion is low due to relatively flat topography and soil type. In addition, the implementation of construction BMPs described in item a), above would prevent substantial erosion during construction and ground-disturbing activities.

Permanent BMPs would infiltrate the 20-year one inch per hour storm event as required by TRPA Code Section 60.4 and would be designed to minimize erosion. The plan area would also be subject to Section 7.15 Urban Runoff and Storm Water Quality Management of the City of South Lake Tahoe Code, which requires projects to prevent, control, and reduce storm water pollutants which would contribute pollution to stormwater, storm drain system, or waters of the state. The cantilever boardwalk associated with Lakeview Commons Phase 2 would be located on a steep slope directly adjacent to Lake Tahoe and would need to comply with all previously stated regulations. After detailed design plans are prepared for the boardwalk, the City would obtain permits from TRPA and the boardwalk would be subject to subsequent environmental review by TRPA to review the proposed slope stabilization, erosion control, and stormwater infiltration BMPs prior to approval of the project. Therefore, the potential for implementation of the Master Plan to result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant. 543
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-98 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be a less-thansignificant impact. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. As described in item c-i), the plan area does not contain water features of any kind. The existing plan area contains compacted and impervious areas which are relatively impermeable. The reconfiguration of paved areas and structures proposed in the Master Plan would decrease impervious area by approximately 93,000 square feet relative to existing conditions which would decrease rate and amount of surface runoff. Additionally, as a condition of TRPA permit approval, the various components of the project would be required to install permanent stormwater infiltration BMPs as described in item b), above. For these reasons, implementation of the Master Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on-site drainage and increased surface runoff resulting in flooding.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be a less-thansignificant impact. 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; or
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Implementation of the Master Plan would reduce impervious surfaces in the plan area by 93,000 sq. ft. and would therefore create less runoff than under existing conditions. In addition, implementation of the Master Plan would be required to infiltrate all runoff from the 20-year, one inch per hour storm on-site; treat stormwater runoff to meet TRPA’s discharge limits; or demonstrate that runoff would be accommodated by a shared municipal system as a condition of permit approval. The plan area would also be subject to Section 7.15 Urban Runoff and Storm Water Quality Management of the City of South Lake Tahoe Code, which requires projects to prevent, control, and reduce storm water pollutants that would contribute pollution to stormwater, storm drain system, or waters of the state. Therefore, the Master Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on existing or planned drainage systems.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The Multigenerational Center project would include stormwater basins and other BMPs to infiltrate the 20-year, one inch per hour storm event on-site as required per TRPA Code Section 60.4. For the same reasons described above, there would be a less-than-significant impact. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The plan area is located in an area that is mapped as Flood Zone X, which is defined as areas outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (FEMA 2012). For this reason, flood flows would be very rare. Redevelopment of the plan area would include adequate storm drain infrastructure that would be designed to direct flood flows to infiltration facilities with overflow features that would minimize flood impacts. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be a less-thansignificant impact. 544
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-99 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. A seiche is a periodic oscillation of an enclosed or restricted water body, typically a lake or reservoir, produced by seismic shaking. Depending on the magnitude and location of an earthquake occurring in the Tahoe basin, a seiche wave ranging in height from about 3 to 10 meters could develop in Lake Tahoe (Ichinose et. al. 1999). Due to the proximity to Lake Tahoe, the plan area could be inundated by a seiche wave, which has the potential to cause a release of pollutants. Earthquakes of the magnitude necessary to create a seiche wave are rare in the Tahoe Basin. The Master Plan does not include housing, but visitors and employees would be at risk from inundation in the event of the large earthquake capable of triggering a seiche wave. The existing campground and Recreation and Swim Complex are also in the area under threat of inundation by seiche. Therefore, redevelopment in the plan area would not modify or increase the existing threat of inundation by seiche. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be a less-thansignificant impact. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. Water quality standards and control measures for surface water and groundwater within the Lahontan Region are contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for water bodies. It establishes water quality objectives, waste discharge prohibitions, and other implementation measures to protect those beneficial uses. Chapter 5, “Water Quality Standards and Control Measures for the Tahoe Region,” of the Basin Plan summarizes a variety of control measures for the protection and enhancement of Lake Tahoe. The Master Plan does not include activities that would conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Additionally, as discussed in item a), above, the Master Plan would not adversely affect surface or groundwater quality. There would be no impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, there would be no impact.

3.10.3 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality are considered in the context of the Tahoe Basin watershed.

Disturbance to the watershed has occurred through logging, milling, mining, grazing, and development within the Tahoe Basin. These activities combined with runoff from development, have degraded the water quality of the tributaries to Lake Tahoe, resulting in an existing cumulative adverse condition. This has led to an increase in sediment and other pollutants carried into Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe total maximum daily load was developed to address sediment levels in partnership with local jurisdictions. Additionally, numerous projects have been implemented to restore disturbed areas of the watershed and reduce this adverse condition.

Implementation of the Master Plan and construction of the Multigenerational Center as well as the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 would be required to comply with the erosion control and water quality protection conditions of TRPA. This would include temporary water quality protection BMPs during construction and permanent stormwater management features. Furthermore, the Master Plan and Center would result in a reduction in land coverage and installation of permanent water quality BMPs and stormwater infrastructure that would reduce water quality degradation. Therefore, the contribution of the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 545
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-100 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The plan area is located within the jurisdictions of the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA. The plan area is developed, and existing land uses include indoor and outdoor recreational space, maintenance facilities, and community-oriented and public service facilities, such as an art center, history museum, senior center, and library.

Outdoor recreation amenities include shared-use paths, picnic tables, park and playground spaces, and a campground with 172 RV, tent, and cabin spaces.

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL PLAN
Land use planning and regulation in the Tahoe Basin is guided by the TRPA Tahoe Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances. The Regional Plan is intended to establish a balance between the natural environment and the built environment; and attain and maintain TRPA’s environmental thresholds. The Regional Plan includes Goals and Policies that guide decision making as it affects the Region’s resources and environmental thresholds, and they are intended to provide opportunities for orderly growth and development consistent with those thresholds. The Goals and Policies are addressed in six major elements: land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, and public services and facilities Land in the Lake Tahoe Region is assigned to one of eight classifications: Wilderness, Backcountry, Conservation, Recreation, Resort Recreation, Residential, Mixed-Use, and Tourist. The classifications summarize major land uses that exist in the Region and are further supplemented by the plan area statements, community plans, master plans, and area plans. The Regional Plan designates the plan area as Mixed-Use (TRPA 2018). The Regional Plan identifies Mixed-Use areas as urban areas that have been designated to provide a mix of commercial, public services, light industrial, office, and residential uses to the Region or have the potential to provide future commercial, public service, light industrial, office, and residential uses. The purpose of this classification is to concentrate higher intensity land uses for public convenience and enhanced sustainability (TRPA 2012).

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GENERAL PLAN
The City’s General Plan was updated in September 2010 and provides a comprehensive plan for the City through 2030. The General Plan vision for future land use and community design is:

In 2030, the Highway 50 corridor has been transformed into an interconnected series of compact mixed‐use (commercial, office, residential, and tourist accommodation) districts that serve the needs of residents and visitors alike. The corridor is the heart of the community and contains year‐round sidewalks and bike paths.

The transformation of the corridor has been fueled by the cooperative efforts of local, regional, and state governments, and private investors who share the vision for a prosperous and healthy region (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011:LU-1).
546
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-101 The land use designation established for the plan area by the City’s General Plan is Recreation. 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 or proposed outdoor recreation and areas without overriding environmental constraints (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011:LU-3 and LU-4).

BIJOU/AL TAHOE COMMUNITY PLAN
The plan area is located within the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan (TRPA and CSLT 1995). The goal of the Community Plan is to guide the development of the Community Plan area to serve as a family-oriented and recreational area, as well as a town center for the community. The Community Plan area is divided into four districts:
the Town Center District, Harrison Avenue District, Lucky Payless District, and Bijou District. The plan area is located within the Town Center District, which includes the areas containing South Tahoe Middle School, Lake Tahoe Community College, and South Lake Tahoe Government Center. The land use designations established by the Community Plan for the plan area is Public Service and Recreation.

The following goals, related specific objectives and special policies adopted for the Community Plan and applicable to the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center:

GOAL 1 Urban Design and Development: To ensure that the design elements of new, remodeled, and rehabilitated developments are compatible with the scenic objectives and policies of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan.

Objective 1: Create districts within the community plan boundaries to concentrate specific uses and development.  Policy B: Create a pedestrian friendly, village atmosphere within each of the four distinct districts. Retain existing transitional areas between the distinct districts.

GOAL 2 Land Use Strategy and Economic Feasibility Goals: Maintain a balance between economic health and the environment, correcting past deficiencies in land use and being responsive to the needs and opportunities within the Bijou/Al Tahoe area.

Objective 1: Concentrate development to create unique areas within the community plan boundaries.  Policy A: Generate an anchor within the community plan, i.e., "Town Center District,” allowing mixed uses, including public service, commercial support businesses, and recreational uses. Designate within the [56] acre area identified as the CSLT Recreation complex and Campground by the Lake a "Special Events Area", provided the events are conducted out of view from Highway 50 scenic corridor. Develop a design plan through the Parks and Recreation Commission.

3.11.2 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. No housing exists within the plan area. Implementation of the Master Plan would reconfigure existing features on the site such as the existing aquatic center and the campground. The project would not substantially change the nature of the plan area as a recreation amenity or the nature of the surrounding areas, including residential, education, and commercial uses. The project would not introduce any barriers or project features that could physically divide the surrounding community and no housing or residences would be relocated or displaced as a result of plan activities. There would be no impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. 547
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-102 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The uses proposed in the Master Plan would be a continuation of existing recreation and public service uses in the plan area that are consistent with the Recreation and Public Service land uses identified in the Community Plan and City General Plan, and with the Mixed-Use designation identified by the Tahoe Regional Plan.

Projects implemented subsequent to the Master Plan would be subject to the policies, standards, and guidelines for development identified in the Community Plan and City General Plan. Additionally, the Master Plan would be required to comply with TRPA Regional Plan policies and TRPA Code of Ordinances, which are adopted for the purpose of minimizing development impacts to the environment. Implementation of the Master Plan would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of mitigating an environmental affect.

This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The Multigenerational Center would replace the existing Recreation and Swim Complex.

The project is consistent with uses envisioned for the site in the Community Plan. The Center falls with the definition of a “Recreation Center” according to the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Recreation Centers are an allowed use within the Town Center District of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan subject to design review (TRPA and CSLT 1995:II-11).

The project would also be required to comply with all provisions of the TRPA Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances, and City General Plan. Because the project would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of mitigating an environmental affect, this impact would be less than significant.

3.11.3 Cumulative Impacts
Land use plans and policies are intended to have a cumulative effect on the land use and development patterns within the region. Over time, as multiple projects comply with land use regulations and achieve land use policies, desired land use and development patterns are achieved. Thus, the project’s consistency with land use plans reflects its cumulative effect on land use. The Master Plan includes allowable uses consistent with current uses of the plan area and consistent with the local and regional plans. Further, related projects in the Table 3.21-1 would be required to comply with TRPA and local jurisdictional zoning, land use, and protective policies as conditions of approval.

Because no land use impacts would occur on a project-specific basis, the project would not contribute to any potential cumulative land use impacts. Therefore, the project would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
548
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-103

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. Mineral Resources.

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
The project site does not contain any known mineral or aggregate resources of local or statewide significance (Busch 2001). The project site is underlain by Pleistocene to Holocene glacial till and moraines with no known current or future economic value. No economically viable deposits of clean sand or gravel exist in the project site that would be useful to extract for riprap, aggregate, or other industrial uses (Busch 2001). Additionally, mining is not an identified allowable use in the Tahoe Basin (see Chapter 21 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances).

3.12.2 Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. No known mineral resources are located within the project site. There would be no impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. See discussion for “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. See discussion for item a), above. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. See discussion for “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. 549
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-104 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.12.3 Cumulative Impacts
The Master Plan and Center project would result in no impacts on mineral resources. Therefore, the plan and project would not combine with other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 to result in a cumulative loss of mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. 550
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-105

3.13 NOISE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. Noise.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or
federal standards?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. Sound is the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, annoying, or unwanted sound. As sound travels through the atmosphere from the source to the receiver, noise levels attenuate (i.e., decrease) depending on a variety of factors, including geometric spreading (i.e., spherical or cylindrical spreading), ground absorption (i.e., hard versus soft sites), atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind direction and speed, air temperature, humidity, turbulence), and shielding by natural or human-made features.

The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source, also called the sound pressure level (SPL). SPL is most commonly described by using decibels (dB) because this logarithmic unit best corresponds to the way the human ear interprets sound pressures. However, the decibel scale does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise because the human ear is not equally sensitive to loudness at all frequencies (i.e., pitch) in the audible spectrum. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an “Aweighted” sound level (expressed in units of A-weighted decibels or dBA) can be computed based on this information. All sound levels discussed in this section are expressed in A-weighted decibels.

Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPLs expressed in dB cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic.

Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1–2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013:2-10). 551
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-106 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time-varying noise levels. The noise descriptors used in this chapter include:
 A-Weighted Decibels (dBA): Noise levels are commonly reported in decibels using the A-weighting scale (dbA). The A-weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgment correlates well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds.  Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level that occurs during the same period (Caltrans 2013:2-48). For instance, the 1-hour equivalent sound level, also referred to as the hourly Leq, is the energy average of sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period.  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a 5-dB penalty applied to the sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. (Caltrans 2013:2-48).

GROUND VIBRATION
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object with respect to a given reference point. Groundborne vibration is vibration of and through the ground. Sources of ground-borne vibration include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) and those introduced by human activity (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, (e.g., operating factory machinery) or transient in nature (e.g., explosions).

Groundborne vibration amplitudes are commonly expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root-mean-square (RMS) vibration velocity. PPV and RMS vibration velocities are normally described in inches per second (in/sec) but can also be expressed in decibel notation (VdB), which is used mainly in evaluating human response to vibration.

EXISTING NOISE SOURCES
The predominant noise source in the vicinity of the plan area is vehicle traffic on local roadways, primarily US 50 (Lake Tahoe Boulevard) and Rufus Allen Boulevard. In addition to traffic noise sources, noise sources associated with land uses within and surrounding the plan area also contribute to the existing noise environment. The plan area is located in a primarily developed area in the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes various on-site recreational, camping, and other public facilities. Noise associated with these types of land uses includes people talking, laughing, playing music, and participating in recreational activities. The plan area is also surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Residential land uses are not typically associated with substantial noise levels. Noise sources associated with commercial land uses generally include parking lot and loading dock/delivery activity.

NOISE- AND VIBRATION-SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., sensitive receptors) are generally considered to include uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels, and because of the potential for nighttime noise to result in sleep disruption. Additional land uses such as schools, transient lodging, historic sites, cemeteries, and places of worship are also generally considered sensitive to increases in noise levels. Vibration-sensitive land uses are generally considered to be buildings or structures that could be damaged due to vibration or land uses where vibration levels could interfere with operations or cause human annoyance.

Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the plan area include single-family residences, hotels, a church, and a school. The nearest sensitive receptors to the plan area are single-family residences in the Al Tahoe and Bijou neighborhoods. 552
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-107 The closest residences in the Al Tahoe and Bijou neighborhoods are located approximately 50 feet south and 55 feet east of the plan area, respectively. The closest hotel (Hotel Azure) is located across Rufus Allen Boulevard 53 feet east of the plan area. Saint Theresa Catholic Church is located approximately 490 feet south of the plan area, and the athletic facilities and closest buildings of South Tahoe Middle School are located approximately 680 and 1,070 feet south of the plan area, respectively.

3.13.2 Discussion
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Noise would be generated during construction and operation, which are discussed separately, below.

Temporary Construction Noise
Construction activities associated with development of the Master Plan area, including renovation and alteration of existing buildings and facilities, would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. Master Plan construction is anticipated to begin in 2022 and would occur over an estimated 20 years. Construction activities would vary for each component of the Master Plan but would generally include site preparation, paving, building construction and/or renovation, and landscaping.

Construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on the type, number, and duration of construction equipment use. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring and equipment used on any given day; the distances from construction activity to noise-sensitive receptors; any noise-attenuating features, such as topography, vegetation, and existing structures; and existing ambient noise levels. Pieces of heavy construction equipment that would likely be used during development of the Master Plan area include air compressors, concrete pump trucks, dozers, dump trucks, excavators, flatbed trucks, front end loaders, generators, graders, pavers, and welders. These pieces of equipment generate noise levels that range from 73 to 85 dB at 50 feet (FHWA 2006). No pile driving or blasting would occur.

To demonstrate the loudest possible noise level at all sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the plan area, noise modeling conservatively assumed simultaneous operation of three pieces of heavy equipment (an excavator, a frontend loader, and a generator) at the plan area boundary nearest to each receptor. Table 3.13-1 shows the estimated levels of noise exposure at nearby receptors. Construction noise exposure levels at more distant receptors not listed in Table 3.13-1 would be lower because noise levels attenuate over distance. Also, construction noise exposure levels at the receptors listed in Table 3.13-1 would be lower for construction activities occurring at more distant locations within the plan area. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix B.

As shown in Table 3.13-1, noise-sensitive receptors near active construction sites would experience temporary elevated noise levels from construction activities. However, Section 68.9 of the TRPA Code exempts construction activities from TRPA noise standards if the activity occurs between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. (TRPA 2020:68-5).

Additionally, construction activities involving grading would be required to comply with the TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval for Grading Projects (TRPA n.d.), which contains several requirements that would help to reduce noise impacts, including:
 Engine doors shall remain closed during periods of operation except during necessary engine maintenance.  Stationary equipment (e.g., generators or pumps) shall be located as far as feasible from noise-sensitive receptors and residential areas. Stationary equipment near sensitive noise receptors or residential areas shall be equipped with temporary sound barriers.
553
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-108 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND All construction associated with development of the Master Plan would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and would comply with all TRPA requirements. Therefore, short-term increases in noise generated by construction activities would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards.

Table 3.13-1 Exterior and Interior Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors During Master Plan Construction Receptor Approximate Distance from Construction
Activity to Receptor (feet)1
Exterior Noise Level at
Receptor3 Leq
Indoor Noise Level at
Receptor3,4 Leq
Residences south of plan area in Al
Tahoe neighborhood 50 84 60
Residences east of the plan area in
Bijou neighborhood 55 83 59
Hotel Azure 53 83 59
Saint Theresa Catholic Church 490 58 34
South Tahoe Middle School 680 (outdoor), 1,070 (indoor)2 54 25 Notes: dB = decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level 1 Distances were measured from the plan area boundary to the nearest receptor to conservatively assume that construction work could potentially occur up to the edge of the plan area closest to the receptor. 2 These distances differ because the school grounds cover a large area, and the nearest school buildings are farther from the plan area than the nearest outdoor areas used by the school. The outdoor distance was used to calculate the exterior noise level and the indoor distance was used to calculate the indoor noise level.
3 Noise exposure level estimates conservatively assume simultaneous operation of three pieces of heavy equipment (an excavator, a front-end loader, and a generator) in close proximity to each other at the boundary of the plan area nearest to the receptor. Noise level estimates assume all equipment is properly maintained and fitted with operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. See Appendix B for detailed noise modeling and input parameters.
4 Building walls would provide 24 dB of attenuation (EPA 1971:11).

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021
Long-term, Operational Noise
Long-term, operational noise would be generated by a variety of noise sources, including operational and maintenance activities, visitors using the facilities, parking lot activity, mechanical equipment for on-site buildings (i.e., HVAC units), and vehicle traffic along local roadways.

Maintenance Activities
The Master Plan would create a park with a variety of recreational and civic facilities and services, including a campground, trails and paths, parking, play and gather spaces (e.g., Lakeview Commons, Champions Plaza, playgrounds), a library, the Multigenerational Center, an ice arena, county facilities, and a civic center. Many of these uses already exist within the Master Plan area and would continue to operate in the same manner as existing conditions after implementation. Some facilities would be relocated and/or expanded as part of the Master Plan, but operations would generally include the same types of activities and require the same types of equipment. No heavyduty noise-generating equipment, such as those discussed in the analysis of construction noise, would be required for maintenance of the plan area. Landscaping tools (e.g., lawn mowers, hand tools) are typical for developed areas such as the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Visitor Activities
The number of visitors to the plan area would increase after implementation of the Master Plan to utilize the facilities and services onsite. However, people visiting the site would partake in the same types of activities (e.g., camping, recreation, special events) that already occur on-site and, thus, would produce the same types of noise (e.g., talking, children playing).

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the campground would be reconfigured and relocated south of its existing location. The number of campsites would be reduced from 178 sites to 135 sites; thus, the campground 554
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-109 improvements could result in a reduction of noise. Additionally, campground guests must adhere to quiet hours (generally 10:00 p.m. to 7:00a.m.) which prohibits the use of loud equipment and noise generating activities (i.e., RV generators, loud music, etc.).

Special events would be required to comply with City noise requirements. Proposed outdoor events with expected noise impacts are required to develop a Sound Management Plan as part of an event’s application to control the type and volume of sound produced by the event and minimize possible disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.

Additionally, no event shall exceed a maximum decibel limit of 95dB measured at the property line over a sustained period of ten minutes, and outdoor music and entertainment shall be limited to performing between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. although music and entertainment is not expected and will not be approved to occur through those twelve hours (City of South Lake Tahoe 2021a). Special event applicants shall work closely with the City to ensure proper notification procedures take place as appropriate.

The increase in visitors to the plan area would not be large enough to noticeably increase noise levels off-site, and visitors would not introduce new types of noise sources to the plan area. Additionally, the campground would be reduced and, therefore, result in potentially reduced noise levels. As detailed above, special events that would generate increased noise would be scheduled and approved by the City and must follow all City noise regulations as detailed in the Special Event Guidelines. Furthermore, the new flexible event space would be located in the northwestern portion of the plan area distant from sensitive receptors.

Parking Lots
The Master Plan would include the provision of new and relocated parking lots within the plan area. The largest parking areas would be located on the eastern side of the plan area, one next to the Multigenerational Center (northern lot) and the other located next to the ice arena (southern lot). Noise sources associated with parking lots are generally short-term and can include car engines revving or idling, tires squeaking, car alarms, car horns, doors slamming, and people talking. Although the existing parking lots within the plan area are smaller than what is planned as part of the Master Plan, parking lot noise is part of the existing noise environment because these surface parking lots currently exist in the plan area. Additionally, the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 100 feet to the east from the nearest edge of each parking lot across Rufus Allen Boulevard, which is a predominant source of noise in the area. Because the parking lot is separated from sensitive receptors by landscaping, an intervening and predominant noise source in the area (Rufus Allen Boulevard), and will primarily be used during the daytime hours, noise generated this parking lot would not expose any offsite receptors to excessive noise levels that could exceed City standards or disturb people during the sensitive times of the day.

HVAC Equipment
Development of the project would result in the installation of stationary noise sources used for the operation of buildings such as HVAC equipment. Noise levels from HVAC equipment vary substantially depending on unit efficiency, size, and location. Noise levels from HVAC equipment range from 45 to 70 dBA Leq at 50 feet (EPA 1971).

The buildings currently existing on-site are already equipped with HVAC equipment necessary for operation; and thus, are already part of the existing noise condition on-site. The only new buildings that would be constructed that would include new HVAC units would be the Multigenerational Center and the civic center, which would be located approximately 500 and 375 feet away from the nearest sensitive receptors, respectively. Using the highest noise level for HVAC equipment and assuming the equipment would be installed on the closest edge of each building, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Multigenerational Center would be exposed to a noise level of 44 dB Leq, and the nearest sensitive receptors to the civic center would be exposed to a noise level of 53 dB Leq. Therefore, the singlefamily residences across the street from the civic center could be exposed to noise levels that exceed the City’s exterior nighttime non-transportation noise standard of 45 dB Leq (City of South Lake Tahoe 2021b). See Appendix B for detailed calculations.

Traffic Noise
The existing noise environment in the Master Plan area is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways, as well as nearby commercial activities. Vehicle trips generated by visitors to the Master Plan area and new employees would 555
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-110 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND result in an increase in average daily traffic volumes and associated increases in traffic noise levels along affected roadway segments near the project site.

A doubling of a noise source results in a 3-dBA increase in noise. It is generally accepted that a change of 3 dBA is barely perceptible, a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as twice or half as loud to the average human ear (Caltrans 2013:6-5). Therefore, the significance threshold for mobile source noise is based on human perceptibility to changes in noise levels (increases) with consideration of existing ambient noise conditions. Based on the traffic modeling conducted and summarized in Chapter 3.17, “Transportation,” the build out of the Master Plan is expected to increase daily vehicle trips from 3,376 to 4,458 (i.e., net increase of 1,082). Existing volumes would not double; thus, traffic noise increases would be less than 3 dBA. Therefore, additional trips associated with the build out of the Master Plan would not result in a substantial noise increase.

Summary of Impacts
As detailed above, short-term increases in noise generated by construction activities associated with the Master Plan would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards. Additionally, project-generated operational traffic noise levels would not result in substantial noise increases (i.e., more than 3 dBA). However, long-term operational stationary source noise levels would exceed the City’s nighttime non-transportation noise standard of 45 dB Leq. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Implement Design Measures to Ensure That Operation of On-Site HVAC Equipment Does Not Expose Off-Site Sensitive Receptors to Noise Levels That Exceed Applicable Standards This mitigation measure applies to the 56 Acres Master Plan.

The City shall implement design measures to ensure that all mechanical building equipment that is part of HVAC systems on the civic center buildings do not expose off-site residential and temporary lodging land uses to exterior noise levels that exceed 55 Leq during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) or 45 Leq during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). The effectiveness of the design measures shall be verified by a qualified acoustical engineer. Measures to achieve these performance standards may include, but shall not be limited to, the following measures:
 Locate HVAC units within equipment rooms or enclosures that incorporate noise reduction features, such as acoustical louvers. Equipment enclosures shall be oriented so that major openings (i.e., intake louvers, exhaust) are directed away from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.  Set back all HVAC units as much as possible from off-site noise-sensitive receptors, including residential and temporary lodging land uses.
 Position HVAC units on the opposite side of an on-site buildings from off-site sensitive receptors so that the buildings serve as an intervening noise barrier.
 Design and build sound barriers near all noise-generating HVAC units that enclose mechanical equipment as much as possible and completely block the line of sight between the equipment and off-site residential and temporary lodging land uses. Sound barriers can consist of a wall, earthen berm, or some combination thereof.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 would ensure that nearby noise sensitive receptors were not exposed to noise levels from HVAC systems within the Master Plan area such that the City’s exterior daytime or nighttime nontransportation noise standards would be exceeded. Thus, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Noise would be generated during construction and operation, which are discussed separately, below.

Temporary Construction Noise
Construction activities associated with development of the Multigenerational Center would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. Construction of the Multigenerational Center is anticipated to begin in 2022 and the building 556
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-111 would be operational in 2024. Construction activities would generally include site preparation, paving, building construction, and landscaping.

As detailed above for the Master Plan, construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on the type, number, and duration of use of construction equipment. Pieces of heavy equipment that may be used during construction of the Multigenerational Center include air compressors, concrete pump trucks, dozers, dump trucks, excavators, flatbed trucks, front end loaders, generators, graders, pavers, and welders. These pieces of equipment generate noise levels that range from 73 to 85 dB at 50 feet (FHWA 2006). No pile driving or blasting would occur.

To demonstrate the loudest possible noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the Multigenerational Center, noise modeling conservatively assumed simultaneous operation of three pieces of heavy equipment (an excavator, a front-end loader, and a generator) at the project site boundary closest to the nearest sensitive receptor (Hotel Azure). Construction of the Multigenerational Center would occur approximately 500 feet from Hotel Azure, resulting in an attenuated noise level at the receptor of 58 dB Leq. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Table 3.13-2 Exterior and Interior Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors During Multigenerational Center Construction
Receptor Approximate Distance from Construction
Activity to Receptor (feet)1
Exterior Noise Level at
Receptor3 Leq
Indoor Noise Level at
Receptor3,4 Leq
Hotel Azure 500 58 34
Notes: dB = decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level 1 Distances for were measured from the nearest plan area boundary to the receptor to conservatively assume that construction work could potentially occur up to the edge of the plan area closest to the receptor. 2 These distances differ because the school grounds cover a large area, and the nearest school buildings are farther from the plan area than the nearest outdoor areas used by the school. The outdoor distance was used to calculate the exterior noise level and the indoor distance was used to calculate the indoor noise level.
3 Noise exposure level estimates conservatively assume simultaneous operation of three pieces of heavy equipment (an excavator, a front-end loader, and a generator) in close proximity to each other at the boundary of the plan area nearest to the receptor. Noise level estimates assume all equipment is properly maintained and fitted with operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. See Appendix D for detailed noise modeling and input parameters.
4 Building walls would provide 24 dB of attenuation (EPA 1971:11).

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021
Additionally, as applied to the construction noise analysis for Master Plan implementation, Section 68.9 of the TRPA Code exempts construction activities from TRPA noise standards if the activity occurs between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. (TRPA 2020:68-5). Furthermore, construction activities involving grading would be required to comply with the TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval for Grading Projects (TRPA n.d.), which contains several requirements that would help to reduce noise impacts, including:
 Engine doors shall remain closed during periods of operation except during necessary engine maintenance.  Stationary equipment (e.g., generators or pumps) shall be located as far as feasible from noise-sensitive receptors and residential areas. Stationary equipment near sensitive noise receptors or residential areas shall be equipped with temporary sound barriers.

All construction associated with development of the Multigenerational Center would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and would comply with all TRPA requirements. Therefore, short-term increases in noise generated by construction activities would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards.

Long-term, Operational Noise
Long-term, operational noise for the Multigenerational Center would be generated by a variety of noise sources including operational and maintenance activities, visitors using the facility, parking lot activity, mechanical equipment 557
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-112 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND (i.e., HVAC units), and vehicle traffic along local roadways. The analysis above related to noise generated by maintenance and visitor activities for the Master Plan is applicable to the Multigenerational Center and is not discussed further.

Parking Lots
The Multigenerational Center would include the expansion of the existing library parking lot by 56 spaces. Noise sources associated with parking lots are generally short-term and can include car engines revving or idling, tires squeaking, car alarms, car horns, doors slamming, and people talking. However, noise generated by parking lot activity is part of the existing noise environment because parking spaces currently exist in the area. Additionally, the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 100 feet to the east from the nearest edge of each parking lot across Rufus Allen Boulevard, which is a predominant source of noise in the area. Because the parking lot is separated from sensitive receptors by landscaping, an intervening and predominant noise source in the area (Rufus Allen Boulevard), and will primarily be used during the daytime hours, noise generated this parking lot would not expose any offsite receptors to excessive noise levels that could exceed City standards or disturb people during the sensitive times of the day.

HVAC Equipment
As discussed above, noise levels from HVAC equipment range from 45 to 70 dBA Leq at 50 feet (EPA 1971). The Multigenerational Center is one of two buildings constructed that would include new HVAC units as part of Master Plan implementation and would be located approximately 500 feet away from the nearest sensitive receptors. Using the highest noise level for HVAC equipment and assuming the equipment would be installed on the closest edge of each building, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Multigenerational Center would be exposed to a noise level of 44 dB Leq; thus, noise generated from HVAC equipment at the Multigenerational Center would not exceed the City’s nighttime non-transportation noise standard of 45 dB Leq (City of South Lake Tahoe 2021b). See Appendix B for detailed calculations.

Traffic Noise
Vehicle trips generated by visitors to the Multigenerational Center and new employees would result in an increase in average daily traffic volumes and associated increases in traffic noise levels along affected roadway segments near the project site.

A doubling of a noise source results in a 3-dBA increase in noise. It is generally accepted that a change of 3 dBA is barely perceptible, a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as twice or half as loud to the average human ear (Caltrans 2013:6-5). Based on the traffic modeling conducted and summarized in Chapter 3.17, “Transportation,” the Multigenerational Center is expected to increase daily vehicle trips from 952 to 1,446 (i.e., a net increase of 494 trips). Existing volumes would not double; thus, traffic noise increases would be less than 3 dBA. Therefore, additional trips associated with the Multigenerational Center would not result in substantial noise increases and the Multigenerational Center would be required to comply with adopted TRPA thresholds.

Summary of Impacts
As detailed above, short-term increases in noise generated by construction activities associated with the Multigenerational Center would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards. Additionally, long-term operational stationary source noise levels would not exceed the City’s nighttime non-transportation noise standard of 45 dB Leq and project-generated operational traffic noise levels would not result in substantial noise increases (i.e., more than 3 dBA). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Master Plan construction would not involve the use of ground vibration–intensive activities, such as pile driving and blasting. Activities involving pile driving and blasting typically generate the highest vibration levels compared to other construction methods and are, therefore, of greatest concern when evaluating 558
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-113 construction-related vibration impacts. Pieces of equipment that generate lower levels of ground vibration, such as bulldozers, would be used during construction. Operation of a bulldozer generates a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV and 87 VdB at 25 feet (FTA 2018:184). Vibration from operation of a bulldozer could exceed the Caltransrecommended threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for structural damage (Caltrans 2020) within 37 feet of bulldozing and the FTA-recommended threshold with respect to human response of 80 VdB (FTA 2018) within 43 feet of bulldozing.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed vibration modeling calculations. All off-site vibration-sensitive receptors are located 50 feet or further from the nearest Master Plan area boundary. Thus, construction associated with implementation of the Master Plan would not result in vibration levels at sensitive receptors exceeding Caltrans- or FTA-recommended standards with respect to the prevention of structural damage and human annoyance, respectively. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Multigenerational Center construction would not involve the use of ground vibration– intensive activities, such as pile driving and blasting. Operation of a bulldozer generates a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV and 87 VdB at 25 feet (FTA 2018:184). Vibration from operation of a bulldozer could exceed the Caltransrecommended threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for structural damage (Caltrans 2020) within 37 feet of bulldozing and the FTA-recommended threshold with respect to human response of 80 VdB (FTA 2018) within 43 feet of bulldozing.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed vibration modeling calculations. The nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 500 feet from the Multigenerational Center site. Thus, construction associated with implementation of the Multigenerational Center would not result in vibration levels at sensitive receptors exceeding Caltrans- or FTArecommended standards with respect to the prevention of structural damage and human annoyance, respectively.

This impact would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The plan area is located within the Airport Influence Area Review Area 2 for the Lake Tahoe Airport, which is the nearest airport. Its runway is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the plan area. The Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) includes noise compatibility criteria for land uses within the Airport Influence Area, as well as airport noise contours (LTALUC 2019). Based on the noise contour map provided in the ALUCP, the plan area is located outside of the 50 CNEL airport noise contour. Therefore, the land uses within the Master Plan area would be compatible with regards to aircraft noise, and implementation of the Master Plan would not result in the exposure of visitors or employees to excessive aircraft-related noise levels. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. As detailed above, all land uses within the Master Plan, including the Multigenerational Center, are located within the Airport Influence Area Review Area 2 for the Lake Tahoe Airport, which is the closest airport to the plan area. Its runway is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the Multigenerational Center. As described above, the ALUCP includes noise compatibility criteria for land uses within the Airport Influence Area, as well as airport noise contours (LTALUC 2019). Based on the noise contour map provided in the ALUCP, the Multigenerational Center is located outside of the 50 CNEL airport noise contour. Therefore, the Multigenerational Center would be compatible with regards to aircraft noise, and operation of the Multigenerational Center would not result in the exposure of visitors or employees to excessive aircraft-related noise levels. This impact would be less than significant.
559
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-114 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.13.3 Cumulative Impacts
Impacts related to short-term project-related construction noise and vibration levels are localized in nature, based on audibility and distance to sensitive receptors. Cumulative impacts from construction-generated noise may result if other future planned construction activities were to take place close to the project site and cumulatively combine with construction noise from the Project. As detailed in item a) above, Section 68.9 of the TRPA Code exempts construction activities from TRPA noise standards if the activity occurs between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. (TRPA 2020:68-5). Therefore, because all construction associated with development of the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and would comply with all TRPA requirements, combining of any construction noise would be exempt and comply with TRPA construction noise requirements. Therefore, noise impacts associated with temporary increases in ambient noise levels (i.e., construction activities) as discussed under item a) would not be cumulatively considerable.

As detailed in Table 3.21-1, the cumulative projects generally consist of multimodal facilities, roadway improvements, stormwater infrastructure improvements, and slope stabilization and could occur at the same time as construction of the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center. These facilities would not result in the introduction of any new stationary noise sources during operation; and thus, would not combine with the noise generated by parking lot activity or mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC units) associated with the implementation of the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center. Additionally, as discussed under item a), above, buildout of the Master Plan and Multigeneration Center would not generate a substantial increase in traffic noise levels because, generally, noise level increases of less than 3 dB would be barely perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, noise impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise levels as discussed under item a) would not be cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, the noise generated during construction and operation of the project would not combine with other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 in such a way that would result in significant noise exposure to the same individual noise sensitive receptors. Thus, the project would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact.
560
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-115

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. Population and Housing.

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

3.14.1 Environmental Setting
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population for the City of South Lake Tahoe was estimated to be approximately 21,330 people in 2020 with approximately 15,961 total housing units reported for 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau 2019a, 2020). Many of the housing units are used as second homes or vacation rentals, resulting in approximately 42 percent of the housing units being classified as vacant in 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau 2019a). The primary land use in the plan area includes recreation and public service uses. In 2019, the City had an estimated unemployment rate of approximately 5 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2019b).

No residences are located within the plan area. Single family residences are located directly east of the plan area along Rufus Allen Boulevard, while commercial and residential properties border the project site to the west along US 50 and Harrison Avenue.

3.14.2 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The Master Plan proposes new and improvements of existing public spaces and recreational facilities that are located within the plan area, which would also include additional opportunities for a limited number of special events within the plan area. The plan would not construct new commercial development, housing, lodging, or new roadways that would induce population growth in the area. Roadway and parking improvements proposed as part of the Master Plan would be constructed to support the proposed facility improvements, and would not, due to their location within an area that is already developed, result in substantial population growth. The proposed event space would result in a temporary increase of people within the plan area.

These events would be small (similar to the size of those that occur at Lakeview Commons) and limited to an estimated 10 events per year at the new outdoor event space and 10 events per year at the new Main Street and, thus, would not be anticipated to induce population growth in the City. The existing City Council chambers would be relocated to the new Civic Center. The proposed improvements, given that the types and intensity of land uses within the plan are similar to existing conditions, would not generate new employment that would result in substantial unplanned population growth such that construction of additional housing would be required. This impact would be less than significant. 561
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-116 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The recreational opportunities provided by the existing Recreation and Swim Complex would be shifted to the Multigenerational Center. Additionally, City staff offices in the existing Recreation and Swim Complex as well as City staff offices at the Lake Tahoe Airport would be relocated to the Multigenerational Center.

Implementation of the project could result in a small increase in employment (fewer than 10 jobs) associated with the potential to expand programs and recreation opportunities. However, the amount of employment generated by the project would be minimal and would not result in substantial unplanned population growth such that construction of additional housing would be required. Occurrence of classes and community events within the center would be temporary, limited to business and special event hours as required by City and TRPA ordinance. These improvements, due to their nature, compatibility with existing land uses in a developed area, would not result in direct or indirect substantial population growth in or around the project site. This impact would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. The plan area contains public service and recreation uses. No residences are currently located in the plan area. Thus, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in the relocation of people or housing and would not require the construction of replacement housing. There would be no impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. No housing is located within the plan area or within the Multigenerational Center Project site. The project would therefore not result in a displacement of people or housing. There would be no impact.

3.14.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 would generate temporary, short-term employment and would not be considered to result in a substantial increase in employment. These projects would not result in new or different land uses, or operational employment opportunities that could result in population growth. Employment opportunities resulting from construction activities associated with the cumulative projects would generate temporary, short-term employment and would not be considered to result in a substantial increase in employment. Employment needs for these projects would be met by existing contractors that work in the South Lake Tahoe area. The proposed project would serve residences of the South Lake Tahoe area and would not induce long-term population growth. The project would not combine with other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 to result in a cumulative permanent increase in employment or population growth. The project would result in no impacts on displacement of housing or people. Thus, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to population and housing. 562
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-117

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. Public Services.

Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the 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?

3.15.1 Environmental Setting

FIRE PROTECTION
In the Tahoe Basin, federal, state, and local fire districts participate in mutual aid agreements to provide and receive support and services during unplanned emergency events with other cooperating agencies. The plan area is served by South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue (SLTFR). SLTFR provides fire suppression, fire prevention, and emergency medical services for residents, visitors, and workers within the City of South Lake Tahoe’s approximately 17 square mile boundary. Additionally, the South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue fire department assists other agencies in responding to wildland fires throughout the Tahoe Basin. The department currently operates with 36 fire fighters and three fire stations (City of South Lake Tahoe no date). In 2020, the City of South Lake Tahoe’s population was approximately 21,330 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Therefore, the ratio of uniformed fire personnel to residents during that time was approximately 1 to 592. In 2020, South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue conducted a total of 3,353 responses (South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue 2021). Station Two, located at 2951 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, is the closest fire facility to the planning area at approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the plan area.

POLICE PROTECTION
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department (SLTPD) is the primary jurisdictional law enforcement agency that provides law enforcement service(s) to the City of South Lake Tahoe and plan area. As of 2020, the SLTPD consisted of approximately 73 personnel. Currently, there are including currently are 41 sworn officer positions and 30 civilian support positions, including dispatchers, evidence technicians, records technicians, community service officers, and administrative staff (City of South Lake Tahoe 2021). In 2020, the City of South Lake Tahoe’s population was 563
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-118 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND approximately 21,330 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Therefore, the ratio of SLTPD sworn officers to residents was approximately 1 to 520. In 2020, SLTPD responded to approximately 31,600 calls for service (SLTPD 2021).

SCHOOLS
The plan area is located within the Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD). Schools within LTUSD provide Kindergarten through 12th Grade education and include Tahoe Valley Elementary School, Sierra House Elementary School, Lake Tahoe Environmental Science Magnet School, Bijou Community School, South Tahoe Middle School, and South Tahoe High School (LTUSD 2021). Based on data for the 2020–2021 school year, approximately 3,900 students were enrolled within the LTUSD (DOE 2017). Schools identified nearest to the plan area include the Saint Theresa Catholic School, Tahoe Parents Nursery School, and South Lake Tahoe Middle School, which are all located within 0.25 mile of the southern edge of the plan area. A fourth school, the Bijou Community School, is located approximately 0.7 mile east of the plan area.

PARKS
Multiple parks and recreation facilities are located within the plan area and project vicinity, including the City’s Recreation and Swim Complex, South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena, Campground by the Lake, and Lakeview Commons.

Setting information related to parks is provided in Section 3.16, “Recreation.”

3.15.2 Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The Master Plan would include redevelopment of an existing developed recreation area in a central location within the City. The redevelopment includes enhancing the existing recreation amenities through relocation of maintenance and vector control facilities outside of the plan area, reduction in the size of the campground and adding camping cabins, provision of nature and fitness play areas, outdoor flexible event space, increase in shared-use paths and connectivity throughout the plan area, demolition of the existing Recreation and Swim Complex, and the new Main Street that provides a connection between US 50 and Rufus Allen through the plan area. The new Main Street would enhance access for fire and emergency service providers through the middle of the plan area. Existing fire hydrants are located throughout the plan area and at the time the individual projects in the Master Plan area designed, the location of additional fire hydrants would be identified, and additional hydrants would be installed. The Master Plan would not construct housing or otherwise result in an increase in population (refer to Section 3.14, “Population and Housing”).

Overall, implementation of the Master Plan would reduce the number of buildings in the plan area and remove maintenance facilities that are not consistent with recreation uses. However, there would be temporary increases in people in the plan area associated with special events that occur, there would not be new types of uses that would substantially change the demand for fire and emergency services compared to existing conditions. Additionally, as described under item g) in Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” the Master Plan would not result in a greater fire risk than currently exists and would reduce potential fire hazards associated with campfire rings with the reduction in number of campsites. For the reasons described herein, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in a 564
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-119 substantial increase in demand for fire and emergency services or require construction or provision of additional fire protection facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above.

Police protection?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Operation of new event spaces proposed under the Master Plan (i.e., Main Street and outdoor event space) could temporarily and intermittently result in increased need for security or police services within the plan area.

Currently, special events are hosted at Lakeview Commons and athletic events are held at the ice arena and Recreation and Swim Complex, which result in temporary increases in people in the plan area. These events would continue to occur in the plan area, with athletic events at the Recreation and Swim Complex shifted to the Multigenerational Center. Implementation of the Master Plan would increase the number of special events in the plan area with the new Main Street and outdoor event space. Up to 10 events could be held at each of these facilities each year, with the Main Street closed to traffic during events in that area. The events could attract from 250–500 people at each event. However, because the City Parks and Recreation Department would schedule events at facilities in the plan area through the event application process, overlapping events that would exceed the capacity for police and security services would not be scheduled. Additionally, the Special Event Application Guidelines provide a list of requirements for event planners to meet that would minimize adverse effects related to traffic and safety (Thomaselli, pers. comm., 2021). As identified in the event application process, event organizers are required to provide security and develop a security plan in coordination with the City Police. For some events, the City may also require the presence of police to ensure public safety and the safety and/or security plan must include a commitment on the part of the organizer to provide or fund sufficient resources to complement those provided by the City and successfully implement the safety plan. Because special events would be required to obtain approval through the City Parks and Recreation Department and would comply with requirements for security and police services, as needed and identified early in the event planning process, the potential increase in demand for police services associated with temporary increases of people in the plan area associated with special events at the Main Street and new outdoor event space would be accommodated through the event planning process. Thus, the increase in people in the plan area from additional special events would not adversely affect police service ratios or response times.

Because the City limits the number of events that occur at one time and require event planners to implement measures to manage traffic and security, the additional events would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police facilities resulting in significant environmental impacts and acceptable service ratios and response times would be maintained. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above.

Schools?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. The Master Plan consists of improvements to recreational facilities and open space and would not construct or provide new or expanded school facilities within the plan area. The Master Plan would not permanently increase the population in the surrounding community and, thus, no additional school services would be required.

There would be no impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. 565
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-120 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Parks?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The proposed project includes development of recreation facilities and would not result in additional increases in demand for park facilities that would result in the need for new or physically altered park facilities. See the discussion under b) in Section 3.16.2 in Section 3.16, “Recreation.” This IS/MND analyzes the physical effects of constructing the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center in Sections 3.1 through 3.20. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above.

Other public facilities?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The Master Plan would result in the construction of a new Civic Center located in the center of the planning area. The City Council chambers would be relocated to this building and the building would include administrative offices and provide space for community meetings or events. This IS/MND analyzes the physical effects of constructing these components of the Master Plan in Sections 3.1 through 3.20. Additionally, implementation of the Master Plan would result in the relocation of three public service-related facilities. The vector control facility operated by El Dorado County, City Public Works maintenance facility, and a parks maintenance facility are proposed for removal from the Master Plan area. These facilities would likely be replaced at another location outside of the plan area. The specific locations of any replaced facilities are not known at this time. The development of replaced facilities would undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA and TRPA regulations at the time they are proposed.

The Master Plan would not result in an increase in residents and would include a small potential increase in employment (i.e., up to an estimated 10 jobs); thus, there would not be an increase in demand for other public facilities.

For the reasons described herein, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in the need for other new or expanded public services and would not permanently impact the City or County’s ability to provide vector control services or street maintenance. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Refer to the discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above.

3.15.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 consists of improvements to roadway facilities, shore stabilization and lake public access, and a new shared-use trail. These projects would not result in new or different land uses that would increase demand for additional public services. As discussed in Section 3.15.2, “Discussion,” the project would result in temporary increases in the need for security or police services during events hosted at the proposed new event facilities. However, these events would be subject to review by the City’s permitting process for large events and would be temporary. Emergency access for fire, police, and medical services would be planned and maintained during any event. Implementation of the Master Plan would not result in population increases or substantial changes in land use within the plan area such that expanded public services such as police, fire protection or schools would be provided. The Master Plan and Multigenerational Center project would enhance and continue to provide parks and recreation related public services to the resident community and visitors alike. As the cumulative projects would not result in the need for new or expanded public services, and the proposed Master Plan and project would result in a less-than-significant impact, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact related to public services. 566
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-121

3.16 RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. Recreation.

Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
The plan area provides a range of recreational opportunities, including day-use activities (e.g., picnicking, beach activities), walking, bicycling, camping, and swimming and classes at the Recreation and Swim Complex. During the winter, many of these activities continue and a winter concessionaire provides additional opportunities for winter recreation activities (e.g., snow karts and snow bikes, snow slide, snow-based play areas).

Numerous recreational activities are also located in close proximity to the plan area. Regan Beach and Bijou Community Park are located within walking distance and approximately 1 mile, respectively, from the plan area and contain the following public recreation amenities:
 beach
 grassy lawn
 volleyball courts
 dog park
 playground
 observation deck
 picnic and barbecue areas
 basketball court
 disc golf course
 open meadow
 restrooms
 bike park
 skateboard park
 Bijou Municipal Golf Course

CAMPGROUNDS
The plan area includes the Campground by the Lake that contains 172 campsites and six tent cabins. Campsites at the campground are available for tent or RV camping. Amenities include restrooms and showers. In 2017, approximately 22,700 people stayed at the Campground by the Lake and approximately 27,600 people stayed in 2018 (Thomaselli, pers. comm., 2021). In 2018, the campground had 75 percent occupancy for the season. The south shore area of Lake Tahoe contains 11 campgrounds, including the Campground by the Lake, with over 1,400 campsites (see Table 3.16-1).

The nearest campgrounds to the project area are Tahoe Valley Campground, Camp Richardson campgrounds, and Nevada Beach Campground.
567
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-122 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Table 3.16-1 Campgrounds Near the South Shore of Lake Tahoe Campground Number of Campsites Approximate Distance from Campground by the Lake (miles)
Campground by the Lake 172 campsites, 6 tent cabins 0
Tahoe Valley Campground 354 RV sites, 75 tent campsites 3 Camp Richardson Campgrounds
(Eagle’s Nest and Badger’s Den) 211 campsites 5
Nevada Beach Campground 51 campsites 5
Fallen Leaf Campground 201 campsites, 6 yurts 6
Zephyr Cove RV Park and Campground 93 RV sites, 57 tent campsites 6 Camp Shelley 25 campsites 8
Eagle Point Campground 100 campsites 10
Emerald Bay Boat Campground 22 campsites 11
Luther Pass Campground 15 tent campsites 12
D.L. Bliss State Park 151 campsites (includes 1 group site) 13 Total 1,527 campsites
12 yurts/tent cabins NA
Note: NA = not applicable
Source: compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2021

SHARED-USE PATHS
The plan area and surrounding areas contain a network of shared-use paths, which are paths that support pedestrian and bicycle use with space for two-direction travel. Existing shared-use paths include a continuous path along US 50 from the intersection with Pioneer Trail through the plan area, behind the Harrison Avenue commercial district, back along US 50 continuing west. Some other nearby shared-use paths include a path along Lyons Avenue between US 50 and Rufus Allen Boulevard, Al Tahoe from US 50 to Pioneer Trail, and along Ski Run Boulevard between US 50 and Pioneer Trail. The city contains over 9 miles of shared-use paths and El Dorado County includes 12 miles of shareduse paths (TRPA 2018).

3.16.2 Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The Master Plan would include construction of new recreation and public service facilities and would not create additional demand for recreation facilities such as a residential or tourist development might.

The various components of the Master Plan would be implemented in phases over 20 years. Existing recreation facilities in the plan area that could be affected by implementation of the Master Plan include the Campground by the Lake, shared-use path on the north side of US 50, and the shared-use path in the portion of the plan area south of US 50. Construction of some of the components, such as the Multigenerational Center project (see below for additional discussion of this component), Civic Center, campground relocation and enhancements, Lakeview Commons Phase 2, Main Street, outdoor event space, and play and gather spaces, would necessarily require temporary closure of some of the existing recreation facilities during construction activities. In particular, the 568
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-123 campground and some of the shared-use paths in the plan area would require closure, which could divert some recreation users to other nearby recreation facilities. However, closure of the shared-use paths would be temporary and recreation users of the shared-use paths would still be able to use existing sidewalks along the roadways in the plan area during construction activities.

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in temporary closure of a portion or all of the campsites at the campground during construction of various components of the Master Plan relocating and reconfiguring the campground. Although the Master Plan would continue to accommodate the campground, the overall number of campsites would be reduced from 172 sites and six tent cabins to 118 campsites for RVs and tents and 17 tent cabins.

Including the Campground by the Lake, there are currently 11 campgrounds in the south shore area that provide camping opportunities with over 1,500 campsites. Relocation and configuration of the Campground by the Lake would result in an approximately 2 percent reduction in the number of campsites in the south shore area, which would be partially offset by the increase in tent cabins. During construction of the Master Plan, including the relocated and reconfigured campground, visitors may seek out camping opportunities at other nearby campgrounds.

Because nearby campgrounds contain designated campsites that limit the number of visitors at one time, there would not be an increase in use at any one time such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, partial or full closure of the campground would be temporary and use of the plan area for camping would continue once the campground relocation and reconfiguration was completed.

Furthermore, with an increase in the number of camping cabins or yurts or tent cabins, this amenity would increase camping opportunities for visitors with limited camping equipment and could expand the times during the year that camping may occur in the project area.

Therefore, the Master Plan would not generate a permanent increase in demand for, or use of, existing recreation facilities outside of the plan area, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The Multigenerational Center project would include construction of a new recreation and public service facility that would replace the existing Recreation and Swim Center. The existing Recreation and Swim Center would continue to operate while the Multigenerational Center is being constructed; thus, no existing recreation use of the facility would be displaced during construction of the new facility. As mentioned above for the Master Plan, construction of the Multigenerational Center would temporarily displace some of the campsites in the plan area. However, for the reasons discussed above for the Master Plan, camping opportunities for recreation users of the campground would be temporarily redirected to other nearby campgrounds. Use of nearby campgrounds during temporary closure of the campground in the plan area is discussed above for the 56 Acres Master Plan. The Multigenerational Center would not generate a permanent increase in demand for use of existing recreation facilities outside of the plan area, campgrounds in particular, and would not increase the use of other existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. This impact would be less than significant. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Construction activities associated with new recreation facilities described for the Master Plan in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” would include grading, tree removal, demolition activities, and construction of new buildings. Such activities could require use of vehicles and heavy equipment and would generate noise and air emissions. These construction activities could result in adverse physical effects on the environment, which are assessed in the applicable resource sections of this IS/MND. In particular, these construction activities could result in potential adverse impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise. See Section 3.3, “Air Quality;” Section 3.4, “Biological Resources;” Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources;” Section 3.7, “Geology and Soils;” Section 3.10,” Hydrology and Water 569
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-124 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Quality;” and Section 3.13, “Noise,” in this IS/MND for more detailed discussions of how the potential effects of the Master Plan and requirements for reducing construction-related impacts. For the reasons described in the sections listed above, implementation of the Master Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact from construction of recreational facilities associated with the Master Plan.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion for 56 Acres Master Plan, above.

3.16.3 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative recreation impacts includes the south shore area of Tahoe. Recreation demand in the Tahoe region is met with a wide variety and number of recreational facilities and opportunities.

Some of the cumulative projects identified on Table 3.21-1 would result in temporary, short-term closures of publicly owned land that provide recreation opportunities related to walking and bicycling. Public access to these areas would be re-established after completion of the project activities. The Al Tahoe Boulevard Safety and Mobility Project, Middle School SR2S Project - Rufus Allen Connector, Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project Phase II, South Lake Tahoe Safety Project, and Dennis T. Machida Memorial Greenway projects would result in safety improvements or provide dedicated facilities related to walking and/or bicycling along Al Tahoe Boulevard, Rufus Allen Boulevard, Pioneer Trail, US 50, and the area between Sierra Tract to Van Sickle Bi-State Park. The Alta Mira Public Access Improvement Project would enhance existing public access that would result in improving the shoreline of this area.

Because most of these cumulative projects are located in areas where the public access that would be temporarily lost would be shared-use paths or sidewalks, it is likely that recreation users or visitors would be redirected to use the opposite side of the road. Any potential increased demand on nearby paths or other recreation facilities would not be concentrated such that a substantial physical deterioration of these resources or subsequent adverse effects on the environment would occur. Thus, these cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact on recreation resources.

For these reasons, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center, when combined with other cumulative projects, would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact on recreation resources. The Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would enhance future public access to the plan area for recreation programs, camping, play and gather spaces, circulation and connectivity, and events and the duration of time in which the recreation users would be diverted to other recreation resources would be short-term. Therefore, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on recreation resources.
570
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-125

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. Transportation.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The impact analysis presented in this section is based primarily on the 56 Acres Master Plan Transportation Analysis (Transportation Analysis) prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants for the City. The Transportation Analysis, which is included as Appendix C, provides additional data and information related to the impact study.

ROADWAY NETWORK
The city is served by a roadway network consisting of federal and state highways, arterials, collectors, and local roadways. General descriptions of the roadways located in the vicinity of the plan area and their intended function are provided below.

Highway System
The plan area is served by federal highway US 50 which is operated and maintained by Caltrans. A description of US 50 is provided below:
 US 50 is the primary highway serving Lake Tahoe’s south shore, and as part of its transcontinental route within the region connects Sacramento County and the State of Nevada. In the plan area, US 50 (also called Lake Tahoe Boulevard) is a bidirectional four lane highway with a center turn lane and a posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). North of the plan area, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present including a Class I bike path (i.e., shared-use path) on the north side of US 50.

Roadways
Currently, the City is responsible for operating and maintaining 130 miles of local roadways. The following roadways provide access to the plan area:
 Rufus Allen Boulevard is a north-south two-lane collector roadway southeast of US 50 and east of the plan area.

Rufus Allen Boulevard provides direct access to the plan area from US 50. Additionally, it intersects US 50 and provides access to South Tahoe Middle School to the south and recreational uses and residential uses. There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities present on Rufus Allen Boulevard and the posted speed limit on Rufus Allen Boulevard is 15 mph when children are present.
571
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-126 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND  Lyons Avenue is an east-west two-lane collector roadway. Lyons Avenue connects to the southern end of Rufus Allen Boulevard, south of the plan area, from US 50 and provides access to the plan area. There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities present on Lyons Avenue. Additionally, it provides access to recreational uses to the south.

The posted speed limit is 15 mph when children are present.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The bicycle and pedestrian transportation system in the City of South Lake Tahoe includes local bikeways and trails.

These bicycle facilities include Class I Shared-Use Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Class IV Separated Bikeways. The TRPA Active Transportation Plan defines each bicycle facility type in the following ways:
 Shared-Use Path (Class I): A shared-use path is a completely separate trail for active transport users. The path is recommended to be 10 feet wide and provide for two direction travel.  Bike Lane (Class II): Bike lanes are striped 6-foot-wide lanes and provide one way travel on a shared roadway with vehicles.
 Bike Route (Class III): A bike route is a shared roadway typically located on low-volume and low-speed streets.

Signs and painted “sharrows” assist with wayfinding and show the preferred location of the biker within the roadway (TRPA 2016:2-4).

As of 2016, the City’s bike and pedestrian system included 8 miles of Class I shared-use paths, 15 miles of Class II bike lanes, 8 miles of Class III bike routes, and 12 miles of sidewalks totaling 43 miles of dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities (TRPA 2016:2-5). The site is served by numerous bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A major shared-use path runs along US 50 between San Jose Avenue and Stateline. This shared-use path connects to the plan area and can be accessed from the Rufus Allen Boulevard/US 50 intersection. A designated bike route also runs along Rufus Allan Boulevard along the east side of the plan area. Additionally, bicycle racks are present throughout the city and are typically located adjacent to major businesses, transit stops, and major parking areas.

TRANSIT SYSTEM
Transit service within the plan area is provided by the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) via fixed route operations and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service. The plan area is currently served by TTD Route 50, which operates daily between 6:30 a.m. and 8:05 p.m. in the eastbound direction and between 7:00 a.m. and 8:28 p.m. in the westbound direction. The plan area is served by two eastbound stops along US 50 at the Senior Center south of San Francisco Avenue and west of Rufus Allen Boulevard near the library, and two westbound stops north of San Jose Avenue and south of San Francisco Avenue.

TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS
Senate Bill 743 and CEQA
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new State CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” These updates indicated that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) would be the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was added on December 28, 2018, to address the determination of significance for transportation impacts, which requires VMT as the basis of transportation analysis instead of congestion (such as LOS). The updated State CEQA Guidelines were approved, and lead agencies had an opt-in period until July 1, 2020 to implement the updated guidelines regarding VMT. As of July 1, 2020, implementation of Section 15064.3 of the updated CEQA Guidelines apply statewide. 572
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-127 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for analyzing the transportation impacts of a project.

Section 15064.3(b)(1) addresses land use projects and describes that projects with specified proximity (i.e., 0.5-mile or less) to “major” or “high quality” transit should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.

Additionally, Section 15064.3(b)(1) also describes that projects resulting in a decrease in VMT in the project area as compared to existing conditions should also be presumed to have a less-than-significant effect. Section 15064.3(b)(3), “Qualitative Analysis,” explains that there may be conditions under which a qualitative rather than quantitative analysis of VMT is appropriate. This section states that if existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may qualitatively analyze VMT generated by a project.

Additionally, this section notes that for many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. Section 15064.3(b)(4), “Methodology,” explains that the lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate VMT subject to other applicable standards such as CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 (standards of adequacy for EIR analyses).

In December of 2018, OPR published the most recent version of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for VMT analysis. The 2018 Technical Advisory provides guidance related to screening thresholds for small projects to indicate when detailed analysis is needed or if a project can be presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. The Technical Advisory notes that projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact, absent substantial evidence indicating otherwise (OPR 2018).

Project Impact Assessment Guidelines
The TRPA Project Impact Assessment Guidelines (PIA) describe requirements for development projects amendments in the Tahoe Basin. These guidelines reflect 2021 updates to the TRPA Environmental Thresholds, which involved replacement of the previous VMT-based nitrate deposition threshold with a new VMT-based threshold focused on reducing mobile source GHG emissions, reducing dependency on the personal automobile, and creating more sustainable communities. This update resulted in revisions to Chapter 65: “Air Quality/Transportation” of the TRPA Code of Ordinances to establish PIA requirements designed to implement the revised TRPA environmental threshold and ensure that it aligns with recent California legislative changes (i.e., Senate Bill 743, Public Resources Code Section 21099, and California Code of Regulations Section 15064.3) that have occurred relative to transportation impact analysis and the use of VMT as the primary metric.

This document provides a basis for preparing a VMT analysis in compliance with Chapter 65 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and the Project Impact Assessment and Air Quality Mitigation Fee Framework.

Some project types, as outlined in TRPA Code Subparagraph 65.2.3.D and listed below, are presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact absent any evidence to the contrary (TRPA 2021a). The following screening criteria are potentially applicable to the project:
 Projects Generating Low VMT: Projects will be screened from further transportation analysis using the following vehicle miles travelled calculations:
 1,300 in-Basin VMT within town centers and the half-mile buffer around them.  715 in-Basin VMT in all other areas.
 Redevelopment Projects: For projects replacing an existing development or use, the net average daily VMT generation should be considered against the screening criteria. This requires calculating both existing average daily VMT and average daily VMT under the proposed project.

The TRPA Code requires that projects that involve more than 650 daily VMT must describe and evaluate the significance of all impacts in the Initial Environmental Checklist. A project that is not screened out must analyze whether it meets the standard of significance.
573
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-128 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Environmental Thresholds
As prescribed by the Compact, TRPA adopted environmental thresholds in 1982 covering nine resources or topics including air quality which included a VMT-based standard. This standard was originally adopted to address nitrate deposition concerns which, over time improved substantially. As a result, nitrate deposition is no longer a significant contributor to lake clarity issues (TRPA 2021b). In recognition of this, in April 2021, the Governing Board removed the nitrate deposition threshold and replaced it with a new mobility-related threshold under a new category heading (TRPA 2021b):
 TSC1: Reduce Annual Daily Average VMT Per Capita by 6.8 percent from 12.48, the 2018 baseline, to 11.63 in 2045.

The new VMT thresholds sets forth an efficiency based VMT standard that better aligns with identified polices goals and affords consistency with California and Nevada state policies with respect to GHG emissions reduction and aligns with and is responsive to meaningful change in the regional land use and the transportation system.

Code of Ordinances
Changes in daily vehicle trip ends (DVTE) as a result of additional development and transferred development, and all changes in project operation are discussed in Section 65.2, “Traffic and Air Quality Mitigation Program,” of the TRPA Code. Fees are assessed in accordance with TRPA’s Mitigation Fee Schedule (TRPA 2020) on an individual project basis for projects that increase DVTE. The purpose of the fee program is to offset impacts from indirect sources of air pollution. Temporary activities are governed by TRPA Code Section 2.3.6, and construction projects are required to comply with TRPA’s standard conditions of approval.

3.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Community Plan, which encompasses the Master Plan, contains a Traffic Circulation and Parking Goal to reduce automobile dependency and “improve the movement of people, goods, and services within the Bijou/Al Tahoe area, and the Region, consistent with the economic and environmental goals of the community plan” (City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA 1995:I-3). The Community Plan Transportation Element includes the following objective and related policies to increase active transportation in the area that are applicable to the Master Plan:

Objective 4: To improve circulation, reduce vehicle trips, and to improve public access to the recreational areas, a network of bike trails and sidewalks shall be constructed.  Policy A: Extend and provide additional bike trails within the Community Plan area and to recreation areas.  Policy B: Provide adequate sidewalks in commercial areas which are maintained free of snow on a year-round basis.
 Policy C: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities identified in the Plan shall be identified and constructed as part of the CIP (City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA 1995:III-2).

The TRPA Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies proposed shared use paths along the southeast side of the plan area and on US 50 east of the Master Plan area (TRPA 2016:4-31). Additionally, the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan proposes Class II bike lanes along US 50 as well as Class I bike facilities connecting the existing shareduse bike path north of US 50 at Harrison Avenue south to Los Angeles Avenue where another shared-use path is present (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011:TC-13).
574
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-129 As identified in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” an objective of Master Plan implementation is to “improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access, including pedestrian access throughout the plan area and the beach/lakefront area and connections to surrounding destinations and the regional network.” The proposed Master Plan includes an existing and proposed comprehensive network of multipurpose bicycle/pedestrian facilities within the plan area.

These facilities are designed in locations that align the paths with signalized intersections along US 50 and provide crosswalks for bicyclists and pedestrians. Thus, bicyclists and pedestrians would be provided with protected crossing of US 50.

The Master Plan would provide several areas for public gathering and include the addition of internal shared-use paths to various points of interest. Additionally, implementation of Lakeview Commons Phase 2 improvements as part of the Master Plan, in the northern portion of the Master Plan area, would enhance bicycle and pedestrian access to the beach, create more usable space at the park, and provide safer connections to the rest of the Master Plan area facilities. As identified in the City’s General Plan Policy TC-3.12, the City shall also provide bike racks and bike storage at all public buildings, parks, and recreation areas, and shall require bicycle racks or lockers for significant new private development projects or substantial additions” (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011:TC-15).

Because the Master Plan would retain existing shared-use paths in the plan area and would construct the Lakeview Commons Phase 2 boardwalk and additional bicycle and pedestrian connections within the plan area, the Master Plan would not conflict with any existing facilities. Internal circulation improvements would enhance access to the various land uses provided by the Master Plan for bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, buildout of the Master Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Thus, the impact would be less than significant.

Transit Service
The TRPA Regional Transportation Plan envisions a built-out transit system by 2045 with frequent service operating every 15 minutes along US 50 in the Master Plan corridor (TRPA 2021c:53-54). As previously described, the Master Plan area is served by TTD Route 50. Stops are located along US 50 at Modesto Avenue, San Jose Avenue, and Rufus Allen Boulevard. The Master Plan would not conflict with any of the existing bus stops along US 50. Additionally, the Master Plan would improve transit accessibility by relocating the Multigenerational Center closer to a transit stop and moving City Hall, which is not currently served by transit, to the plan area where transit is provided. The projects proposed under the Master Plan are expected to increase transit ridership due to an increase of visitors utilizing the facilities in the area and the nature of infill development which tends to locate desirable destinations closer to residences. The existing transit system has adequate capacity to meet the anticipated demand; however, according to the OPR Technical Advisory, lead agencies should not treat an increase in transit ridership as an adverse impact when analyzing impacts to transit (OPR 2018:19). Although additional transit users may slow service, an increased demand in ridership ultimately enhances operations through improved service changes.

Policy TC‐2.4 of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan states that the City shall “provide and maintain Regional Transit Centers in the Stateline and Tahoe Valley areas, and a Neighborhood Transit Center in the Lakeview Commons area. The transit centers will connect regional buses, trolleys, local shuttles, bike trails, and pedestrian facilities (year‐round sidewalks, bus shelters, and lighting), and will include space for hotel and resort shuttle bus pick‐ up and drop‐off.” Additionally, the General Plan identifies the Master Plan area as the general location for the future neighborhood transit center in the Lakeview Commons area (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011:TC-9 and TC-10).

The portion of the City in the plan area is a centralized location in the south shore area that contains a shared-use path extending from near Stateline to west of the plan area, contains several transit stops, is adjacent to US 50, and is adjacent to a variety of uses (e.g., recreation, commercial, tourist accommodations, and residential areas); thus, the area currently provides features of a neighborhood transit location. Implementation of the Master Plan would not conflict with the use of this area for neighborhood transit-related uses.

The overall improvements related to bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation would also enhance the experience for transit riders in the Master Plan area by providing safer first/last mile options. Additionally, the Master Plan would retain the transit stops along US 50 to support the General Plan vision for the neighborhood transit center identified 575
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-130 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND in the area. Therefore, buildout of the Master Plan would not conflict with a with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit service. Thus, the impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Implementation of the Multigenerational Center would include construction of new shared-use paths that would connect to nearby existing paths. As part of relocating the existing campground, any existing paths would be replaced and/or rerouted to maintain bicycle and connectivity within the plan area and to surrounding areas.

Additionally, as described above for the Master Plan, the Multigenerational Center would provide bike racks and bike storage at the new facility consistent with General Plan Policy TC-3.12. Because the Multigenerational Center project would maintain bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the plan area and provide other bicycle infrastructure, the Multigenerational Center would not conflict with a with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Thus, the impact would be less than significant.

Transit Service
The Multigenerational Center would replace the existing Recreation and Swim Complex, although at a location in the northern part of the plan area next to the library and US 50, which is also near the location of an existing transit center. Thus, the Multigenerational Center’s closer proximity to an existing transit stop compared to the Recreation and Swim Complex accessed on Rufus Allen Boulevard, could encourage more Multigenerational Center users to utilize transit. The overall improvements related to bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation, along with the Multigenerational Center’s proximity to transit, would also enhance the experience for transit riders in the Master Plan area by providing safer first/last mile options. As detailed above for the Master Plan, although the Multigenerational Center may generate additional transit ridership, lead agencies should not treat increased demand as an adverse impact to transit service, and additional ridership could benefit the overall transit system (OPR 2018:19). Therefore, the Multigenerational Center would not conflict with a with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit service. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
The City has yet to adopt VMT thresholds or guidelines to meet the state requirements set by SB 743 and that address CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Therefore, in the absence of adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds of significance, the VMT analysis herein relies on the guidance provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and the OPR Technical Advisory; and was conducted in accordance with the TRPA PIA as described below. The TRPA PIA includes a small project screening criteria indicating that projects resulting in a net increase of average annual daily VMT less than 1,300 within a town or regional center or a half-mile distance of a town or regional center (such as the location of the plan area) is considered a low-VMT project and can be presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact. Additionally, it should be noted that the VMT estimation was conducted such that trip lengths were not truncated at jurisdictional or the Lake Tahoe Basin boundary, and the entirety of trip lengths were accounted for. This was conducted to ensure that trip lengths outside of the Tahoe Basin were included in the VMT analysis, as many destinations and recreational elements in the area attract visitors from outside the region.

Project-generated VMT was calculated by multiplying the average daily trips generated by the proposed land uses by the average trip length for each use category and summing the VMT for each individual land uses. The total change in VMT for the project was calculated by subtracting the existing VMT generated by uses on the project site from the VMT of proposed project, adding the net change in VMT elsewhere for each land use, and then summing over all land use categories. For additional details regarding the VMT data, assumptions, and analysis see Appendix C. 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact.
576
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-131 Construction
As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” buildout and construction of the Master Plan would occur over the span of 20 years. Construction activities would be temporary and intermittent in nature; and thus, would not result in long-term increases in vehicular trips. Additionally, the VMT of construction workers is not newly generated; instead, it is redistributed throughout the regional roadway network based on the different work sites in which workers travel to each day. Therefore, construction workers are not generating new VMT each day, only redistributing it. Thus, construction activities are not expected to significantly increase VMT in the region.

Operations
As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the Master Plan area consists of the implementation of various facilities across 56 acres and would encompass a variety of land uses including a Multigenerational Center, campground, civic center, cultural center, and ice arena. The Transportation Analysis calculated the anticipated VMT that would be generated by the projects contained within the Master Plan. Table 3.17-1 depicts the VMT from the existing land uses and the estimated future VMT with Master Plan implementation as identified in the Transportation Analysis. For detailed VMT data, assumptions, and analysis see Appendix C.

Table 3.17-1 Master Plan VMT
Land Use Existing VMT Future Buildout VMT Change in VMT Elsewhere1 Total Change in VMT Multigenerational Center 1,433 2,229 0 796
Ice Skating Center 1,546 1,546 0 0
Campground 7,262 4,977 0 -2,285
Cabins 485 3,468 0 2,983
Library 1,164 1,164 0 0
Senior Center 103 103 0 0
Historical Museum 6 6 0 0
Art Center 98 98 0 0
Chamber Office 227 227 0 0
Outdoor Event Spaces 69 173 0 104
Passive Park Space 5 14 0 9
Municipal Office Uses 0 1,087 -1,514 -427
Maintenance Yard 58 0 58 0
Vector Control 33 0 32 -1
Fire Training Facility 34 0 31 -3
Total 12,523 15,092 -1,393 1,176
Percent Change 9%
1 The net change in VMT for the Master Plan is calculated by taking the VMT from the buildout on the Master Plan site, subtracting the existing VMT and adding the net change in VMT elsewhere for each land use, and then summing over all land use categories.

Source: Appendix A
As presented in Table 3.17-1, the total net VMT per day generated by the Master Plan would be 1,176; thus, not exceeding the TRPA screening criteria for projects generating low VMT (i.e., 1,300 in-Basin VMT within town centers and the half-mile buffer around them). It should be noted that although projects that meet the screening criteria contained within the PIA are presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact, the mobility mitigation fee must still be paid (TRPA 2021a:12).

Summary
As detailed above, VMT related to construction activities are temporary in nature and redistributed throughout the transportation network, not newly generated. Additionally, the operational activities of the Master Plan would 577
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-132 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND produce less than 1,300 newly generated VMT; and thus, the Master Plan meets the screening criteria established in the TRPA PIA and is presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact. For this reason, the Master Plan would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact.

Construction
Multigenerational Center construction activities would begin in 2022 and the building would be operational in 2024.

Therefore, construction activities would be temporary and intermittent in nature; and thus, would not result in longterm increases in vehicular trips. Additionally, the VMT of construction workers is not newly generated; instead, it is redistributed throughout the regional roadway network based on the different work sites in which workers travel to each day. Therefore, construction workers are not generating new VMT each day, only redistributing it. Further, even if the trips generated during Multigenerational Center construction were considered to be new trips, as detailed in the modeling referenced in Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, approximately 27 daily trips would be generated by construction workers during the phase of construction requiring the greatest number of workers (i.e., building construction). Therefore, the number of daily construction trips generated would be fewer than 110 trips per day; thus, satisfying the screening thresholds for small projects as detailed in the OPR Technical Advisory. Therefore, construction activities would not significantly increase VMT in the region.

Operations
As presented previously, the anticipated newly generated VMT for the entire buildout of the Master Plan is 1,176 VMT per day. As detailed above, the Master Plan would be considered a low VMT generating project under the TRPA PIA screening criteria. Therefore, due to the manner in which VMT was estimated and because the Multigenerational Center is only one land use of the larger Master Plan, the project would not exceed the screening criteria.

Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.17-2 the estimated net total VMT attributed to the Multigenerational Center is 796 VMT per day. Therefore, the Multigenerational Center would be considered a low-generating VMT project and would be presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact.

Table 3.17-2 Multigenerational Center VMT
Existing VMT Future Buildout VMT Change in VMT Elsewhere1 Total Change in VMT 1,433 2,229 NA 796
Notes: NA = not applicable
1 The net change in VMT for the Multigenerational Center is calculated by taking the VMT from the buildout on the Master Plan site, subtracting the existing VMT and adding the net change in VMT elsewhere for each land use, and then summing over all land use categories.

Source: Appendix A
Summary
VMT related to construction activity is not considered to be newly generated, rather temporary and redistributed through the roadway network. Additionally, construction VMT would generate fewer than 110 daily trips; thus, the Multigenerational Center meets the screening criteria established in the OPR Technical Advisory for small projects.

Operational VMT attributed to the Multigenerational Center would not exceed the threshold for low VMT-generating projects as defined in the TRPA PIA and would be presumed to not cause a significant impact. For this reason, the Multigenerational Center would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). This impact would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. The Master Plan would include the construction of a new “Main Street” that would extend from Tallac Avenue on the west to Rufus Allen Boulevard on the east and include a new entry to the 578
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-133 campground and civic center. The new road and parking areas would be required to comply with all City design standards and regulations. Additionally, in accordance with City standards, the new roadway would be required to provide adequate sight distance at all access points. The Master Plan would be required to comply with the following local and regional policies and standards related to project design:
 City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code: Chapter 6.10 and 6.55 of the municipal code pertain to land use development design standards and plan area regulations for the City of South Lake Tahoe.  TRPA Code of Ordinances: compiles all the laws and ordinances needed to implement the region’s goals and policies through a memorandum of understanding that allows for implementation and regulation by the City Planning Division.
 City-wide Design Standards Checklist: compiles the City’s design standards into one resource document.  Parking, Driveway, and Loading Space Checklist: sets forth standards for driveways, parking, and loading facilities to minimize interference with traffic flow on the street and highway system of the City and to discourse the establishment of unnecessary impervious surfaces.
 Community Plan Standards and Guidelines Checklist: establishes special design standards for the community plan area to achieve the desired urban form.

Buildout of the plan area would take place over approximately 20 years. Encroachment permits from the City would be required, and traffic control plans would be developed to demonstrate appropriate traffic handling during construction activities for all work that will or may impact the traveling public (e.g., the transport of equipment and materials to the project area). If any work related to the Master Plan encroaches into Caltrans right of way, such as construction of the new Main Street intersection at US 50 at the intersection of US 50 and Tallac Avenue, all construction activity must comply with Caltrans regulations in the following documents:
 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: adopts uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California
 Caltrans Highway Design Manual: establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out the state highway design functions of Caltrans
 Caltrans Encroachment Permits: must be obtained for all proposed activities related to the placement of encroachments within, under, or over the state highway rights of way  Work Zone Safety Standards, Traffic Safety Devices and Traffic Safety Systems Guidance: establishes policies and procedures for traffic safety systems, including barriers, guardrail, crash attenuators, and end treatments and provides guidance for application of safety systems.
 All other applicable Caltrans regulations and documents All access and roadway related improvements associated with the Master Plan would be constructed in accordance with applicable City and state design, safety standards, and permit requirements. For these reasons, the Master Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. The Multigenerational Center would include the construction of a new roadways for internal circulation. The Multigenerational Center would provide vehicular access from Rufus Allen Boulevard and reconfigure the existing parking lot near the library to accommodate additional parking spaces including the construction of a new driveway. Improvements to the roadway and parking areas would be required to comply with all City design standards and regulations. Additionally, in accordance with City standards, the adequate sight distance would be provided at all access points. The Multigenerational Center would be required to comply with the following local and regional policies and standards related to design:
579
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-134 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND  City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code: Chapter 6.10 and 6.55 of the municipal code pertain to land use development design standards and plan area regulations for the City of South Lake Tahoe  TRPA Code of Ordinances: compiles all the laws and ordinances needed to implement the region’s goals and policies through a memorandum of understanding which allows for implementation and regulation by the City Planning Division
 City-wide Design Standards Checklist: compiles the City’s design standards into one resource document  Parking Driveway, and Loading Space Checklist: sets forth standards for driveways, parking, and loading facilities to minimize interference with traffic flow on the street and highway system of the City and to discourse the establishment of unnecessary impervious surfaces
 Community Plan Standards and Guidelines Checklist: establishes special design standards for the community plan area to achieve the desired urban form
As detailed above, all access and roadway related improvements associated with the Multigenerational Center would be constructed in accordance with applicable City design, safety standards, and permit requirements. For these reasons, the Multigenerational Center would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in item c), the Master Plan would be required to meet all City and Caltrans construction safety standards as applicable. The Master Plan would also follow provisions set forth in the most current edition of the California Fire Code as adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe. Chapter 33 of the 2019 California Fire Code contains applicable standards for fire safety during construction and demolition including required provisions for emergency access. Appendix D of the California Fire Code contains minimum dimensions and design standards for fire apparatus roads to maintain adequate emergency access during operations. Furthermore, the Master Plan would be subject to review and inspections by the City and responsible emergency service agencies to ensure any potential impacts to emergency vehicles and evacuation are minimized. Additionally, the construction of the new east/west “Main Street”, which would bisect the Master Plan area and enhance connectivity between US 50 and Rufus Allen Boulevard, could provide improved access in the case of an emergency. Therefore, the buildout of the Master Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access; thus, the impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in item c), the Multigenerational Center would be required to meet all City construction safety standards as applicable. The Multigenerational Center would also follow provisions set forth in the most current edition of the California Fire Code as adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe. The Multigenerational Center would include the construction of a new paved access road and turn around on the southwest side of the facility. Right of way is secured for the implementation of future fire access roads between the access road and the parking lot as well as the existing paved pathway west of the Multigenerational Center. Chapter 33 of the 2019 California Fire Code contains applicable standards for fire safety during construction and demolition including required provisions for emergency access. Appendix D of the California Fire Code contains minimum dimensions and design standards for fire apparatus roads in order to maintain adequate emergency access during operations.

Furthermore, the Multigenerational Center would be subject to review and inspections by the City and responsible emergency service agencies to ensure any potential impacts to emergency vehicles and evacuation are minimized.

Additionally, the internal roadway and parking improvements enhance connectivity and circulation and could provide improved access in the case of an emergency. Therefore, the Multigenerational Center would not result in inadequate emergency access; thus, the impact would be less than significant. 580
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-135

3.17.3 Cumulative Impacts
Buildout of the Master Plan would include internal bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements including construction of multi-use paths and bike storage. The consistency of the Master Plan with the RTP, City General Plan, ATP, and Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan results in no conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing bicycle and pedestrian systems. Additionally, implementation of the Master Plan would improve transit accessibility by relocating the Multigenerational Center and City Hall. Additionally, the plan area will maintain the existing bus stops along US 50. Therefore, there would be no conflict with existing or planned future transit infrastructure or transit service in the area. For these reasons, the Master Plan’s incremental contribution to cumulative transit, bicycle, and pedestrian impacts would not be cumulatively considerable such that a new significant transportation impact would occur.

The implementation of the Master Plan would result in an increase in average daily VMT; however, it would not exceed the applicable TRPA screening criteria (i.e., 1,300 in-Basin VMT within town centers and the half-mile buffer around them). Additionally, the recreation and active transportation projects shown in Table 3.21-1 would presumably reduce VMT (i.e., Al Tahoe Boulevard Safety and Mobility Project, Middle School SR2S Project - Rufus Allen Connector, Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project Phase II, South Lake Tahoe Safety Project, and Dennis T.

Machida Memorial Greenway Shared-Use Trail). Thus, when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to VMT impacts.

Cumulative impacts associated with emergency access and road design are primarily a localized effect. However, cumulative impacts from project-generated construction effects on transportation may result if other future planned construction activities were to take place close to the project site and cumulatively combine to exacerbate the construction-related transportation impacts of the project. As such, the cumulative projects with the potential to result in a significant cumulative impact associated with construction phase emergency access and road design features would be the projects located in the immediate vicinity of the project site as emergency responders attempt to respond to emergency and as vehicles use the project site ingress and egress locations while merging on to the primary roadways. Given there are very few projects in the immediate vicinity of the project site and because they will also need to demonstrate compliance with applicable design standards and emergency service provider design and emergency response requirements, they would not impede emergency access or cause a potential transportationrelated hazard. Therefore, cumulative impacts from nearby projects would not be significant. Thus, when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to emergency access and transportation hazards impacts. 581
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-136 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.

Has a California Native American Tribe requested
consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code
section 21080.3.1(b)?
Yes No
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) 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)?
b) A 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 Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
Among the many peoples that occupied the Lake Tahoe region, the Washoe Tribe have been recognized as the primary indigenous residents of the area. Physical evidence of Washoe occupation dates back at least 2,000 years within the Kings Beach complex; however, ancestral lines of the Washoe Tribe may date beyond the archaeological record. The Washoe language is unique to the region and is thought to be older than any other Sierran and Great Basin language spoken by neighboring tribes; it is most likely a distinct branch of the Hokan language groups. Da ow a ga, “Lake Tahoe” in the Washoe language, is considered a sacred water and the center of the Washoe world (PaleoWest 2021).

Beyond the Lake itself, Washoe territory extends from the edge of the Great Basin to the east at the Pah Pah range, to the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the west, to Honey Lake in the north and the Sonora Pass in the south.

Within this region, the Washoe Tribe inhabited both the Pine Nut Mountains and the Virginia Range in the broader Lake Tahoe region. The Washoe engaged in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle travelling throughout these regions utilizing a diversity of alpine and foothill resources. Like other semisedentary hunter-gatherer groups the Washoe utilized both opportunistic foraging camps and seasonal round residential camps strategically placed along waterways throughout the area (PaleoWest 2021).

The seasonal round starts in spring when groups of younger people leave winter camps and return to the lake to begin fishing and gathering resources. At the beginning of summer, the remainder of the tribe would meet them.

Summer months were spent at Lake Tahoe with some small forays being conducted to gather resources like medicinal and marsh plants and seeds in adjacent alpine valleys. Men often hunted large game in high elevations to 582
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-137 supplement the diet year-round but did so most in the fall when the game was most plentiful. Fall was an exceptionally important time of year as the Washoe would move to the Pine Nut Hills to harvest acorns and pine nuts, staple foods in the Washoe diet. These resources played an essential role in the Washoe lifeways as it would sustain the tribe through winter months where family groups spent the season at base camps along the Truckee River, and proximal to Donner, Cold, and Martis creeks. These winter months were a time when the Washoe told stories, repaired tools, and wove baskets in preparation for the more productive seasons. While this seasonal round was employed by most of the Washoe, some individuals would winter at the Lake, and at times throughout the year take longer trips to gather extra local resources and tool stone (PaleoWest 2021).

The Washoe lifeway was fairly consistent until 1858 when western expansion and the discovery of the Comstock Lode saw considerable numbers of Euro-Americans moving west. As a result, Washoe lands were colonized, and tribal members were displaced as settlers, ranchers, and miners moved into the region. Though the impact of these events devastated Washoe communities and culture, the traditions of Washoe Tribe survived the American Expansion, and modern members continue to practice their ancestral heritage at Da ow a ga today (PaleoWest 2021).

TRIBAL CONSULTATION
Under PRC Sections 21080.3.1 and 21082.3 (AB 52), the lead agency must consult with tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site that have requested formal notification and responded with a request for consultation. The parties must consult in good faith. Consultation is deemed concluded when the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource when one is present or when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Mitigation measures agreed on during the consultation process must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document.

On June 8, 2021, the City sent notification letters that the project was being addressed under CEQA, as required by PRC Section 21080.3.1, to the four Native American tribes that had previously requested such notifications, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. No responses were received, and AB 52 consultation is complete.

A record search of NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the plan area was completed on October 8, 2021. The NAHC search indicated that the SLF was negative for the presence of Native American resources within the plan area.

3.18.2 Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) 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)?
56 Acres Master Plan
No impact. The NCIC records search (File #ELD-21-22) revealed that the plan area contains no tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
No impact. See discussion for 56 Acres Master Plan, above. 583
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-138 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND b) A 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The NAHC SLF was negative. Anna Cheng, Cultural Regulatory Assistant for the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria, replied to the AB 52 notification letter stating that the UAIC defers to the Washoe Tribe for projects in the Truckee and Tahoe Basin.; No other tribes replied to the AB 52 notification letter. No resources within the plan area have been identified as tribal cultural resources as defined by PRC Section 21074. However, subsequent discretionary projects may be required to prepare site-specific project-level analysis to fulfill CEQA requirements, which may include additional AB 52 consultation that could lead to the identification of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.18-1: Protect Tribal Cultural Resources in Subsequent Discretionary Projects This mitigation measure applies to the 56 Acres Master Plan.

If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process required under PRC Section 21080.3.2, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following measures, where feasible and necessary, to address site-specific impacts and avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts:

Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21084.3[a]). If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, provisions in the PRC describe mitigation measures that, if determined by the lead agency to be feasible, may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts (PRC Section 21084.3[b]). Examples include:
 avoiding and preserving the resources in place, including planning and constructing to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria;  treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including:
 protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource;  protecting the traditional use of the resource;
 protecting the confidentiality of the resource; and
 establishing permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or using the resources or places.

Mitigation Measure 3.18-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources This mitigation measure applies to the 56 Acres Master Plan.

If any suspected tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, including midden soil, artifacts, chipped stone, exotic rock (nonnative), or unusual amounts of baked clay, shell, or bone, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find. Appropriate tribal representative(s) shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a tribal cultural resource (pursuant to PRC Section 21074). The tribal representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary.

Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and the tribes’ protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign. Culturally appropriate treatment may 584
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-139 be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, returning objects to a location within the project vicinity where they will not be subject to future impacts. The Tribe does not consider curation of tribal cultural resources to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated, unless approved by the Tribe. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a tribal cultural resource may include tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.18-1 and 3.18-2 would reduce impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level because they would require the performance of professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the identification and protection of tribal cultural resources associated with subsequent projects and by requiring preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are encountered during the construction.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described above, the NAHC SLF was negative The UAIC was the only tribe to reply to the AB 52 notification letters and had indicated the UAIC defers to the Washoe Tribe for projects in the Tahoe Basin; therefore, no resources within the plan area have been identified as tribal cultural resources as defined by PRC Section 21074. Additionally, the pedestrian survey of the area identified no archaeological resources, including indigenous materials. Nevertheless, it is possible that yet-undiscovered tribal cultural resources could be encountered or damaged during ground-disturbing construction activities. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.18-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources This mitigation measure applies to the Multigenerational Center Project.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.18-2.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.18-3 would reduce impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a lessthan-significant level by requiring preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are encountered during the construction.

3.18.3 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources is the historic lands of the Washoe people. Beyond Lake Tahoe itself, Washoe territory extends from the edge of the Great Basin to the east at the Pah Pah range, to the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the west, to Honey Lake in the north and the Sonora Pass in the south.

Because all significant tribal cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, meaning there are a limited number of significant cultural resources, all adverse effects erode a dwindling resource base. Tribal cultural systems are represented by the total inventory of all sites and other remains in the region. As a result, a meaningful approach to preserving and managing cultural resources must focus on the likely distribution of tribal cultural resources, rather than on a single project or parcel boundary.

The historic lands of the Washoe people have been affected by development since 1858 when western expansion and the discovery of the Comstock Lode saw considerable numbers of Euro-Americans moving west. As a result, Washoe lands were colonized, and tribal members were displaced as settlers, ranchers, and miners moved into the region.

These activities have resulted in an existing significant adverse effect on tribal cultural resources and cumulative development, including projects described in Table 3.21-1, continues to contribute to the disturbance of these resources.
585
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-140 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND No known tribal cultural resources are located within the boundaries of the plan area; nonetheless, project-related earth-disturbing activities could damage undiscovered tribal cultural resources. The Master Plan and Multigenerational Center, in combination with other development in the region, could contribute to ongoing substantial adverse changes in the significance of tribal cultural resources resulting from urban development and conversion of natural lands. Cumulative development could result in potentially significant tribal cultural resource impacts.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.18-1, 3.18-2, and 3.18-3 would ensure that the Master Plan’s and Multigenerational Center project’s contribution to cumulatively significant tribal cultural resource impacts would not be considerable by requiring preservation options and proper care of significant artifacts if they are recovered. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the Master Plan’s and Multigenerational Center project’s contribution to these impacts would be offset. Further, cumulative development would be required to implement similar mitigation to avoid/reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Master Plan would not have a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources. 586
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-141

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that 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?
d) 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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

3.19.1 Environmental Setting

WATER SUPPLY
South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) provides water services to the plan area. The STPUD service area encompasses 27,000 acres and extends west to include Emerald Bay, east to the California Nevada State Line, and south to include Christmas Valley. The service area includes most, but not all, of the City of South Lake Tahoe and portions of unincorporated El Dorado County. In 2020, the demand for water within the STPUD service area was 5,778 acre-feet per year (afy). STPUD water supplies are reliant on groundwater sources to meet its water system demands. STPUD has adequate supplies to meet demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry year water conditions over the course of the 25-year planning period of the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (STPUD 2021:7-4 through 7-6).

Table 3.19-1 represents multiple dry year water demand and supply in the STPUD service area. However, the water demand and supply during the first year of a multiple dry year scenario is equal to the water demand and supply during a normal water year and during a single dry year (STPUD 2021:7-4 through 7-6). 587
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-142 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 588 Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-143 Table 3.19-1 Multiple Dry Years Water Demand and Supply in the STPUD Service Area 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year1
Water Supply (afy) 32,050 32,050 32,050 32,050 32,050
Water Demand (afy) 5,886 5,996 6,108 6,222 6,338
Difference (afy) 26,164 26,054 25,942 25,828 25,712
Second Year
Water Supply (afy) 28,131 28,131 28,131 28,131 28,131
Water Demand (afy) 5,908 6,018 6,130 6,245 6,361
Difference (afy) 22,223 22,113 22,001 21,886 21,770
Third Year
Water Supply (afy) 22,355 22,355 22,355 22,355 22,355
Water Demand (afy) 5,930 6,040 6,153 6,268 6,385
Difference (afy) 16,425 16,315 16,202 16,087 15,970
Fourth Year
Water Supply (afy) 18,125 18,125 18,125 18,125 18,125
Water Demand (afy) 5,952 6,063 6,176 6,291 6,409
Difference (afy) 12,173 12,062 11,949 11,834 11,716
Fifth Year
Water Supply (afy) 13,851 13,851 13,851 13,851 13,851
Water Demand (afy) 5,974 6,085 6,199 6,315 6,432
Difference (afy) 7,877 7,766 7,652 7,536 7,419
1 The water supply and demand during the first year of a multiple dry year scenario is equal to the water supply and demand estimated for normal water years and during a single dry year.

Source: STPUD 2021:7-4 through 7-6

WASTEWATER
STPUD provides wastewater collection and treatment services for the plan area. The wastewater service area for STPUD is the same as described above for the water supply. Currently, the STPUD wastewater treatment plant has a total capacity of 7.7 million gallons per day (mgd) and treats 4 mgd (STPUD 2021:6-5) and, thus, approximately 3.7 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity is available. All of the wastewater treated by STPUD is recycled and is used for irrigation on lands outside the Basin and as emergency fire water supply in Alpine County and near Luther Pass.

SOLID WASTE
South Tahoe Refuse and Recycling Services (STR) provides waste removal services for the South Lake Tahoe area.

Waste is collected and transport to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located at the STR transfer station in South Lake Tahoe, where it is sorted to meet California’s mandatory solid waste diversion requirements. The MRF initiates or improves separation of aluminum cans, glass, plastics, cardboard, different grades of paper, tin, metals, appliances, milled wood, green waste, stumps, construction debris, and tires from waste that cannot be recycled (STR 2021). The STR MRF is permitted for a maximum permitted throughput (i.e., the maximum amount of material the facility is allowed to receive, process, handle or dispose per day) of 370 tons per day (CalRecycle 2021a).

Waste collected by STR is disposed of at Lockwood Regional Landfill in Storey County, Nevada. The Lockwood Regional Landfill, located in Nevada, covers 856 acres and has a total waste volume of 302 million cubic yards (NDEP 2013). In 2016, the Lockwood Regional Landfill accepted an average of 2,960 tons of solid waste per day. The volume of waste conveyed to the Lockwood Regional Landfill from California communities accounts for 7.5 percent of municipal solid waste. The Lockwood Regional Landfill has a remaining capacity of 267 million cubic yards and an estimated closure date of 2150 (NDEP 2017).

According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report for the South Lake Tahoe region, the average annual disposal 589
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-144 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND rate per person was 6.90 pounds per day per person based off population estimates and was 16.50 pounds per person based on employment within the jurisdiction, which is less than the City’s per resident disposal rate target of 9.4 and per employee disposal rate target of 24.2 (CalRecycle 2021b). Thus, the City is currently in compliance with the disposal targets of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which required cities and counties to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995 and 50 percent by January 1, 2000.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electrical services for the plan area are provided by Liberty Utilities. Natural gas services are provided by the Southwest Gas Corporation. The utility companies project that, based on their forecasting and growth trends in the region, their existing capacity would substantially exceed the future demand that could be generated (TRPA 2012:3.13-20 through 3.13-21).

3.19.2 Discussion
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The plan area is currently served by infrastructure for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Implementation of the Master Plan would maintain the existing types of land uses within the plan area, which include public service, indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, public spaces, and event space. The Master Plan would include removal or relocation of some existing buildings and facilities, construction of new facilities, and no changes to some facilities. A summary of the changes to the facilities in the plan area that require utilities services is provided in Table 3.19-2.

As Master Plan facilities are constructed, new utility connections would be constructed to connect to existing utility infrastructure in and adjacent to the plan area. Constructing utility connections for each proposed facility may require activities such as excavation and grading that would occur during construction of each subsequent project. The analysis of the potential environmental effects of construction activities related to relocating or providing new utility lines within the plan area is included in Sections 3.1 through 3.21 of this IS/MND.

Two water mains provide service to the plan area. One of the water mains is located along Rufus Allen Boulevard near the northeastern portion of the plan area and the other is located along Rufus Allen Boulevard near the southeastern edge of the plan area. The water mains are either 8-inch in diameter or 6-inch diameter. Preliminary modeling for buildout of the Master Plan indicates that if the water mains are 6-inch diameter, they would not meet the STPUD fire flow standards (2,500 gallons per minute [gpm] at a velocity of 10 feet/second or less for public service or recreation uses) (Ryan, pers. comm., 2021). If the existing water mains are 6-inch mains, the 2,500-gpm flow would move at 15 feet/second, exceeding their velocity threshold.

Regarding wastewater services, the increased wastewater production generated by the Master Plan elements (see Table 3.19-2) is expected to be within the treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plant and export system.

Analysis of potential impacts using STPUD's sewer hydraulic model, indicated the increased wastewater production from the Master Plan would not have a detrimental impact on the wastewater conveyance system (Ryan, pers. comm., 2021). Thus, new water or wastewater infrastructure would be required to be constructed outside of the plan area.

Before receiving permit approval from TRPA or the City of South Lake Tahoe, future individual projects under the Master Plan would be required to comply with Section 32.6 of the TRPA Code, which requires that a project applicant demonstrate that the project would be served by facilities that have adequate water, wastewater, electrical, and natural gas supply. For this reason and because the analysis of potential environmental effects of utilities construction 590
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-145 activities are addressed in Sections 3.1 through 3.21 of this IS/MND, the Master Plan would result in a less-thansignificant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. However, because capacity of the water supply infrastructure along Rufus Allen Boulevard may not meet STPUD fire flow requirements for a public service and recreation use such as the Master Plan, this impact related to water supply infrastructure would be potentially significant.

See Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for a discussion of potential stormwater drainage-related impacts.

Table 3.19-2 Summary of Existing and Proposed Master Plan Facilities that Require Utilities Services Building/Area Existing Uses Proposed Buildout
Recreation and Swim Complex
(existing)/Multigenerational Center (proposed)
39,000 sq. ft. 64,220 sq. ft.

Campground – RV and tent campsites 172 campsites
- 18 sites with water hookups
- 1 sewer waste dump station
118 campsites
- Water and electric hookups included at all sites
- Up to 20% (23) of the sites with wastewater hookups
- 1 sewer waste dump station
Campground – Tent Cabins 7 tent cabins 17 tent cabins
Campground - Restrooms 2 restroom buildings
2 shower buildings
3 restroom buildings
2 shower buildings
New Civic Center Building NA 25,000 sq. ft.

Public Works Maintenance Yard 3,860 sq. ft. Relocated off site Parks Maintenance Yard 1,000-2,000 sq. ft. (estimated for the maintenance shop building)
Relocated off site
Vector Control Building 3,400 sq. ft. Relocated off site Ice Skating Center 37,000 sq. ft. no change
Library 15,000 sq. ft. no change
Senior Center 10,000 sq. ft. no change
Historical Museum 2,100 sq. ft. no change
Art Center 1,140 sq. ft. no change
Ambulance JPA Building (former Tahoe
Chamber office)
3,000 sq. ft. no change
Fire Training Facility 2,250 sq. ft. no change1
Notes: NA = not applicable
1 The building that is used for the fire training facility would remain, but the fire training use would be relocated off site.

Source: compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2021
Mitigation Measure 3.19-1: Ensure Sufficient Fire Flow Capacity in the STPUD Water Supply System This mitigation measure is required for the Master Plan.

Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, the City shall coordinate with STPUD to confirm fire flow water demands for buildout of the Master Plan and confirm the size of the existing water mains. If STPUD confirms that the plangenerated fire flow water demands would exceed the velocity threshold of 10 feet/second in either or both water mains in Rufus Allen Boulevard, then STPUD and the City shall develop plans for and construct improvements to one or both of the water mains such that the STPUD fire flow requirements for the Master Plan (i.e., 2,500 gallons per minute at a velocity of 10 feet/second) would be met. The City shall be responsible for covering the cost of improvements that would be needed to serve buildout of the Master Plan. The plans developed by the City in coordination with STPUD shall identify the timing of the improvements, and that the capacity of the line (or lines) will be available prior to occupancy of the structures served by the water lines. 591
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-146 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.19-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to sufficient capacity in the STPUD water supply system because the City would coordinate with STPUD to ensure the water main in Rufus Allen Boulevard serving the Master Plan area would meet STPUD fire flow requirements.

If the Master Plan would require replacement of one of the water mains in Rufus Allen Boulevard, then the City would construct, in consultation with STPUD, and pay for the necessary improvement prior to the use of the new facilities served by the water main. The City and STPUD would coordinate the completion of these improvements.

Replacement of the water main along the northern end of Rufus Allen Boulevard would likely include trenching activities along the northeast corner of the plan area and within or adjacent to Rufus Allen Boulevard, which could potentially be just outside of the plan area. If the water main along the southeastern edge of the plan area would be replaced, then trenching activities would be necessary along the southeast edge of the plan area and within or adjacent to Rufus Allen Boulevard, which could potentially be just outside of the plan area. The pipe replacement would not result in ground disturbance of any previously undisturbed areas. Because the construction activities would adhere to standard construction practices (including construction outside of noise-sensitive times of day), no unique noise impacts would occur. No new above ground structures would be constructed; thus, there would be no significant effects on views from a scenic roadway.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Implementation of the Multigenerational Center Project would require the placement of utility connections, such as water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications connections from existing infrastructure to the Multigenerational Center to support its operation.

Similar to the discussion of the Master Plan, above, because the project would be required to comply with Section

32.6 of the TRPA Code assuring utilities services would be provided and the potential environmental effects of utilities construction activities are addressed in Sections 3.1 through 3.21 of this IS/MND, the Multigenerational Center would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. However, as described above, preliminary modeling indicates that if the water mains serving the Multigenerational Center are 6-inch diameter, they would not meet the STPUD fire flow standards (2,500 gallons per minute [gpm] at a velocity of 10 feet/second or less for public service or recreation uses) (Ryan, pers. comm., 2021). Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.19-2: Ensure Sufficient Fire Flow Capacity in the STPUD Water Supply System This mitigation measure is required for the Multigenerational Center.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.19-1.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.19-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to sufficient capacity in the STPUD water supply system because the City would coordinate with STPUD to ensure the water main in Rufus Allen Boulevard serving the Multigenerational Center would meet STPUD fire flow requirements prior to occupancy of the facility.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” buildout of the plan area would occur over an estimated 20 years. Although implementation of the Master Plan would remove some uses within the plan area and relocate some uses within the plan area, the Master Plan would result in an overall small increase in water demand.
592
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-147 Currently, water supply at the campground is provided by a few community water spigots located throughout the campground. Although the number of campsites would decrease, the new campground would include water supply hookups for all 118 campsites compared to the 18 campsites with water supply hookups under current conditions (see Table 3.19-2). The provision of water supply connections at each campsite would provide RVs with a continuous, readily available water supply and provides an opportunity for RV back up water supply tanks to be filled. With implementation of the Master Plan, a third restroom building would also be added. Although there would be an increase in the number of water supply fixtures in the campground, the size of the campground would be reduced by 54 campsites under the Master Plan compared with existing conditions. With these changes, it is likely that the increase in water demand for the campground would be minimal.

The Master Plan would result in demolition of the existing Recreation and Swim Complex building, which would eliminate water demand from that existing use. However, the new Multigenerational Center building that would replace that building (although at a location closer to the library) would be approximately 25,000 sq. ft. larger than the existing recreation facility (see Table 3.19-2); thus, there would be a slight increase in water demand with the new facility when compared with the existing Recreation and Swim Complex.

The proposed Civic Center building would also be a new source of water supply demand. However, the reduction in water demand associated with removal of the existing vector control building, Public Works maintenance yard building, and Parks maintenance building would not offset the increase in demand associated with the Civic Center, which would be a larger building than these three buildings combined (see Table 3.19-2).

In 2040 during normal water year and single dry year conditions, STPUD’s available water supply would still be more than four times greater than the planned water demand for the entire service area (see the first year in Table 3.19-1.

During the worst year of multiple dry year conditions in 2040, STPUD’s available water supply would be approximately 1.2 times greater than the planned water demand for the entire service area (see the fifth year in Table

3.19-1). Thus, it could be reasonably assumed that there would be sufficient water supply for the increase in water demand associated with the changes proposed by the Master Plan. Additionally, Julie Ryan, Engineering Department Manager for STPUD, confirmed the increased water demand associated with the Master plan would be within STPUD's available water source capacity (Ryan, pers. comm., 2021). This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under “56 Acre Master Plan,” above. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” buildout of the plan area would occur over an estimated 20 years. Although implementation of the Master Plan would remove some uses within the plan area and relocate some uses within the plan area, the Master Plan would result in an overall small increase in demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment.

Under the Master Plan, the campground would include an additional restroom building compared to existing conditions, would include wastewater connections at up to 20 percent of the campsites (i.e., up to 23 campsites), and would continue to provide a sewer waste dump for RVs (see Table 3.19-2). Although there would be an increase in the wastewater fixtures in the campground, the size of the campground would be reduced by 54 campsites under the Master Plan compared with existing conditions. With these changes, it is likely that any increase in wastewater conveyance and treatment demand for the campground would be minimal.

The Master Plan would result in demolition of the existing Recreation and Swim Complex building, which would eliminate wastewater flows from that existing use. However, the new Multigenerational Center building that would replace that building (although at a location closer to the library) would be approximately 25,000 sq. ft. larger than 593
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-148 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND the existing recreation facility (see Table 3.19-2); thus, there would be a slight increase in wastewater conveyance and treatment demand with the new facility when compared with the existing Recreation and Swim Complex.

The proposed Civic Center building would also be a new use requiring wastewater conveyance and treatment.

However, the reduction in wastewater flows associated with removal of the existing vector control building, Public Works maintenance yard building, and Parks maintenance building would not offset the increase in wastewater conveyance and treatment demand associated with the Civic Center, which would be a larger building than these three buildings combined (see Table 3.19-2).

As described above under the “Wastewater” section, the wastewater treatment plant treats 4 mgd collected from the STPUD service area but has a capacity of 7.7 mgd. Julie Ryan, Engineering Department Manager for STPUD, stated that based on the information provided about the Master Plan (see Table 3.19-2), the increased wastewater production would be within the treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plant and export system. Analysis of potential impacts using STPUD's sewer hydraulic model, indicated the increased wastewater production from the Master Plan would not have a detrimental impact on the wastewater conveyance system (Ryan, pers. comm., 2021).

Thus, there would be sufficient wastewater treatment capacity for the increase in demand for wastewater treatment associated with the changes proposed by the Master Plan. The Master Plan would not result in a determination that the existing wastewater facilities do not have enough capacity to serve the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. d) 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Operation of the project may increase solid waste output from the site compared to existing conditions. However, this would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The waste produced per resident and per employee within the City’s jurisdiction is in attainment with state requirements for waste diversion (CalRecycle 2021b). Events occurring at the event space would be required to undergo the permitting process required by the City and may choose to sign up for special event recycling services in coordination with the STR service providers. Waste produced from the site would be processed in accordance with waste reduction and diversion efforts. The Master Plan would not produce waste in excess of local infrastructure capacities and would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Solid waste collection for the Master Plan is provided by STR. Recyclable materials are collected as part of the solid waste collection service and sorted at the MRF. Operations in the plan area under the Master Plan could generate up to an estimated 520 tons per year of solid waste, which would be an average of 1.4 tons per day (modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021). Because the plan area currently contains uses that generate solid waste and the Master Plan would not result in a substantial increase in uses in the plan area, 520 tons/year of solid waste would likely only be a relatively small increase over existing conditions.

Solid waste generated by special events would increase with the anticipated increase in number of events that could occur with implementation of the Master Plan, but the sizes of the events would not exceed that of the existing special events at Lakeview Commons. As identified in the guidelines for special events, the City requires special events to identify effective waste management that will result in minimal impacts to the event facility and surrounding environment. An effective waste management plan is required, including providing recycling containers onsite and trash collection. Event producers are encouraged to strive for a Zero-Waste event by requiring vendors to use recycled content products, compostable cups, utensils, and materials, providing effective and sufficient recycling containers, and maintaining efficient refuse collection during and after the event. The City requires the event organizer to make arrangements for waste removal and the pickup and haul away of any additional litter and refuse that is due specifically to their event and those attending it using STR (City of South Lake Tahoe 2021). 594
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-149 After recyclable materials are separated from solid waste at the MRF in South Lake Tahoe, the residual solid waste is hauled to Lockwood Regional Landfill for disposal. The MRF is permitted to receive 370 tons of material daily (CalRecycle 2021a). With implementation of the Master Plan, the average amount of solid waste generated on a daily basis would be 1.4 tons per day, which would be 0.4 percent of the permitted daily collection amount at the MRF. The Lockwood Regional Landfill has a disposal capacity of 302.5 million cubic yards with a remaining capacity of more than 267 million cubic yards (NDEP 2017). There is sufficient capacity at the MRF and Lockwood Regional Landfill to accept the anticipated incremental increase in solid waste generated by the Master Plan.

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste would be generated by demolition of the Recreation and Swim Complex, vector control building, Public Works maintenance yard, and Parks maintenance yard and construction of the Civic Center, Multigenerational Center, and other proposed facilities. In accordance with Section 5.408 of the CALGreen Code, individual projects under the Master Plan would implement a Construction Waste Management Plan for recycling and/or salvaging for reuse of a minimum of 65 percent of C&D debris generated during project construction.

In compliance with TRPA Policy PS-3.3 requiring garbage pick-up service in the Basin, the Master Plan would continue to have solid waste collection provided by STR. As described above under the “Solid Waste” section, the City is in compliance with state targets for waste diversion from landfills. Because the Master Plan would be served by STR, which separates recyclable materials from solid waste at the MRF, the Master Plan would comply with state requirements for solid waste diversion.

The increase in solid waste generation that would occur with implementation of the Master Plan would not result in an increase in solid waste that would cause the MRF or Lockwood Regional Landfill to exceed permitted capacities.

The Project would also comply with all relevant regulations related to solid waste reduction and recycling. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. See the discussion under item d), above.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See the discussion under item d), above.

3.19.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 consist largely of improvements to roadway facilities, shore stabilization and lake public access, and a new shared-use trail and would not result in an increase in demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications services. Thus, these projects would not cumulatively combine with the Master Plan to result in impacts on demand for utilities services.

As discussed under items a) and c) in Section 3.6.2, above, there would be sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Master Plan and sufficient capacity in the wastewater conveyance infrastructure to collect additional wastewater generated by the Master Plan. Currently, there is 3.7 mgd of capacity in the STPUD wastewater treatment plan, which is ample capacity to serve projected future development in the STPUD service area, including buildout of the Master Plan. No project would be permitted without confirmation from STPUD that available capacity exists at the wastewater treatment plant and that conveyance capacity also exists. For these reasons, there would be no significant cumulative impact on wastewater conveyance and wastewater treatment infrastructure; therefore, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on wastewater treatment and conveyance services.
595
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-150 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND As identified under item b), above, there would be sufficient water supply to serve the Master Plan. As identified in the STPUD UWMP, there would be sufficient water supplies to meet future water demand under normal, dry, and multiple dry year conditions (STPUD 2021:7-4 through 7-6; see Table 3.19-1). Additionally, individual projects are required to obtain approval of a water connection by STPUD, which could include a capacity analysis to be performed by a project applicant to ensure the areas of the system being tapped for service are adequate to serve the project. If deficiencies are found, any infrastructure improvements required to serve the project would be a condition of the project. For these reasons, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on water supply services.

The amount of solid waste generated in the plan area with implementation of the Master Plan would not substantially change compared to solid waste currently generated in the plan area. The proposed project and the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 would result in the one-time generation of solid waste during construction. The cumulative projects would not result in generating solid waste during operations. Lockwood Regional Landfill, which has approximately 267 million cubic yards of available capacity, would have sufficient capacity to accept cumulative generation of solid waste from construction of the Master Plan and projects listed in Table 3.21-1. For these reasons, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on solid waste services.

The cumulative projects would not generate permanent demand for electricity or natural gas services and, thus, would not combine with the Master Plan to result in cumulative impacts on electrical and natural gas services. TRPA Code Section 32.6 requires that projects must be served with adequate electrical supply. Any new development would be located near existing electric and gas infrastructure, and projects requiring new or modified utility installation, connections, and expansion would be subject to the requirements of the applicable utility providers, Liberty Utilities and Southwest Gas Corporation. The utility companies project that, based on their forecasting and growth trends in the region, their existing capacity would substantially exceed the future demand that could be generated (TRPA 2012:3.13-20 through 3.13-21). For these reasons, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on energy services. 596
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-151

3.20 WILDFIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire.

Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Yes No
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) 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?
d) 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?

3.20.1 Environmental Setting
See the “Wildland Fire Hazards” section under Section 3.9.1, in Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” for a discussion of the existing wildland fire hazards in the plan area. The project area is located within a Very High FHSZ Local Responsibility Area (CAL FIRE 2009).

3.20.2 Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under f) under Section 3.9.2, “Discussion,” in Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.”
Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. See discussion under f) under Section 3.9.2, “Discussion,” in Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.”
597
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-152 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Fire risk resulting from implementation of the Master Plan would primarily result from construction activities and operation of the campground. However, the Master Plan would not result in any new uses that would create a greater fire risk than currently exists. As discussed under g) Section 3.9.2, “Discussion,” in Section

3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” implementation of the Master Plan would be required to comply with existing building regulations and defensible space requirements that reduce fire risk to the extent feasible (e.g., PRC Section 4291, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, TRPA Code Section 13.5.3.F.4.a). Additionally, with the reduced-size campground, there would be a reduction in the number of campfire rings in the plan area and campfires would continue to be subject to fire restrictions implemented by South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue during periods of high fire risk. Construction activities would take measures to reduce fire risk such as, fire suppression equipment on the premises in accordance with local fire codes and standards. Implementation of the Master Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risk compared to existing conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Refer to the discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. c) 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? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Implementation of the project would construct additional road improvements, utility connections, and emergency water connections within the plan area. If feasible, electric lines would be moved underground. However, the plan area is already developed and contains these facilities under existing conditions.

Construction and operation of the Master Plan would be required to comply with existing codes and standards designed to reduce risk of loss from fire within the plan area, such as vegetation management and maintaining defensible space. The Master Plan would not result in increased fire risk compared to existing conditions. The Master Plan would therefore have a less-than-significant impact.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Refer to the discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above. d) 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Areas downslope of the plan area includes vegetation, US 50, El Dorado Beach, and the lakeshore zone. However, the proposed plan area does not contain steep terrain or slopes that would be subject to risks from landslides. As the plan area, project site, and adjacent areas do not contain steep terrain and are generally developed, run off is primarily urban in nature and does not present a substantial risk to people or structures. The Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project would not alter these conditions.

Drainage at the site would be temporarily impacted by construction activities; however, construction would occur in compliance with existing TRPA, state, local, and federal regulations regarding run off, stormwater, and related construction activities as described under c) in Section 3.10.2 under Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality.“ Additionally, Sections 3.7, “Geology and Soils,” and 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” do not indicate that 598
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-153 substantial landslide or flooding events would occur in the project area (see item a-iv) under Section 3.7.2 and item c) under Section 3.10.2, respectively). The plan area and adjacent areas are developed and flat with a gradual slope towards Lake Tahoe in the north and do not contain burn scars or steep terrain that would be subject to post-fire slope instability. Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would not expose people or structures to significant risks relating to fire, slope instability, or run off that is substantially greater than existing conditions. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Refer to the discussion under “56 Acres Master Plan,” above.

3.20.3 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative impacts related to wildland fire hazards encompasses the Lake Tahoe Basin. The proposed project is located within a very high fire hazard area, as discussed in Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” and Section 3.20.1, “Environmental Setting.” Past wildfires in the region have resulted in significant losses of property and substantial damage to habitat and environmental resources. Additionally, past development in the forested landscape has increased the risk to life and property when fires do occur and increased the potential for ignition of wildland fires through increased human presence and activity. The cumulative projects listed in Table

3.21-1 consists of improvements to roadway facilities, shore stabilization and lake public access, and a new shared-use trail. These projects would not result in new or different land uses that would permanently increase fire risk in the region by increasing development within fire hazard zones. The proposed Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would result in development and facilities improvements within the plan area but would not increase fire risk above existing conditions. All construction, building design, and event activities would be subject to existing codes and standards designed to reduce fire risk and increase safety for site visitors, such as inclusion of defensible space into site design, ensuring proper emergency access, coordinating with local emergency service providers during events.

As cumulative projects do not permanently increase fire risk, and the proposed plan activities would be permanent but do not substantially increase fire risk compared to existing conditions, the Master Plan and Multigenerational Center would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. 599
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-154 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.21 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially 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 self-sustaining 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?
b) 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.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?

3.21.1 Cumulative Setting
Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Where a project’s incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable, the effect need not be considered significant, but the basis for concluding the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable must be briefly described. Cumulatively considerable, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time.

Cumulative impacts are discussed in each resource section, following discussions of the project-specific impacts.

Probable existing and future projects considered in the cumulative analysis are in the project vicinity and have the possibility of interacting with the 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project to generate a cumulative impact (Table 3.21-1). This list of projects was considered in the analysis of the cumulative impacts for resource topics within the geographic scope of each resource topic (as described in the cumulative impact analysis within each resource section).
600
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-155 Table 3.21-1 Cumulative Projects List
Project Name Location Description Project Status
Al Tahoe
Boulevard Safety
and Mobility
Project
Al Tahoe Boulevard Constructs a Class I shared-use path and Class II bicycle lanes along Al Tahoe Boulevard in the vicinity of the South Tahoe Middle School. The limits of the project are Al Tahoe Boulevard between US 50 and Johnson Boulevard.

Under construction with
completion anticipated
in 2022.

Al Tahoe
Government
Center Best
Management
Practices
Al Tahoe Boulevard
and Johnson
Boulevard
The Al Tahoe Government Center serves multiple jurisdictions and is a priority location in need of improved water quality infrastructure. TRPA will work with City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County to plan, permit and install stormwater infiltration Best Management Practices.

Project planning in
progress with
anticipated completion
in 2023.

Alta Mira Public
Access
Improvement
Project
3339 Lake Tahoe
Boulevard
Improvements to public lakefront property at El Dorado Beach in South Lake Tahoe focused on public access, open space, view corridors, shoreline stability, and water quality. In 2019, the Conservancy repaired severe shoreline, drainage infrastructure, and public access failures. In 2020, the Conservancy initiated comprehensive planning including environmental review.

Project planning in
progress with
anticipated completion
in 2031.

Middle School
SR2S Project -
Rufus Allen
Connector
Rufus Allen
Boulevard
This project proposes a Class 1 Bike and Pedestrian trail along Rufus Allen Boulevard providing safe routes to school with access to the Al Tahoe Elementary School, Al Tahoe Middle School, St. Theresa School/Church, Boys and Girls Club, and the South Tahoe Middle School via a new trail connector across Lake Tahoe Unified School District property. Improvements along Rufus Allen Boulevard are proposed to address urban stormwater water quality and flooding. Project begins at US 50 and Rufus Allen Boulevard and connects to the Al Tahoe Boulevard Class 1 project.

Project planning in
progress with
anticipated completion
in 2022.

Pioneer Trail
Pedestrian
Improvement
Project Phase II
Pioneer Trail from
Ski Run Boulevard to
Larch Avenue
The Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project - Phase II is an upgrade to Pioneer Trail that will provide five-foot wide sidewalks, ADA compliant crossings, street lighting, minor stormwater infrastructure and landscaping on each side of the roadway between Larch Avenue and Ski Run Boulevard.

The improvements also include transit system upgrades through the placement of bus shelter pads with electrical connection capability Construction to begin in
2022.

South Lake Tahoe
Safety Project
US 50 between the
“Y” and Ski Run
Boulevard
This Caltrans project would improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety between the US 50/State Route 89 ‘Y’ and Pioneer Trail in South Lake Tahoe. This project proposes to improve roadway lighting and implement a complete street vision for the corridor by installing a green bike lane treatment and enhanced visibility crosswalks. The project would also improve bicycle signage throughout the project limits and install a two-stage turn queue box for bike crossings at multiple locations for additional bicycle safety. The project would include some new crosswalks at Rufus Allen, Lakeview and Tallac Intersections. The project would also install pedestrian signals at midblock crossings between Truckee Road and River Drive, between Brockway Avenue and Blue Lake Avenue, and between Herbert Avenue and Ski Run Boulevard. These mid-block crossings will provide cyclists and pedestrians a safe opportunity to cross the highway. A full signalized intersection would be installed on US 50 at Johnson Boulevard.

Project planning in
progress. Construction
anticipated to being in
2023 and be completed
in 2025.

Dennis T.

Machida
Memorial
Greenway
Sierra Boulevard to
Van Sickle Bi-State
Park
The approved Dennis T. Machida Memorial Greenway connects Sierra Tract and Van Sickle Bi-State Park in the core of South Lake Tahoe, establishing the backbone of the non-motorized transportation network in the South Shore. Project approval occurred in 2011 and the 3.86-mile trail, including neighborhood connectors, is being constructed in phases. Future projects could extend the Greenway to Meyers and the South Lake Tahoe WYE.

Project planning and
implementation in
progress with
anticipated completion
in 2031.

Source: Compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2021
601
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-156 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND

3.21.2 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 self-sustaining 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?
56 Acres Master Plan
Less-than-significant impact. Wildlife and plant species that occur in the plan area are common species associated with urban and residential areas in the Tahoe Basin. No special-status plant or animal species are expected to occur regularly in the plan area due to the absence of suitable breeding habitat, high disturbance levels associated with existing urban uses, and no historic documentation of occurrences in the plan area. Because habitats in the plan area are fragmented and highly disturbed, native species occur there in relatively low abundance and diversity. The plan area is within a commercial core and developed recreation area; the Master Plan would be implemented mostly on existing developed lands.

The area surrounding the plan area core includes commercial and residential development, a major highway corridor (US 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard) and other roadways, and disturbed conifer forest in fragmented undeveloped areas.

Due to the developed conditions and land uses of the plan area and surrounding areas, the existing level of disturbance on and adjacent to the plan area is high. The quality and functions of biological resources in the plan area would not change substantially with implementation of the Master Plan. For these reasons, construction and operation of facilities, changes in services and uses, and other features proposed for the Master Plan would not 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; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species. This impact would be less than significant.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. For the same reasons described above for the Master Plan, any potential effects of construction and operation of facilities for the Multigenerational Center would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species. This impact would be less than significant. b) 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.) 56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The cumulative projects considered in combination with the Master Plan are listed in Table 3.21-1. These projects primarily consist of improvements to roadway facilities, shore stabilization and lake public access, and a new shared-use trail. Each of the resource sections provides an analysis of cumulative effects of the Master Plan when combined with these cumulative projects (see “Cumulative Impacts” in Section 3.1 through Section 3.20). Possible cumulative impacts related to cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources would be minimized with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-2,

3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.18-1, and 3.18-2 incorporated into the Master Plan. The cumulative impacts associated with the Master Plan would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 602
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 3-157 Multigenerational Center Project
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See discussion of the Master Plan, above. Possible cumulative impacts related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources would be minimized with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-2, 3.18-1, and 3.18-2 incorporated into the Multigenerational Center. The cumulative impacts associated with the Multigenerational Center would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 56 Acres Master Plan
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No project-related environmental effects were identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. As discussed in Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” the Master Plan has the potential to result in adverse effects on human beings related to hazardous materials during construction. With implementation of mitigation measures committed to by the lead agency (Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2), impacts from the Master Plan related to the risk of an accidental release of hazardous substances that could adversely affect human health or the environment during construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Multigenerational Center Project
Less-than-significant impact. Environmental effects of the Multigenerational Center have been determined to pose a less-than-significant impact on humans.
603
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
3-158 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND This page intentionally left blank.
604
Administrative Draft – For Internal Review Only
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Facility Project IS/MND 4-1 4 REFERENCES
1 Introduction
No references were used in this chapter.
2 Project Description
No references were used in this chapter.
3 Environmental Checklist

3.1 Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation. 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed September 9, 2021.

Lake Tahoe Info. 2021a. Scenic Quality Ratings for Shoreline Travel Units. Available:
https://thresholds.laketahoeinfo.org/ThresholdIndicator/Detail/59. Accessed October 18, 2021.

Lake Tahoe Info. 2021b. Travel Route Ratings for Roadway Travel Units, 2019 Evaluation. Available:
https://thresholds.laketahoeinfo.org/Indicator/ThresholdEvaluationDetail/402. Accessed September 7, 2021.

Lake Tahoe Info. 2021c. Scenic Quality Ratings for Other Areas. Available:
https://thresholds.laketahoeinfo.org/ThresholdReportingCategory/Detail/OtherAreas. Accessed September 7, 2021.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1993. Recreation Areas Inventory and Evaluation. ———. 2016. 2015 Threshold Evaluation Report, Chapter 9, Scenic Resources, and Appendices G-1, G-2, and G-3. ———. 2021. 2019 Scenic Threshold Monitoring Data (unpublished).

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
California Department of Conservation. 2021. Important California Important Farmland Finder tool. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed June 2021.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2021. Online Zoning Map. Available:
https://cslt.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=252e930b58b64bffb52f8b54da9b4554. Accessed October 2021.

El Dorado County. 2021. GOTNET - County of El Dorado, State of California, Interactive GIS Map. Available:
https://see-eldorado.edcgov.us/ugotnet/. Accessed December 2, 2021.

Fish, Ben. Landscape Architect. Design Workshop, Stateline, NV. June 9, 2021—email communication with Adam Lewandowski and Jessica Mitchell of Ascent Environmental regarding tree removal.

Marino, Jim. Capital Improvements Project Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe. December 1, 2021—email communication with Adam Lewandowski of Ascent Environmental regarding tree removal and utilities.

3.3 Air Quality
California Air Resources Board. 2005 (March). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

Sacramento, CA. Available: http://arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2015. ———. 2016 (May). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

Accessed October 6, 2016.
605
References Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
4-2 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND ———. 2017 (November). HARP User Guide. Sacramento, CA. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/harp/docs2/eimuserguide.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2021.
———. 2020. Area Designations Maps / State and National. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.

Accessed March 27, 2015. Last Updated August 22, 2014.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

EDCAPCD. See El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District.

El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District. 2002 (February). Guide to Air Quality Assessment, Determining Significance of Air Quality Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act.

3.4 Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. Rarefind: A Database Application for the Use of the California Natural Diversity Database. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Sacramento, CA.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Fish, Ben. Landscape Architect. Design Workshop, Stateline, NV. June 9, 2021—email communication with Adam Lewandowski and Jessica Mitchell of Ascent Environmental regarding tree removal.

Marino, Jim. Capital Improvements Project Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe. December 1, 2021—email communication with Adam Lewandowski of Ascent Environmental regarding tree removal and utilities.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Code of Ordinances. Stateline, NV.

TRPA. See Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resources List.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3.5 Cultural Resources
PaleoWest. 2021 (October). Historic and Archaeological Resources Report in Support of South Lake Tahoe Master Plan.

3.6 Energy
California Energy Commission. 2018 (March). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.

Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/Title24_2019_Standards_detailed_faq_ada.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2021. ________. 2019a (November). 2019 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. Available:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Energy_- _Electricity_and_Natural_Gas/2019%20RPS%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2020. ———. 2019b. 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2019_packets/2019-12- 11/Item_06_2019%20California%20Energy%20Efficiency%20Action%20Plan%20(19-IEPR-06).pdf. Accessed December 10, 2020.
________. 2020. Final 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Adopted February 20, 2020. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2019-integrated-energypolicy-report. Accessed November 2, 2021.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011. 2030 South Lake Tahoe General Plan Policy Document. Updated May 17, 2011.

Available: General Plan https://www.cityofslt.us/575/General-Plan. 606
Ascent Environmental References
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 4-3 Liberty Utilities. 2020 (September). Sustainability Report 2020. Available: https://libertyutilities.com/uploads/APUCSustainability-Report-2020.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2021.

3.7 Geology and Soils
Bailey, R.G. 1974. Land-Capability Classification of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California-Nevada A Guide for Planning.

Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service in cooperation with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

Brothers, D.S., G.M. Kent, N.W. Driscoll, S.B. Smith, R. Karlin, J.A. Dingler, A. J. Harding, G.G. Seitz, and J.M. Babcock. 2009 (April). New constraints on deformation, slip rate, and timing of the most recent earthquake on the West Tahoe-Dollar Point Fault, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol 99, No 2A pp. 499-519.

California Geological Survey. 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. (Special Publication 117A).
———. 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed July 26, 2021.

Cardno. 2021 (February). TRPA Existing Coverage Map 56 Acres Parcel Master Plan City of South Lake Tahoe.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

Dingler, J., G. Kent, N. Driscoll, J. Babcock, A. Harding, G. Seitz, B. Karlin, and C. Goldman. 2007. Geological Society of America Bulletin, Article: A High-Resolution Seismic CHIRP Investigation of Active Normal Faulting Across Lake Tahoe Basin, California-Nevada.

NRCS. See U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

NV5. 2021 (February). 2021. Geotechnical Engineering Report City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation Aquatics Center.

Prepared for JK Architecture Engineering.

Saucedo, G.J. 2005. Geologic map of the Lake Tahoe basin, California and Nevada, 1:100,000 scale: California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 4, scale 1:100000. Available:
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/RGM/tahoe/tahoe.html. Accessed July 26, 2021.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2021. Web Soil Survey.

Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed June 17, 2021.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resources Board. 2014. (May). First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. ———. 2017a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2015—by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan.

Last Updated June 6, 2017. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_sum_2000-15.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2018.
———. 2017b (January 20). The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. Sacramento, CA. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2017.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013:

The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2018. ———. 2014 (November). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Approved Summary for Policymakers. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/. Accessed May 8, 2018.
607
References Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
4-4 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009 (March). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas – El Dorado County. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6668/fhszl_map9.pdf.

Accessed December 6, 2021.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2021. EnviroStor. Accessed June 18, 2021.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2021. Emergency Evacuation Zones. Available:
https://cslt.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d19f32ce62f241819b781f37482cbf1a.

Accessed December 6, 2021.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

El Dorado County Sheriff, Office of Emergency Services. 2021. All Hazard Community Evacuation Plan. Available:
https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/16119/Community-Evacuation-Plan---2021-with-maprev1?bidId=. Accessed October 18, 2021.

Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission. 2019 (September). Lake Tahoe Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

PaleoWest. 2021 (October). Historic and Archaeological Resources Report in Support of South Lake Tahoe Master Plan.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. Geotracker. Accessed June 17, 2021.

Thomaselli, Lauren, MPA, CPRP. Director of Parks and Recreation, City of South Lake Tahoe. June 22, 2021—email regarding data sheets for a couple years of existing uses at campground and rec center to Adam Lewandowski of Ascent Environmental.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Allander, K. 2005. Ground-Water Reconnaissance of the Bijou Creek Watershed, South Lake Tahoe, California, June – October. USGS Open-File Report 2005-1329
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012 (April). FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map, El Dorado County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 380 of 1125, Map Number 0617C0380F.

Ichinose, Gene A, John G. Anderson, Kenji Satake, Rich A. Schweickert and Mary M. Lahren. 2000. The potential hazard from tsunami and seiche waves generated by large earthquakes within Lake Tahoe, CaliforniaNevada. Geophysical Research Letters.

NV5. 2021 (February). Geotechnical Engineering Report City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation Aquatics Center. Prepared for JK Architecture Engineering.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012 (amended 2021). Code of Ordinances. ————. 2014. Best Management Practices Handbook.

TRPA. See Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2021. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary 05/01/1968 to 06/09/2016 for South Lake Tahoe, California (048762). Available: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8762. Accessed May 27, 2021.

WRCC. See Western Regional Climate Center.
608
Ascent Environmental References
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 4-5

3.11 Land Use and Planning
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011 (May). 2030 South Lake Tahoe General Plan Policy Document: Land Use Element.

Available: https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/5639/SLTGPU_PD_2-LandUse_Final_2011-05- 17?bidId=. Accessed December 3, 2021.

City of South Lake Tahoe and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1995 (October). Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Regional Plan.
———. 2018. Regional Plan Maps. Adopted December 2012; reflects amendments through April 28, 2018.

3.12 Mineral Resources
Busch, L. L. 2001 (June). Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) Map for Construction Materials – Aggregate, Slate, Specialty Stone, and Decomposed Granite, El Dorado County, California.

3.13 Noise
California Department of Transportation. 2013 (September). Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf ———. 2020 (April). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA: Noise, Division of Environmental Analysis. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2021a. Special Event Guidelines. Available:
https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/13029/Special-Event-App-Guidelines_FINAL. Accessed:

November 1, 2021.
———. 2021b. Municipal Code, Chapter 6.10: Land Use Development Standards. Available:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SouthLakeTahoe/#!/html/SouthLakeTahoe06/SouthLakeTahoe0610.html.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Highway Administration. 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Washington, DC.

Prepared by Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, MA. Available:
gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/2006_01_Roadway_Construction_Noise_Model_User_Guide_FHW A.pdf.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Washington, DC.

Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noiseand-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

LTALUC. See Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission.

Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission. 2019. Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available:
https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/13175/TVL_Final_ALUCP_ALUCP_ONLY_190912?bidId=.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. No date. Standard Conditions of Approval for Grading Projects. Available:
https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/Attachment_Q_Standard_Conditions_Grading.pdf. ———. 2020 (September). Code of Ordinances. Available: https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/TRPA-Code-of-Ordinances.pdf. 609
References Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
4-6 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND TRPA. See Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 (December). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, DC. Prepared by Bolt Baranek and Newman. Available:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9101NN3I.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=Prior%20to %201976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField= &QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File =D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C70THRU75%5CTXT%5C00000024%5C9101NN3I.txt&User=ANO NYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&De fSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&Zy Entry=1.

3.14 Population and Housing
U.S. Census Bureau. 2019a. American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. Table ID DP04. Accessed December 2021.
———. 2019b. American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03. Accessed October 2021. ———. 2020. American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. Table ID P1. Accessed October 2021.

3.15 Public Services
California Department of Education. 2017. California School Dashboard, Lake Tahoe Unified District Performance Overview. Webpage updated 2017. Available: https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/09619030000000/2020.

Accessed October 2021.

City of South Lake Tahoe. No date. City Services Fire-Chiefs Message. Webpage. Available: Accessed October 25, 2021.
———. 2021. Divisions webpage. Available: https://www.cityofslt.us/304/Divisions. Accessed October 26, 2021.

Lake Tahoe Unified School District. 2021. Campus Maps. Available: http://www.ltusd.org/schools/campus_maps.

Accessed October 26, 2021.

South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue. 2021. Annual Report 2020. Available:
https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/15206/Annual-Report-2020?bidId=. Accessed December 2, 2021.

South Lake Tahoe Police Department. 2021. 2020 Annual Report. 2020. Available:
https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/15372/02-PD_Annual_Report_2020_PDF. Accessed October 25, 2021.

Thomaselli, Lauren, MPA, CPRP. Director of Parks and Recreation, City of South Lake Tahoe. June 22, 2021—email regarding data sheets for a couple years of existing uses at campground and rec center to Adam Lewandowski of Ascent Environmental.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. Table ID P1. Available:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=1600000US0673108&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1. Accessed October 2021.

3.16 Recreation
Thomaselli, Lauren, MPA, CPRP. Director of Parks and Recreation, City of South Lake Tahoe. June 22, 2021—email regarding data sheets for a couple years of existing uses at campground and rec center to Adam Lewandowski of Ascent Environmental.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2018 (October). Linking Tahoe Active Transportation Plan. 610
Ascent Environmental References
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 4-7

3.17 Transportation/Traffic
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011 (May). 2030 South Lake Tahoe General Plan Policy Document: Transportation and Circulation Element. Available: https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/5642/SLTGPU_PD_5- Trans_Circ_Final_2011-05-17?bidId=. Accessed October 18, 2021. ———. 2014 (November). Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan. Prepared by MIG, Inc. Available:
cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/4638/SLT_MasterPlan_Final_103014?bidId=. Accessed October 18, 2021. ———. 2021. Street Maintenance. Public Works Website. Available: https://www.cityofslt.us/335/Street-Maintenance.

Accessed October 18, 2021.

City of South Lake Tahoe and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1995 (October). Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan.

Available: https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/1172/Bijou-Al-Tahoe-CP?bidId=. Accessed October 19, 2021.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018 (December). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2021.

OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2016 (March). Linking Tahoe: Active Transportation Plan. Available:
http://tahoempo.org/ActiveTransportationPlan/docs/ATP_FINAL_NoAppendices.pdf. Accessed: October 19, 2021.
———. 2020. Code of Ordinances. Adopted December 12, 2012; reflects amendments through September 30, 2020. ———. 2021a (June). Project Impact Assessment Guidelines. Available: https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/PIA-Guidelines-Draft.pdf. Accessed October 19, 2021. ———. 2021b (April). VMT Threshold Update: Standard Recommendation and Implementation. Available:
https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Attachment-A-VMT-Threshold-Update-StandardRecommendation-and-Implementation.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2021. ———. 2021c (April). Regional Transportation Plan. Available: https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/2020-RTP-FINAL.pdf. Accessed October 18, 2021.

TRPA. See Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
PaleoWest. 2021 (October). Historic and Archaeological Resources Report in Support of South Lake Tahoe Master Plan.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2021a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, South Tahoe Refuse Co., Inc., T.S/MRF (09-AA-0002). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4491?siteID=311. Accessed November 4, 2021. ———. 2021b. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006. Accessed November 4, 2021.

CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2021. City of South Lake Tahoe Special Event Application Guidelines. Available:
https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/13029/Special-Event-App-Guidelines_FINAL. Accessed November 4, 2021.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2013 (December). Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit, Refuse Inc.

Lockwood Regional Landfill.
611
References Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
4-8 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND ———. 2017 (August). State of Nevada Solid Waste Management Plan.

NDEP. See Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.

Ryan, Julie. Engineering Department Manager. South Tahoe Public Utility District, South Lake Tahoe, CA. November 23 – December 8, 2021—email communication with Jessica Mitchell of Ascent Environmental regarding STPUD water and wastewater services for the 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center.

South Tahoe Public Utility District. 2021 (May). Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available:
https://stpud.us/asset/8955/. Accessed October 2021.

South Tahoe Refuse and Recycling Services. 2021. What is MRF?. Webpage. Updated 2020. Available:
https://southtahoerefuse.com/what-is-mrf/. Accessed October 2021.

STPUD. See South Tahoe Public Utility District.

STR. See South Tahoe Refuse and Recycling Services.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2021 (April). Regional Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Section

3.13 Public Services and Utilities.

3.20 Wildfire
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009 (March). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas – El Dorado County. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6668/fhszl_map9.pdf.

Accessed December 6, 2021.

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
No references were used in this chapter.
612
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND 5-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS
City of South Lake Tahoe
John Hitchcock.......................................................................................................................................................................Planning Manager Jim Marino.....................................................................................................................................Capital Improvements Project Manager Ascent Environmental
Sydney Coatsworth, AICP .......................................................................................................................................................Project Director Adam Lewandowski, AICP ....................................................................................................................................................Project Manager Jessica Mitchell, AICP................ Assistant Project Manager, Aesthetics, Minerals, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems Poonam Boparai ...........................................................................................................Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Shaurya Johari................................................................................................................Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kelley Kelso, CPESC..................................................................................................Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality Zachary Miller................................................................................................................................................................................Transportation Jazmin Amini ..................................................................................................................................................................................................Noise Steve Henderson ............................................................................................................................................................ Biological Resources Alta Cunningham .......................................................................................................................... Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Richa Nanavati................Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Public Services, Wildfire
Gayiety Lane .....................................................................................................................................Publishing and document production Lisa Merry .................................................................................................................................................................GIS analysis and mapping Phi Ngo .....................................................................................................................................................................GIS analysis and mapping Corey Alling ...............................................................................................................................................................................................Graphics Brian Perry .................................................................................................................................................................................................Graphics Design Workshop
Ben Fish................................................................................................................................................................................Landscape Architect Madison Pong....................................................................................................................................................................Landscape Designer LSC Transportation Consultants
Gordon Shaw, P.E., AICP........................................................................................................................................................................Principal Leslie Suen, P.E. ..........................................................................................................................................................................Senior Engineer Paleo West
Garret Root, M.A. ............................................................................................................................................Senior Architectural Historian Heather Miller, M.A. .................................................................................................................................Associate Architectural Historian 613
Report Preparers Ascent Environmental
City of South Lake Tahoe
5-2 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project IS/MND This page intentionally left blank.
614
City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that identified adverse environmental impacts related to construction and operation of the 56 Acres Master Plan (Master Plan) and South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Aquatics Center referred to herein as the Multigenerational Center Project (collectively, proposed project). The IS/MND also identified mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels, or that would eliminate these impacts all together.

CEQA Guidelines require public agencies “to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for the proposed project because the IS/MND identifies potential significant adverse impacts related to the project implementation, and mitigation measure have been identified to reduce those impacts. Adoption of the MMRP would occur along with approval of the proposed project.

PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed in a satisfactory manner before and during project construction and operation. The MMRP may be modified by the City during project implementation, as necessary, in response to changing conditions or other refinements. The attached table has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the mitigation measures. The table identifies individual mitigation measures, timing of implementation, person/agency responsible for implementing each measure, monitoring and reporting procedures, and provides space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the IS/MND.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Unless otherwise specified herein, the City is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures under its jurisdiction according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed. The city, at its discretion, may delegate implementation responsibility or portions thereof to a licensed contractor or another designated agent.

The City would be responsible for overall administration of the MRRP and for verifying that City staff members and/or the construction contractor has completed the necessary actions for each measure. The City would designate a project manager to oversee implementation of the MMRP. Duties of the project manager include the following:
 Ensure routine inspections of the construction site are conducted by appropriate City staff; check plans, reports, and other documents required by the MMRP; and conduct reporting activities.  Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor regarding mitigation monitoring issues.  Complete forms and maintain reports and other records and documents generated for the MMRP.  Coordinate and ensure that corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if necessary.

The responsible party for implementation of each item would identify the staff members responsible for coordinating with the City on the MMRP.
615
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 2

REPORTING
The City’s project manager shall prepare a monitoring report upon completion of the project describing the compliance of the activity with the required mitigation measures. Information regarding inspections and other requirements shall be compiled and explained in the report. The report shall be designed to simply and clearly identify whether mitigation measures have been adequately implemented. At a minimum, the report shall identify the mitigation measures or conditions to be monitored for implementation, whether compliance with the mitigation measures or conditions has occurred, the procedures used to assess compliance, and whether further action is required. The report shall be available to the City Council upon request.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN TABLE
The categories identified in the attached MMRP table are described below.  Mitigation Measure – this column provides the text of the mitigation measures identified in the approved IS/MND.
 Applies to Master Plan – when marked with an “X,” this column identifies mitigation measures that apply to future projects under the Master Plan.
 Applies to Multigenerational Center – when marked with an “X,” this column identifies mitigation measures that apply to the Multigenerational Center.
 Timing – this column identifies the time frame in which the mitigation will be implemented.  Implementation – this column identifies the party responsible for implementing the mitigation.  Enforcement – this column identifies the party responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements of the mitigation measure.
 Dated Signature for Verification of Compliance – this column is to be dated and signed by the person (either project manager or his/her designee) responsible for verifying compliance with the requirements of the mitigation measure.
616
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 3 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure
Applies to
Master
Plan
Applies to
Multigenerational
Center
Timing Implementation Responsible
Entity
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance

3.5 Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Unanticipated Discoveries of Archaeological Resources If a prehistoric archeological site (such as midden soils, stone tools, chipped stone, baked clay, or concentrations of shell or bone) or a historic-period archaeological site (such as structural features, concentrated deposits of bottles, or other historic refuse) is uncovered during grading or other construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. The City will be notified of the potential find and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to investigate its significance. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the appropriate Native American group shall be notified, and Mitigation Measure 3.18-2 shall be implemented. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the California Register of Historical Resources standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed.

If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or tribal cultural resource), the archaeologist shall work with the City to follow accepted professional standards such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, as necessary. If artifacts are recovered from significant historic archaeological resources, they shall be housed at a qualified curation facility. The results of the identification, evaluation, and/or data recovery program for any unanticipated discoveries shall be presented in a professional-quality report that details all methods and findings, evaluates the nature and significance of the resources, and analyzes and interprets the results.

X During
constructionrelated earthmoving activities
City Public
Works
Department/
construction
contractor/
archaeological
monitor
City Public
Works
Department
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1.

X During
constructionrelated earthmoving activities
City Public
Works
Department
construction
contractor
archaeological
monitor
City Public
Works
Department
617
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 4 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure
Applies to
Master
Plan
Applies to
Multigenerational
Center
Timing Implementation Responsible
Entity
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Conduct Soil Investigation
Before initiating construction, demolition, or other ground-disturbing activities within the existing public works maintenance yard, parks maintenance yard, or vector control district site, the City or construction manager shall retain a qualified environmental contractor to sample surface soils located within the public works maintenance yard, parks maintenance yard, and vector control district site. If soil contamination is detected, contaminated soil shall be removed from site and the site must be remediated. The soil investigation and removal, if contaminated soils are found, shall include the following:
 Soil sample results shall be provided to El Dorado County Environmental Management Department (EDCEMD) and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB).
 Based on the soil sample results, the construction manager and qualified environmental contractor shall coordinate with EDCEMD and Lahontan RWQCB to determine the appropriate methods for soil removal and extent of soil removal required, if any.
 A qualified environmental contractor shall be retained for removal of contaminated soils, if necessary. Contaminated soils shall be removed and disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. The qualified environmental contractor shall provide proof of disposal to EDCEMD.  Soils shall be resampled and, if necessary, as determined by EDCEMD or Lahontan RWQCB, additional contaminated soil shall be removed.  Construction may commence in the public works maintenance yard, parks maintenance yard, and/or vector control district site after soils are determined by EDCEMD or Lahontan RWQCB to no longer contain contamination.

X Before
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities at public
works maintenance
yard, parks
maintenance yard,
or vector control
district site
City Public
Works
Department or
construction
contractor
City Public
Works
Department

3.13 Noise
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Implement Design Measures to Ensure That Operation of On-Site HVAC Equipment Does Not Expose Off-Site Sensitive Receptors to Noise Levels That Exceed Applicable Standards The City shall implement design measures to ensure that all mechanical building equipment that is part of HVAC systems on the civic center buildings do not expose off-site residential and temporary lodging land uses to exterior noise levels that exceed 55 equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during X Prior to issuance of
building permits
City Public
Works
Department or
project
architect/
engineer
City Public
Works
Department
618
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 5 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure
Applies to
Master
Plan
Applies to
Multigenerational
Center
Timing Implementation Responsible
Entity
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) or 45 Leq during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). The effectiveness of the design measures shall be verified by a qualified acoustical engineer. Measures to achieve these performance standards may include, but shall not be limited to, the following measures:
 Locate HVAC units within equipment rooms or enclosures that incorporate noise reduction features, such as acoustical louvers. Equipment enclosures shall be oriented so that major openings (i.e., intake louvers, exhaust) are directed away from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
 Set back all HVAC units as much as possible from off-site noise-sensitive receptors, including residential and temporary lodging land uses.  Position HVAC units on the opposite side of an on-site buildings from offsite sensitive receptors so that the buildings serve as an intervening noise barrier.
 Design and build sound barriers near all noise-generating HVAC units that enclose mechanical equipment as much as possible and completely block the line of sight between the equipment and off-site residential and temporary lodging land uses. Sound barriers can consist of a wall, earthen berm, or some combination thereof.
619
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 6 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure
Applies to
Master
Plan
Applies to
Multigenerational
Center
Timing Implementation Responsible
Entity
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.18-1: Protect Tribal Cultural Resources in Subsequent Discretionary Projects
If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process required under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.2, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following measures, where feasible and necessary, to address site-specific impacts and avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts:

Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21084.3[a]). If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, provisions in the PRC describe mitigation measures that, if determined by the lead agency to be feasible, may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts (PRC Section 21084.3[b]). Examples include:
 avoiding and preserving the resources in place, including planning and constructing to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria;
 treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including:
 protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource;  protecting the traditional use of the resource;
 protecting the confidentiality of the resource; and
 establishing permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or using the resources or places.

X During
constructionrelated earthmoving activities
City Public
Works
Department,
construction
contractor, or
archaeological
monitor
City Public
Works
Department
620
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 7 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure
Applies to
Master
Plan
Applies to
Multigenerational
Center
Timing Implementation Responsible
Entity
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Mitigation Measure 3.18-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources
If any suspected tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, including midden soil, artifacts, chipped stone, exotic rock (nonnative), or unusual amounts of baked clay, shell, or bone, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find. Appropriate tribal representative(s) shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a tribal cultural resource (pursuant to PRC Section 21074). The tribal representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary.

Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and the tribes’ protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign. Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, returning objects to a location within the project vicinity where they will not be subject to future impacts. The Tribe does not consider curation of tribal cultural resources to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated, unless approved by the Tribe. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a tribal cultural resource may include tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.

X During
constructionrelated earthmoving activities
City Public
Works
Department,
construction
contractor, and
Washoe Tribe of
Nevada and
California
representative
City Public
Works
Department
Mitigation Measure 3.18-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.18-2.

X During
constructionrelated earthmoving activities
City Public
Works
Department,
construction
contractor, and
Washoe Tribe of
Nevada and
California
representative
City Public
Works
Department
621
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental City of South Lake Tahoe
56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project 8 56 Acres Master Plan and Multigenerational Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure
Applies to
Master
Plan
Applies to
Multigenerational
Center
Timing Implementation Responsible
Entity
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure 3.19-1: Ensure Sufficient Fire Flow Capacity in the STPUD Water Supply System
Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, the City shall coordinate with South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) to confirm fire flow water demands for buildout of the Master Plan and confirm the size of the existing water mains. If STPUD confirms that the plan-generated fire flow water demands would exceed the velocity threshold of 10 feet/second in either or both water mains in Rufus Allen Boulevard, then STPUD and the City shall develop plans for and construct improvements to one or both of the water mains such that the STPUD fire flow requirements for the Master Plan (i.e., 2,500 gallons per minute at a velocity of 10 feet/second) would be met. The City shall be responsible for covering the cost of improvements that would be needed to serve buildout of the Master Plan. The plans developed by the City in coordination with STPUD shall identify the timing of the improvements, and that the capacity of the line (or lines) will be available prior to occupancy of the structures served by the water lines.

X Prior to occupancy
of facilities
City Public
Works
Department and
STPUD
City Public
Works
Department
Mitigation Measure 3.19-2: Ensure Sufficient Fire Flow Capacity in the STPUD Water Supply System
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.19-1.

X Prior to occupancy
of the
Multigenerational
Center
City Public
Works
Department and
STPUD
City Public
Works
Department
622
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Emissions Modeling Data
623
56 Acre Master Plan
El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual
Project Characteristics - The GHG EFs are scaled using Liberty Utility's natural gas mix and internsity factor (published by TRPA) for the year 2018.

Land Use - Motel - Cabins - 16 proposed
City Park - Public Park - 3.3 Acre proposed
Arena - Ice Skating - 24.590 ksf
Arena - Outdoor Event Space - 70 ksf
Government (Civic Center) - Government Civic Center - 25 ksf Parking lot - Parking - 296 spaces

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government (Civic Center) 25.00 1000sqft 0.57 25,000.00 0 Parking Lot 617.00 Space 5.55 246,800.00 0
Arena 24.59 1000sqft 7.90 24,590.00 0
Arena 70.00 1000sqft 22.50 70,000.00 0
City Park 3.30 Acre 3.30 143,748.00 0
Motel 16.00 Room 0.72 31,363.20 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
14 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company User Defined
Operational Year 2040
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
127.6 CH4 Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.001
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 624
Construction Phase - The duration of different construction phases is scaled up using the duration of construction phases in the Multigenerational Center.

Trips and VMT -
Grading -
Architectural Coating - SMAQMD recommends using paint with new VOC contents for archetectural coating. For the modeling, Nonflat Coating's VOC limit of 100 g/l is assumed.

Vehicle Trips - As provided by the Traffic study
Vehicle Emission Factors - Using 2021 EMFAC EF
Vehicle Emission Factors - Using 2021 EMFAC EF
Vehicle Emission Factors - Using 2021 EMFAC EF
Area Coating -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Area Mitigation -
Fleet Mix -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 100.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 7.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 14.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 700.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 35.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.006
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 127.6
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.001
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 625
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.23
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.24
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.3520e-003 3.7720e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.3520e-003 3.7740e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.91 0.10
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.34 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 47.81
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.79 40.27
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.54 1.56
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.67 2.94
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.3260e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.4000e-005 9.3500e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.47 3.25
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.4000e-005 9.3500e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.54 3.78
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.3600e-003 3.7710e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 626
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.82 0.10
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.82 0.10
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.34 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.34 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 47.15
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 48.72
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.52 38.47
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.46 1.50
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.67 2.94
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0510e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.7000e-005 1.1430e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.50 3.44
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.7000e-005 1.1430e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.57 4.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.15 42.77
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.57 1.58
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.67 2.94
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.7040e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 627
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.0000e-006 8.9900e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.43 2.99
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.0000e-006 8.9900e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.49 3.48
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 6.5900e-004 1.0900e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 6.5900e-004 1.1860e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.00 0.53
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.38 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.51 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.11 0.18
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 8.3440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.7200e-004 5.8100e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.4500e-004 9.5600e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.97
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.9520e-003 3.3410e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.15
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.97
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.8300e-003 4.8730e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.17
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.6200e-004 1.0480e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.04
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 628
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.00 0.72
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.00 0.49
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.46 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.46 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.10 0.16
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 8.3440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.7200e-004 5.8100e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.4500e-004 9.5600e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.05 1.16
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.2040e-003 3.5550e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.06 0.12
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.05 1.16
tblVehicleEF LDA 3.1970e-003 5.1850e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.07 0.13
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.19
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 8.3440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.7200e-004 5.8100e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.4500e-004 9.5600e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.0840e-003 0.92
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.8750e-003 3.2580e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.17
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.0840e-003 0.92
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.7180e-003 4.7520e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.10 0.19
tblVehicleEF LDT1 7.9700e-004 1.4860e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 629
tblVehicleEF LDT1 7.9700e-004 1.6200e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.05
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.00 0.64
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.41 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.70 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.14 0.25
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.6000e-004 7.6500e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.3400e-004 1.4050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 2.61
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.4650e-003 5.2090e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.10 0.25
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 2.61
tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.5960e-003 7.6000e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.11 0.28
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.2500e-004 1.4290e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.00 0.87
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.00 0.59
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.50 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.50 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.31 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.31 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.13 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.6000e-004 7.6500e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 630
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.3400e-004 1.4050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.10 3.05
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.7970e-003 5.5440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.20
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.10 3.05
tblVehicleEF LDT1 4.0810e-003 8.0900e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.09 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.16 0.27
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.6000e-004 7.6500e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.3400e-004 1.4050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.01 2.51
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.3640e-003 5.0780e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.12 0.29
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.01 2.51
tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.4490e-003 7.4100e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.13 0.31
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0740e-003 1.5050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0740e-003 1.6410e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.05
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.00 0.64
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.48 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.18 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.25
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.9600e-004 6.8700e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 631
tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.1000e-004 1.1500e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 1.79
tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.6310e-003 4.9600e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.14 0.23
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 1.79
tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.2520e-003 7.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.26
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.2430e-003 1.4470e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.06
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.00 0.88
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.00 0.59
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.68 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.68 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.14 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.9600e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.1000e-004 1.1500e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.15 2.07
tblVehicleEF LDT2 4.0880e-003 5.2790e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.11 0.19
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.15 2.07
tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.9180e-003 7.6840e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.12 0.20
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.17 0.28
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.01
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 632
tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.9600e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.1000e-004 1.1500e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 1.72
tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.4920e-003 4.8370e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.27
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 1.72
tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.0480e-003 7.0400e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.18 0.29
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.0890e-003 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.0890e-003 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 3.9710e-003 3.4820e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 3.9710e-003 3.5310e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6930e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6930e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.52
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.38 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.92 2.78
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.61
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.31 0.41
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.23 0.34
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0400e-004 9.4420e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6500e-003 9.3980e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9290e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1400e-004 1.1700e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.6870e-003 2.00
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.26
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 633
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.6870e-003 2.00
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.1070e-003 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.0280e-003 3.4480e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.0160e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.54
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.51
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.38 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.38 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.83 2.78
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.83 2.78
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.61
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.29 0.39
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.22 0.31
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0400e-004 9.4420e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6500e-003 9.3980e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9290e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1400e-004 1.1700e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.7130e-003 2.32
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.26
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.7130e-003 2.32
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.07
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 634
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.61
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.31 0.42
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.25 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0400e-004 9.4420e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6500e-003 9.3980e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9290e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1400e-004 1.1700e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.5100e-004 1.91
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.26
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.5100e-004 1.91
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.7890e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.7890e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.4100e-003 5.8020e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.4100e-003 5.8130e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6240e-003 4.1410e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6240e-003 3.8610e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.47
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.55 0.16
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.36 1.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 1.35
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.53 0.86
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.08 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6220e-003 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 635
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.0000e-005 2.2000e-005
tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.2400e-004 0.50
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.15
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.2400e-004 0.50
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.14
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.7940e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.4310e-003 5.7940e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.4410e-003 4.3300e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.47
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.46
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.55 0.16
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.55 0.16
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.32 1.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.32 1.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 1.35
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.51 0.82
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6220e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.0000e-005 2.2000e-005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 636
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1800e-003 0.57
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.15
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1800e-003 0.57
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.14
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 1.35
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.54 0.87
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.08 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6220e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.0000e-005 2.2000e-005
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6400e-004 0.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.15
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6400e-004 0.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.14
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.34 0.15
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.34 0.16
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.17
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.14
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.00 12.10
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 637
tblVehicleEF MCY 18.37 9.0110e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 10.12 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.18 0.55
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.28 0.11
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.3000e-003 2.1240e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.7220e-003 3.2120e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 5.39
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.30 0.99
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.05 1.32
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 5.39
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.87 1.21
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.24 1.43
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.33 0.15
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.21 0.20
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.00 12.31
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.00 12.11
tblVehicleEF MCY 17.66 9.0110e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 17.66 9.0110e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 8.19 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 8.19 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.00 0.47
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 0.10
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.3000e-003 2.1240e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.7220e-003 3.2120e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 3.88 8.19
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.22 0.99
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.62 1.05
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 638
tblVehicleEF MCY 3.88 8.19
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.77 1.22
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.76 1.14
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.25 0.58
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.30 0.12
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.3000e-003 2.1240e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.7220e-003 3.2120e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 4.74
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.38 0.99
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.37 1.51
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 4.74
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.97 1.21
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.58 1.65
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.1320e-003 1.6610e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.1320e-003 1.8110e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.06
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.05
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.00 0.67
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.49 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 2.30 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.18 0.31
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.7700e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF MDV 9.3600e-004 1.2100e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 1.96
tblVehicleEF MDV 4.0510e-003 5.8760e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.17 0.30
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 639
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 1.96
tblVehicleEF MDV 5.8470e-003 8.5430e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.19 0.32
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3090e-003 1.5970e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.07
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.00 0.92
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.00 0.62
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.76 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.76 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.16 0.28
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.7700e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF MDV 9.3600e-004 1.2100e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 2.29
tblVehicleEF MDV 4.5500e-003 6.2490e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.14 0.23
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 2.29
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.5750e-003 9.0870e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.15 0.26
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.20 0.34
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.7700e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF MDV 9.3600e-004 1.2100e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 1.88
tblVehicleEF MDV 3.8980e-003 5.7310e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 640
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.20 0.33
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 1.88
tblVehicleEF MDV 5.6230e-003 8.3310e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 0.37
tblVehicleEF MH 4.4750e-003 4.9190e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 4.4750e-003 5.0080e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.00 0.29
tblVehicleEF MH 0.26 0.10
tblVehicleEF MH 1.31 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 1.40 1.65
tblVehicleEF MH 0.24 0.35
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 1.6600e-004 1.8400e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.31 2.34
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.06
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.31 2.34
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.08
tblVehicleEF MH 4.5670e-003 4.8540e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.00 0.29
tblVehicleEF MH 0.00 0.28
tblVehicleEF MH 0.27 0.10
tblVehicleEF MH 0.27 0.10
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 641
tblVehicleEF MH 1.15 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 1.15 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 1.32 1.56
tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.32
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 1.6600e-004 1.8400e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.84 2.68
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.06
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.84 2.68
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 1.41 1.67
tblVehicleEF MH 0.26 0.37
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 1.6600e-004 1.8400e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 2.27
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.06
tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.08
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 2.27
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.09
tblVehicleEF MHD 5.2540e-003 0.03
tblVehicleEF MHD 5.2540e-003 0.03
tblVehicleEF MHD 8.8600e-004 6.5200e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 642
tblVehicleEF MHD 8.8600e-004 6.6800e-004
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.7110e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.4530e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.77 0.07
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.20
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.06 8.51
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.72 10.13
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.39 0.38
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.62 1.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.0000e-004 3.0680e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.6630e-003 3.5480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5100e-004 4.8000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 4.9300e-004 0.25
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.27
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 8.2880e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 4.9300e-004 0.25
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.34
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 9.8750e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 4.9940e-003 0.03
tblVehicleEF MHD 9.0800e-004 6.4000e-004
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.8920e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.68 0.07
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.68 0.07
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.20
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.20
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.95 7.95
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 643
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.95 9.11
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.69 9.65
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.32 0.36
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.61 1.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.7700e-004 2.6960e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.6630e-003 3.5480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5100e-004 4.8000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.3670e-003 0.30
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.27
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 8.3430e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.3670e-003 0.30
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.34
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 9.9560e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.77 10.78
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.40 0.39
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.63 1.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.3300e-004 3.5820e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.6630e-003 3.5480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5100e-004 4.8000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.9500e-004 0.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.26
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 8.2480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.9500e-004 0.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.33
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 644
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 9.8160e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.4230e-003 0.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.4230e-003 0.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9710e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9710e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 3.8000e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 3.5110e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.73 0.28
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.24 0.21
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.81 8.80
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.49 4.27
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.44 1.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.09 0.99
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.6500e-004 4.2280e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.8800e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.8200e-004 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3060e-003 0.46
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.56
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3060e-003 0.46
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.72
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.5540e-003 0.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 2.0390e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 3.9900e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 645
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.72 0.29
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.72 0.28
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.25 0.21
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.25 0.21
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.59 8.68
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.59 8.97
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.46 4.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.36 1.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.07 0.99
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4600e-004 3.6880e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.8800e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.8200e-004 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.5810e-003 0.56
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.59
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.08 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.5810e-003 0.56
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.75
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.52 4.53
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.45 1.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.10 0.99
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9000e-004 4.9730e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.8800e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.8200e-004 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.3600e-004 0.44
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 646
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.52
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.3600e-004 0.44
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.68
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.10 0.02
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.46
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.46
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1720e-003 8.3300e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1720e-003 8.4800e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3740e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3740e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.47 0.09
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.13 0.18
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.62 20.81
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.37 8.77
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.32 0.59
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.93 0.72
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.1200e-004 2.6010e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1380e-003 4.2820e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5000e-005 1.3600e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.4000e-004 0.78
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.23 2.11
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.07
tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.4000e-004 0.78
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 647
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.33 3.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.08
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.46
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1980e-003 8.2300e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.4260e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.46 0.09
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.46 0.09
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.18
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.18
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.40 20.72
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.40 20.93
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.32 8.42
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.25 0.56
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.93 0.71
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.6200e-004 2.2800e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1380e-003 4.2820e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5000e-005 1.3600e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.0380e-003 0.96
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.23 2.12
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.0380e-003 0.96
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.33 3.05
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.45 9.24
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 648
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.34 0.60
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.93 0.73
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.8300e-004 3.0440e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1380e-003 4.2820e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5000e-005 1.3600e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.0600e-004 0.75
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.23 2.10
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.08
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.0600e-004 0.75
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 3.03
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.09
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 2.8350e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 2.8350e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.00 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.21 0.22
tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.97 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.46 0.33
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.28 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.10 0.11
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6360e-003 6.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.4200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4600e-003 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 649
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.16 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4600e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.05 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 2.8350e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.00 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.00 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.22 0.22
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.22 0.22
tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.25 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.25 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.45 0.33
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.26 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.10 0.11
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6360e-003 6.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.4200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.3320e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.13 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.3320e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.15 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.47 0.33
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.30 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.10 0.11
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.03
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 650
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6360e-003 6.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.4200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.0200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 0.06
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.0200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.05 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 4.28
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 47.40
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 4.28
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 47.40
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 4.28
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 47.40
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 10.71 2.37
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 136.12
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 8.98
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 3.35 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 10.71 2.37
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 136.12
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 8.98
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 3.35 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 10.71 2.37
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 651

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2025 0.3201 2.4507 3.2490 8.6500e0030.5292 0.0798 0.6090 0.1677 0.0748 0.2426 0.0000 781.5479 781.5479 0.0884 0.0368 794.7162 2026 0.3085 2.3261 3.1894 8.6400e0030.4279 0.0738 0.5016 0.1154 0.0694 0.1848 0.0000 781.7087 781.7087 0.0779 0.0388 795.2194 2027 0.8647 1.9206 2.6919 7.0200e0030.3369 0.0641 0.4010 0.0908 0.0602 0.1511 0.0000 633.1874 633.1874 0.0706 0.0289 643.5739 2028 0.1809 4.9400e0030.0123 3.0000e0052.2000e0032.2000e0042.4200e0035.9000e0042.1000e0048.0000e0040.0000 2.5396 2.5396 9.0000e0054.0000e0052.5526 Maximum 0.8647 2.4507 3.2490 8.6500e0030.5292 0.0798 0.6090 0.1677 0.0748 0.2426 0.0000 781.7087 781.7087 0.0884 0.0388 795.2194 Unmitigated Construction
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 136.12
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 33.98 8.98
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 3.35 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 652

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2025 0.3201 2.4507 3.2490 8.6500e0030.5292 0.0798 0.6090 0.1677 0.0748 0.2426 0.0000 781.5475 781.5475 0.0884 0.0368 794.7158 2026 0.3085 2.3261 3.1894 8.6400e0030.4279 0.0738 0.5016 0.1154 0.0694 0.1848 0.0000 781.7083 781.7083 0.0779 0.0388 795.2191 2027 0.8647 1.9206 2.6919 7.0200e0030.3369 0.0641 0.4010 0.0908 0.0602 0.1511 0.0000 633.1871 633.1871 0.0706 0.0289 643.5736 2028 0.1809 4.9400e0030.0123 3.0000e0052.2000e0032.2000e0042.4200e0035.9000e0042.1000e0048.0000e0040.0000 2.5396 2.5396 9.0000e0054.0000e0052.5526 Maximum 0.8647 2.4507 3.2490 8.6500e0030.5292 0.0798 0.6090 0.1677 0.0748 0.2426 0.0000 781.7083 781.7083 0.0884 0.0388 795.2191 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2025 3-31-2025 0.7613 0.7613
2 4-1-2025 6-30-2025 0.6596 0.6596
3 7-1-2025 9-30-2025 0.6668 0.6668
4 10-1-2025 12-31-2025 0.6794 0.6794
5 1-1-2026 3-31-2026 0.6553 0.6553
6 4-1-2026 6-30-2026 0.6507 0.6507
7 7-1-2026 9-30-2026 0.6579 0.6579
8 10-1-2026 12-31-2026 0.6698 0.6698
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 653
9 1-1-2027 3-31-2027 0.6466 0.6466
10 4-1-2027 6-30-2027 0.6426 0.6426
11 7-1-2027 9-30-2027 0.6496 0.6496
12 10-1-2027 12-31-2027 0.8326 0.8326
13 1-1-2028 3-31-2028 0.1992 0.1992
Highest 0.8326 0.8326

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7910 6.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144 Energy 7.8600e0030.0715 0.0600 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 134.4947 134.4947 4.1600e0031.8700e003135.1561 Mobile 0.7385 0.2622 0.5160 2.0100e0030.2337 1.6700e0030.2354 0.0680 1.1500e0030.0692 0.0000 185.1196 185.1196 0.1590 0.0131 192.9887 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.2890 0.0000 31.2890 1.8491 0.0000 77.5172 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.6314 16.3927 31.0241 1.5036 0.0356 79.2255 Total 1.5373 0.3337 0.5829 2.4400e0030.2337 7.1200e0030.2408 0.0680 6.6000e0030.0746 45.9204 336.0205 381.9409 3.5159 0.0506 484.9018 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 654

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7910 6.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144 Energy 7.8600e0030.0715 0.0600 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 134.4947 134.4947 4.1600e0031.8700e003135.1561 Mobile 0.7385 0.2622 0.5160 2.0100e0030.2337 1.6700e0030.2354 0.0680 1.1500e0030.0692 0.0000 185.1196 185.1196 0.1590 0.0131 192.9887 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 31.2890 0.0000 31.2890 1.8491 0.0000 77.5172 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.6314 16.3927 31.0241 1.5036 0.0356 79.2255 Total 1.5373 0.3337 0.5829 2.4400e0030.2337 7.1200e0030.2408 0.0680 6.6000e0030.0746 45.9204 336.0205 381.9409 3.5159 0.0506 484.9018 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2025 1/9/2025 5 7 2 Grading Grading 1/10/2025 1/29/2025 5 14
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/30/2025 10/6/2027 5 700 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 655
4 Paving Paving 10/7/2027 11/24/2027 5 35
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/25/2027 1/12/2028 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 226,430; Non-Residential Outdoor: 75,477; Striped Parking Area: 14,808 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 10.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 42
Acres of Paving: 5.55
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 656

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0688 0.0000 0.0688 0.0354 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.6500e0030.0883 0.0627 1.3000e0043.8000e0033.8000e0033.5000e0033.5000e0030.0000 11.7135 11.7135 3.7900e0030.0000 11.8082 Total 8.6500e0030.0883 0.0627 1.3000e0040.0688 3.8000e0030.0726 0.0354 3.5000e0030.0389 0.0000 11.7135 11.7135 3.7900e0030.0000 11.8082 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 225.00 89.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 45.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 657

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.1500e0031.0000e0057.7000e0040.0000 7.8000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.1000e0040.0000 0.5799 0.5799 1.0000e0052.0000e0050.5848 Total 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.1500e0031.0000e0057.7000e0040.0000 7.8000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.1000e0040.0000 0.5799 0.5799 1.0000e0052.0000e0050.5848 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0688 0.0000 0.0688 0.0354 0.0000 0.0354 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.6500e0030.0883 0.0627 1.3000e0043.8000e0033.8000e0033.5000e0033.5000e0030.0000 11.7134 11.7134 3.7900e0030.0000 11.8081 Total 8.6500e0030.0883 0.0627 1.3000e0040.0688 3.8000e0030.0726 0.0354 3.5000e0030.0389 0.0000 11.7134 11.7134 3.7900e0030.0000 11.8081 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 658

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.1500e0031.0000e0057.7000e0040.0000 7.8000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.1000e0040.0000 0.5799 0.5799 1.0000e0052.0000e0050.5848 Total 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.1500e0031.0000e0057.7000e0040.0000 7.8000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.1000e0040.0000 0.5799 0.5799 1.0000e0052.0000e0050.5848 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0644 0.0000 0.0644 0.0256 0.0000 0.0256 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0203 0.1956 0.1843 4.3000e0047.9200e0037.9200e0037.2800e0037.2800e0030.0000 38.1544 38.1544 0.0123 0.0000 38.4629 Total 0.0203 0.1956 0.1843 4.3000e0040.0644 7.9200e0030.0724 0.0256 7.2800e0030.0329 0.0000 38.1544 38.1544 0.0123 0.0000 38.4629 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 659

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.8000e0043.7000e0044.7800e0031.0000e0051.7100e0031.0000e0051.7200e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.2886 1.2886 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2995 Total 5.8000e0043.7000e0044.7800e0031.0000e0051.7100e0031.0000e0051.7200e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.2886 1.2886 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2995 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0644 0.0000 0.0644 0.0256 0.0000 0.0256 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0203 0.1956 0.1843 4.3000e0047.9200e0037.9200e0037.2800e0037.2800e0030.0000 38.1543 38.1543 0.0123 0.0000 38.4628 Total 0.0203 0.1956 0.1843 4.3000e0040.0644 7.9200e0030.0724 0.0256 7.2800e0030.0329 0.0000 38.1543 38.1543 0.0123 0.0000 38.4628 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 660

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.8000e0043.7000e0044.7800e0031.0000e0051.7100e0031.0000e0051.7200e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.2886 1.2886 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2995 Total 5.8000e0043.7000e0044.7800e0031.0000e0051.7100e0031.0000e0051.7200e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.2886 1.2886 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2995 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1641 1.4964 1.9302 3.2400e0030.0633 0.0633 0.0596 0.0596 0.0000 278.3033 278.3033 0.0654 0.0000 279.9389 Total 0.1641 1.4964 1.9302 3.2400e0030.0633 0.0633 0.0596 0.0596 0.0000 278.3033 278.3033 0.0654 0.0000 279.9389 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 661

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0135 0.5982 0.1423 2.1200e0030.0630 3.1000e0030.0661 0.0182 2.9600e0030.0212 0.0000 202.9995 202.9995 6.5000e0040.0302 212.0114 Worker 0.1127 0.0716 0.9226 2.7100e0030.3305 1.6600e0030.3322 0.0879 1.5300e0030.0895 0.0000 248.5089 248.5089 6.1000e0036.5400e003250.6107 Total 0.1262 0.6698 1.0649 4.8300e0030.3935 4.7600e0030.3982 0.1061 4.4900e0030.1106 0.0000 451.5084 451.5084 6.7500e0030.0367 462.6222 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1641 1.4964 1.9302 3.2400e0030.0633 0.0633 0.0596 0.0596 0.0000 278.3030 278.3030 0.0654 0.0000 279.9385 Total 0.1641 1.4964 1.9302 3.2400e0030.0633 0.0633 0.0596 0.0596 0.0000 278.3030 278.3030 0.0654 0.0000 279.9385 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 662

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0135 0.5982 0.1423 2.1200e0030.0630 3.1000e0030.0661 0.0182 2.9600e0030.0212 0.0000 202.9995 202.9995 6.5000e0040.0302 212.0114 Worker 0.1127 0.0716 0.9226 2.7100e0030.3305 1.6600e0030.3322 0.0879 1.5300e0030.0895 0.0000 248.5089 248.5089 6.1000e0036.5400e003250.6107 Total 0.1262 0.6698 1.0649 4.8300e0030.3935 4.7600e0030.3982 0.1061 4.4900e0030.1106 0.0000 451.5084 451.5084 6.7500e0030.0367 462.6222 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Total 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 663

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0143 0.6286 0.1530 2.2700e0030.0685 3.2100e0030.0717 0.0198 3.0700e0030.0229 0.0000 216.9994 216.9994 6.9000e0040.0321 226.5938 Worker 0.1158 0.0702 0.9374 2.8600e0030.3594 1.7000e0030.3611 0.0956 1.5700e0030.0972 0.0000 262.0545 262.0545 6.0300e0036.6700e003264.1921 Total 0.1301 0.6988 1.0904 5.1300e0030.4279 4.9100e0030.4328 0.1154 4.6400e0030.1201 0.0000 479.0538 479.0538 6.7200e0030.0388 490.7859 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Total 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 664

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0143 0.6286 0.1530 2.2700e0030.0685 3.2100e0030.0717 0.0198 3.0700e0030.0229 0.0000 216.9994 216.9994 6.9000e0040.0321 226.5938 Worker 0.1158 0.0702 0.9374 2.8600e0030.3594 1.7000e0030.3611 0.0956 1.5700e0030.0972 0.0000 262.0545 262.0545 6.0300e0036.6700e003264.1921 Total 0.1301 0.6988 1.0904 5.1300e0030.4279 4.9100e0030.4328 0.1154 4.6400e0030.1201 0.0000 479.0538 479.0538 6.7200e0030.0388 490.7859 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1361 1.2407 1.6004 2.6800e0030.0525 0.0525 0.0494 0.0494 0.0000 230.7599 230.7599 0.0542 0.0000 232.1160 Total 0.1361 1.2407 1.6004 2.6800e0030.0525 0.0525 0.0494 0.0494 0.0000 230.7599 230.7599 0.0542 0.0000 232.1160 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 665

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0106 0.4638 0.1155 1.7000e0030.0522 2.3400e0030.0546 0.0151 2.2400e0030.0173 0.0000 162.3503 162.3503 5.1000e0040.0240 169.5004 Worker 0.0833 0.0485 0.6704 2.1200e0030.2740 1.2200e0030.2753 0.0729 1.1200e0030.0740 0.0000 194.0555 194.0555 4.1900e0034.7900e003195.5882 Total 0.0939 0.5123 0.7859 3.8200e0030.3263 3.5600e0030.3298 0.0880 3.3600e0030.0914 0.0000 356.4058 356.4058 4.7000e0030.0287 365.0886 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1361 1.2407 1.6004 2.6800e0030.0525 0.0525 0.0494 0.0494 0.0000 230.7596 230.7596 0.0542 0.0000 232.1157 Total 0.1361 1.2407 1.6004 2.6800e0030.0525 0.0525 0.0494 0.0494 0.0000 230.7596 230.7596 0.0542 0.0000 232.1157 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 43 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 666

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0106 0.4638 0.1155 1.7000e0030.0522 2.3400e0030.0546 0.0151 2.2400e0030.0173 0.0000 162.3503 162.3503 5.1000e0040.0240 169.5004 Worker 0.0833 0.0485 0.6704 2.1200e0030.2740 1.2200e0030.2753 0.0729 1.1200e0030.0740 0.0000 194.0555 194.0555 4.1900e0034.7900e003195.5882 Total 0.0939 0.5123 0.7859 3.8200e0030.3263 3.5600e0030.3298 0.0880 3.3600e0030.0914 0.0000 356.4058 356.4058 4.7000e0030.0287 365.0886 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0160 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3170 Paving 7.2700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0233 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3170 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 44 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 667

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.8000e0045.7000e0047.8600e0032.0000e0053.2100e0031.0000e0053.2300e0038.5000e0041.0000e0058.7000e0040.0000 2.2754 2.2754 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.2933 Total 9.8000e0045.7000e0047.8600e0032.0000e0053.2100e0031.0000e0053.2300e0038.5000e0041.0000e0058.7000e0040.0000 2.2754 2.2754 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.2933 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0160 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3169 Paving 7.2700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0233 0.1502 0.2551 4.0000e0047.3200e0037.3200e0036.7400e0036.7400e0030.0000 35.0337 35.0337 0.0113 0.0000 35.3169 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 45 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 668

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.8000e0045.7000e0047.8600e0032.0000e0053.2100e0031.0000e0053.2300e0038.5000e0041.0000e0058.7000e0040.0000 2.2754 2.2754 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.2933 Total 9.8000e0045.7000e0047.8600e0032.0000e0053.2100e0031.0000e0053.2300e0038.5000e0041.0000e0058.7000e0040.0000 2.2754 2.2754 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.2933 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6059 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3100e0030.0155 0.0244 4.0000e0057.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e0040.0000 3.4516 Total 0.6082 0.0155 0.0244 4.0000e0057.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e0040.0000 3.4516 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 46 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 669

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2600e0031.3200e0030.0182 6.0000e0057.4400e0033.0000e0057.4700e0031.9800e0033.0000e0052.0100e0030.0000 5.2658 5.2658 1.1000e0041.3000e0045.3074 Total 2.2600e0031.3200e0030.0182 6.0000e0057.4400e0033.0000e0057.4700e0031.9800e0033.0000e0052.0100e0030.0000 5.2658 5.2658 1.1000e0041.3000e0045.3074 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6059 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3100e0030.0155 0.0244 4.0000e0057.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e0040.0000 3.4516 Total 0.6082 0.0155 0.0244 4.0000e0057.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e0040.0000 3.4516 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 47 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 670

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2600e0031.3200e0030.0182 6.0000e0057.4400e0033.0000e0057.4700e0031.9800e0033.0000e0052.0100e0030.0000 5.2658 5.2658 1.1000e0041.3000e0045.3074 Total 2.2600e0031.3200e0030.0182 6.0000e0057.4400e0033.0000e0057.4700e0031.9800e0033.0000e0052.0100e0030.0000 5.2658 5.2658 1.1000e0041.3000e0045.3074 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1795 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8000e0044.5800e0037.2400e0031.0000e0052.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0040.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 1.0227 Total 0.1802 4.5800e0037.2400e0031.0000e0052.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0040.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 1.0227 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 48 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 671

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3000e0043.6000e0045.0900e0032.0000e0052.2000e0031.0000e0052.2100e0035.9000e0041.0000e0055.9000e0040.0000 1.5183 1.5183 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.5299 Total 6.3000e0043.6000e0045.0900e0032.0000e0052.2000e0031.0000e0052.2100e0035.9000e0041.0000e0055.9000e0040.0000 1.5183 1.5183 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.5299 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1795 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8000e0044.5800e0037.2400e0031.0000e0052.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0040.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 1.0227 Total 0.1802 4.5800e0037.2400e0031.0000e0052.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0040.0000 1.0213 1.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 1.0227 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 49 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 672

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3000e0043.6000e0045.0900e0032.0000e0052.2000e0031.0000e0052.2100e0035.9000e0041.0000e0055.9000e0040.0000 1.5183 1.5183 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.5299 Total 6.3000e0043.6000e0045.0900e0032.0000e0052.2000e0031.0000e0052.2100e0035.9000e0041.0000e0055.9000e0040.0000 1.5183 1.5183 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.5299 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 50 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 673
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7385 0.2622 0.5160 2.0100e0030.2337 1.6700e0030.2354 0.0680 1.1500e0030.0692 0.0000 185.1196 185.1196 0.1590 0.0131 192.9887 Unmitigated 0.7385 0.2622 0.5160 2.0100e0030.2337 1.6700e0030.2354 0.0680 1.1500e0030.0692 0.0000 185.1196 185.1196 0.1590 0.0131 192.9887

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Arena 58.28 58.28 58.28 66,406 66,406
Arena 165.90 165.90 165.90 189,037 189,037
City Park 449.20 449.20 449.20 311,318 311,318
Government (Civic Center) 224.50 224.50 224.50 125,601 125,601 Motel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 897.87 897.87 897.87 692,362 692,362
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Arena 4.28 4.28 4.28 0.00 81.00 19.00 66 28 6
Arena 4.28 4.28 4.28 0.00 81.00 19.00 66 28 6
City Park 2.60 2.60 2.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Government (Civic Center) 2.60 2.60 2.60 75.00 20.00 5.00 50 34 16 Motel 47.40 47.40 47.40 19.00 62.00 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 51 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 674

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Arena 0.493892 0.059218 0.219804 0.141013 0.027602 0.005981 0.012190 0.004071 0.000638 0.000674 0.030860 0.000950 0.003108 City Park 0.493892 0.059218 0.219804 0.141013 0.027602 0.005981 0.012190 0.004071 0.000638 0.000674 0.030860 0.000950 0.003108 Government (Civic Center) 0.493892 0.059218 0.219804 0.141013 0.027602 0.005981 0.012190 0.004071 0.000638 0.000674 0.030860 0.000950 0.003108 Motel 0.493892 0.059218 0.219804 0.141013 0.027602 0.005981 0.012190 0.004071 0.000638 0.000674 0.030860 0.000950 0.003108 Parking Lot 0.493892 0.059218 0.219804 0.141013 0.027602 0.005981 0.012190 0.004071 0.000638 0.000674 0.030860 0.000950 0.003108

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 56.7169 56.7169 2.6700e0034.4000e00456.9161 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 56.7169 56.7169 2.6700e0034.4000e00456.9161 NaturalGas
Mitigated

7.8600e0030.0715 0.0600 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.7778 77.7778 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2400 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

7.8600e0030.0715 0.0600 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.7778 77.7778 1.4900e0031.4300e00378.2400

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 52 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 675

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Arena 85573.2 4.6000e0044.1900e0033.5200e0033.0000e0053.2000e0043.2000e0043.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 4.5665 4.5665 9.0000e0058.0000e0054.5937 Arena 243600 1.3100e0030.0119 0.0100 7.0000e0059.1000e0049.1000e0049.1000e0049.1000e0040.0000 12.9994 12.9994 2.5000e0042.4000e00413.0767 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Government
(Civic Center)
483500 2.6100e0030.0237 0.0199 1.4000e0041.8000e0031.8000e0031.8000e0031.8000e0030.0000 25.8014 25.8014 4.9000e0044.7000e00425.9547 Motel 644827 3.4800e0030.0316 0.0266 1.9000e0042.4000e0032.4000e0032.4000e0032.4000e0030.0000 34.4105 34.4105 6.6000e0046.3000e00434.6149 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8600e0030.0714 0.0600 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.7778 77.7778 1.4900e0031.4200e00378.2400 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 53 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 676

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Arena 243600 1.3100e0030.0119 0.0100 7.0000e0059.1000e0049.1000e0049.1000e0049.1000e0040.0000 12.9994 12.9994 2.5000e0042.4000e00413.0767 Arena 85573.2 4.6000e0044.1900e0033.5200e0033.0000e0053.2000e0043.2000e0043.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 4.5665 4.5665 9.0000e0058.0000e0054.5937 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Government
(Civic Center)
483500 2.6100e0030.0237 0.0199 1.4000e0041.8000e0031.8000e0031.8000e0031.8000e0030.0000 25.8014 25.8014 4.9000e0044.7000e00425.9547 Motel 644827 3.4800e0030.0316 0.0266 1.9000e0042.4000e0032.4000e0032.4000e0032.4000e0030.0000 34.4105 34.4105 6.6000e0046.3000e00434.6149 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8600e0030.0714 0.0600 4.3000e0045.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0035.4300e0030.0000 77.7778 77.7778 1.4900e0031.4200e00378.2400 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 54 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 677

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Arena 103770 6.0060 2.8000e0045.0000e0056.0271
Arena 295400 17.0973 8.0000e0041.3000e00417.1573
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Government
(Civic Center)
267000 15.4535 7.3000e0041.2000e00415.5078
Motel 227383 13.1606 6.2000e0041.0000e00413.2068
Parking Lot 86380 4.9995 2.4000e0044.0000e0055.0171
Total 56.7170 2.6700e0034.4000e00456.9161
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 55 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 678

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Arena 103770 6.0060 2.8000e0045.0000e0056.0271
Arena 295400 17.0973 8.0000e0041.3000e00417.1573
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Government
(Civic Center)
267000 15.4535 7.3000e0041.2000e00415.5078
Motel 227383 13.1606 6.2000e0041.0000e00413.2068
Parking Lot 86380 4.9995 2.4000e0044.0000e0055.0171
Total 56.7170 2.6700e0034.4000e00456.9161
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 56 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 679
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7910 6.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144 Unmitigated 0.7910 6.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1835 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.6069 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.3000e0046.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144 Total 0.7910 6.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 57 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 680

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1835 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.6069 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.3000e0046.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144 Total 0.7910 6.0000e0056.9000e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0135 0.0135 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0144 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 58 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 681
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 31.0241 1.5036 0.0356 79.2255
Unmitigated 31.0241 1.5036 0.0356 79.2255

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Arena 40.7465 /

2.60084

26.2149 1.3284 0.0315 68.7971
City Park 0 /

3.93189

0.7965 4.0000e0051.0000e0050.7993
Government
(Civic Center)

4.96649 /

3.04398

3.7477 0.1619 3.8400e0038.9399
Motel 0.405868 /

0.0450965

0.2650 0.0132 3.1000e0040.6892
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 31.0241 1.5036 0.0356 79.2255
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 59 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 682

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Arena 40.7465 /

2.60084

26.2149 1.3284 0.0315 68.7971
City Park 0 /

3.93189

0.7965 4.0000e0051.0000e0050.7993
Government
(Civic Center)

4.96649 /

3.04398

3.7477 0.1619 3.8400e0038.9399
Motel 0.405868 /

0.0450965

0.2650 0.0132 3.1000e0040.6892
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 31.0241 1.5036 0.0356 79.2255
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 60 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 683
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 31.2890 1.8491 0.0000 77.5172
Unmitigated 31.2890 1.8491 0.0000 77.5172
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Arena 2.6 0.5278 0.0312 0.0000 1.3075
City Park 0.28 0.0568 3.3600e0030.0000 0.1408
Government
(Civic Center)
142.5 28.9262 1.7095 0.0000 71.6635
Motel 8.76 1.7782 0.1051 0.0000 4.4054
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 31.2890 1.8491 0.0000 77.5172
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 61 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 684

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Arena 2.6 0.5278 0.0312 0.0000 1.3075
City Park 0.28 0.0568 3.3600e0030.0000 0.1408
Government
(Civic Center)
142.5 28.9262 1.7095 0.0000 71.6635
Motel 8.76 1.7782 0.1051 0.0000 4.4054
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 31.2890 1.8491 0.0000 77.5172
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 62 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 685

11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 63 of 63 Date: 11/3/2021 2:02 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 686
56 Acre Master Plan
El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer
Project Characteristics - The GHG EFs are scaled using Liberty Utility's natural gas mix and internsity factor (published by TRPA) for the year 2018.

Land Use - Motel - Cabins - 16 proposed
City Park - Public Park - 3.3 Acre proposed
Arena - Ice Skating - 24.590 ksf
Arena - Outdoor Event Space - 70 ksf
Government (Civic Center) - Government Civic Center - 25 ksf Parking lot - Parking - 296 spaces

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government (Civic Center) 25.00 1000sqft 0.57 25,000.00 0 Parking Lot 617.00 Space 5.55 246,800.00 0
Arena 24.59 1000sqft 7.90 24,590.00 0
Arena 70.00 1000sqft 22.50 70,000.00 0
City Park 3.30 Acre 3.30 143,748.00 0
Motel 16.00 Room 0.72 31,363.20 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
14 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company User Defined
Operational Year 2040
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
127.6 CH4 Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.001
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 687
Construction Phase - The duration of different construction phases is scaled up using the duration of construction phases in the Multigenerational Center.

Trips and VMT -
Grading -
Architectural Coating - SMAQMD recommends using paint with new VOC contents for archetectural coating. For the modeling, Nonflat Coating's VOC limit of 100 g/l is assumed.

Vehicle Trips - As provided by the Traffic study
Vehicle Emission Factors - Using 2021 EMFAC EF
Vehicle Emission Factors - Using 2021 EMFAC EF
Vehicle Emission Factors - Using 2021 EMFAC EF
Area Coating -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Area Mitigation -
Fleet Mix -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 100.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 7.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 14.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 700.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 35.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 35.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.006
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 127.6
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.001
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 688
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.23
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.24
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.3520e-003 3.7720e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.3520e-003 3.7740e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.91 0.10
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.34 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 47.81
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.79 40.27
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.54 1.56
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.67 2.94
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.3260e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.4000e-005 9.3500e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.47 3.25
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.4000e-005 9.3500e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.54 3.78
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.3600e-003 3.7710e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 689
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.82 0.10
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.82 0.10
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.34 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.34 0.22
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 47.15
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 48.72
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.52 38.47
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.46 1.50
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.67 2.94
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0510e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.7000e-005 1.1430e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.50 3.44
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.7000e-005 1.1430e-003
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.57 4.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.15 42.77
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.57 1.58
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.67 2.94
tblVehicleEF HHD 2.7040e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 690
tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.0000e-006 8.9900e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.43 2.99
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 6.0000e-006 8.9900e-004
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.49 3.48
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02
tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 6.5900e-004 1.0900e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 6.5900e-004 1.1860e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.00 0.53
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.38 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.51 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.11 0.18
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 8.3440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.7200e-004 5.8100e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.4500e-004 9.5600e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.97
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.9520e-003 3.3410e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.15
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.97
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.8300e-003 4.8730e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.17
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.6200e-004 1.0480e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.04
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 691
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.00 0.72
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.00 0.49
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.46 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.46 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.10 0.16
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 8.3440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.7200e-004 5.8100e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.4500e-004 9.5600e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.05 1.16
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.2040e-003 3.5550e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.06 0.12
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.05 1.16
tblVehicleEF LDA 3.1970e-003 5.1850e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.07 0.13
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.19
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 8.3440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.7200e-004 5.8100e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 7.4500e-004 9.5600e-004
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.0840e-003 0.92
tblVehicleEF LDA 1.8750e-003 3.2580e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.17
tblVehicleEF LDA 5.0840e-003 0.92
tblVehicleEF LDA 2.7180e-003 4.7520e-003
tblVehicleEF LDA 0.10 0.19
tblVehicleEF LDT1 7.9700e-004 1.4860e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 692
tblVehicleEF LDT1 7.9700e-004 1.6200e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.05
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.00 0.64
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.41 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.70 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.14 0.25
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.6000e-004 7.6500e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.3400e-004 1.4050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 2.61
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.4650e-003 5.2090e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.10 0.25
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 2.61
tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.5960e-003 7.6000e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.11 0.28
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.2500e-004 1.4290e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.00 0.87
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.00 0.59
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.50 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.50 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.31 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.31 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.13 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.6000e-004 7.6500e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 693
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.3400e-004 1.4050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.10 3.05
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.7970e-003 5.5440e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.20
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.10 3.05
tblVehicleEF LDT1 4.0810e-003 8.0900e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.09 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.16 0.27
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.6000e-004 7.6500e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.3400e-004 1.4050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.01 2.51
tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.3640e-003 5.0780e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.12 0.29
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.01 2.51
tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.4490e-003 7.4100e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.13 0.31
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0740e-003 1.5050e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0740e-003 1.6410e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.05
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.00 0.64
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.48 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.18 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.25
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.9600e-004 6.8700e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 694
tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.1000e-004 1.1500e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 1.79
tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.6310e-003 4.9600e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.14 0.23
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 1.79
tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.2520e-003 7.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.26
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.2430e-003 1.4470e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.06
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.00 0.88
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.00 0.59
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.68 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.68 0.00
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.14 0.22
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.9600e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.1000e-004 1.1500e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.15 2.07
tblVehicleEF LDT2 4.0880e-003 5.2790e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.11 0.19
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.15 2.07
tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.9180e-003 7.6840e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.12 0.20
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.17 0.28
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.01
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 695
tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.9600e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.1000e-004 1.1500e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 1.72
tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.4920e-003 4.8370e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.27
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 1.72
tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.0480e-003 7.0400e-003
tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.18 0.29
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.0890e-003 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.0890e-003 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 3.9710e-003 3.4820e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 3.9710e-003 3.5310e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6930e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6930e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.52
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.38 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.92 2.78
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.61
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.31 0.41
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.23 0.34
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0400e-004 9.4420e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6500e-003 9.3980e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9290e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1400e-004 1.1700e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.6870e-003 2.00
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.26
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 696
tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.6870e-003 2.00
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.1070e-003 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.0280e-003 3.4480e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.0160e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.54
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.51
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.38 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.38 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.83 2.78
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.83 2.78
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.61
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.29 0.39
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.22 0.31
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0400e-004 9.4420e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6500e-003 9.3980e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9290e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1400e-004 1.1700e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.7130e-003 2.32
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.26
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.7130e-003 2.32
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.07
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 697
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.61
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.31 0.42
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.25 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0400e-004 9.4420e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6500e-003 9.3980e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9290e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1400e-004 1.1700e-004
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.5100e-004 1.91
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.26
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.5100e-004 1.91
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.36
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.06
tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.10
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.7890e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.7890e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.4100e-003 5.8020e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.4100e-003 5.8130e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6240e-003 4.1410e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6240e-003 3.8610e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.47
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.55 0.16
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.36 1.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 1.35
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.53 0.86
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.08 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6220e-003 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 698
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.0000e-005 2.2000e-005
tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.2400e-004 0.50
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.15
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.2400e-004 0.50
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.14
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.7940e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.4310e-003 5.7940e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.4410e-003 4.3300e-003
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.47
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.46
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.55 0.16
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.55 0.16
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.32 1.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.32 1.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 1.35
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.51 0.82
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.08
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6220e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.0000e-005 2.2000e-005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 699
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1800e-003 0.57
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.15
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1800e-003 0.57
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.14
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 1.35
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.54 0.87
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.08 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6220e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.0000e-005 2.2000e-005
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6400e-004 0.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.15
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6400e-004 0.49
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.18
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.14
tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.34 0.15
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.34 0.16
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.17
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.14
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.00 12.10
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 700
tblVehicleEF MCY 18.37 9.0110e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 10.12 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.18 0.55
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.28 0.11
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.3000e-003 2.1240e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.7220e-003 3.2120e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 5.39
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.30 0.99
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.05 1.32
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 5.39
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.87 1.21
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.24 1.43
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.33 0.15
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.21 0.20
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.00 12.31
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.00 12.11
tblVehicleEF MCY 17.66 9.0110e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 17.66 9.0110e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 8.19 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 8.19 0.00
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.00 0.47
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 0.10
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.3000e-003 2.1240e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.7220e-003 3.2120e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 3.88 8.19
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.22 0.99
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.62 1.05
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 701
tblVehicleEF MCY 3.88 8.19
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.77 1.22
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.76 1.14
tblVehicleEF MCY 1.25 0.58
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.30 0.12
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.3000e-003 2.1240e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.7220e-003 3.2120e-003
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 4.74
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.38 0.99
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.37 1.51
tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 4.74
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.97 1.21
tblVehicleEF MCY 2.58 1.65
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.1320e-003 1.6610e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.1320e-003 1.8110e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.06
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.05
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.00 0.67
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.49 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 2.30 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.18 0.31
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.7700e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF MDV 9.3600e-004 1.2100e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 1.96
tblVehicleEF MDV 4.0510e-003 5.8760e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.17 0.30
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 702
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 1.96
tblVehicleEF MDV 5.8470e-003 8.5430e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.19 0.32
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3090e-003 1.5970e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.07
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.00 0.92
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.00 0.62
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.58 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.76 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 1.76 0.00
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.16 0.28
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.7700e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF MDV 9.3600e-004 1.2100e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 2.29
tblVehicleEF MDV 4.5500e-003 6.2490e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.14 0.23
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 2.29
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.5750e-003 9.0870e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.15 0.26
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.20 0.34
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.01
tblVehicleEF MDV 6.7700e-004 6.8700e-004
tblVehicleEF MDV 9.3600e-004 1.2100e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 1.88
tblVehicleEF MDV 3.8980e-003 5.7310e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 703
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.20 0.33
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 1.88
tblVehicleEF MDV 5.6230e-003 8.3310e-003
tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 0.37
tblVehicleEF MH 4.4750e-003 4.9190e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 4.4750e-003 5.0080e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.00 0.29
tblVehicleEF MH 0.26 0.10
tblVehicleEF MH 1.31 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 1.40 1.65
tblVehicleEF MH 0.24 0.35
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 1.6600e-004 1.8400e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.31 2.34
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.06
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.31 2.34
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.08
tblVehicleEF MH 4.5670e-003 4.8540e-003
tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02
tblVehicleEF MH 0.00 0.29
tblVehicleEF MH 0.00 0.28
tblVehicleEF MH 0.27 0.10
tblVehicleEF MH 0.27 0.10
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 704
tblVehicleEF MH 1.15 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 1.15 0.00
tblVehicleEF MH 1.32 1.56
tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.32
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 1.6600e-004 1.8400e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.84 2.68
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.06
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.84 2.68
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 1.41 1.67
tblVehicleEF MH 0.26 0.37
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04
tblVehicleEF MH 1.6600e-004 1.8400e-004
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 2.27
tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.06
tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.08
tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 2.27
tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.09
tblVehicleEF MHD 5.2540e-003 0.03
tblVehicleEF MHD 5.2540e-003 0.03
tblVehicleEF MHD 8.8600e-004 6.5200e-004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 705
tblVehicleEF MHD 8.8600e-004 6.6800e-004
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.7110e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.4530e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.77 0.07
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.20
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.06 8.51
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.72 10.13
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.39 0.38
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.62 1.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.0000e-004 3.0680e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.6630e-003 3.5480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5100e-004 4.8000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 4.9300e-004 0.25
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.27
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 8.2880e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 4.9300e-004 0.25
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.34
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 9.8750e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 4.9940e-003 0.03
tblVehicleEF MHD 9.0800e-004 6.4000e-004
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.8920e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.68 0.07
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.68 0.07
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.20
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.20
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.95 7.95
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 706
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.95 9.11
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.69 9.65
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.32 0.36
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.61 1.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.7700e-004 2.6960e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.6630e-003 3.5480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5100e-004 4.8000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.3670e-003 0.30
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.27
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 8.3430e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.3670e-003 0.30
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.34
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 9.9560e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.77 10.78
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.40 0.39
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.63 1.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 2.3300e-004 3.5820e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF MHD 6.6630e-003 3.5480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5100e-004 4.8000e-005
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.9500e-004 0.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.26
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 8.2480e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF MHD 1.9500e-004 0.24
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.33
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 707
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 9.8160e-003
tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.4230e-003 0.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.4230e-003 0.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9710e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9710e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 3.8000e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 3.5110e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.73 0.28
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.24 0.21
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.81 8.80
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.49 4.27
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.44 1.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.09 0.99
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.6500e-004 4.2280e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.8800e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.8200e-004 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3060e-003 0.46
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.56
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3060e-003 0.46
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.72
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.5540e-003 0.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 2.0390e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 3.9900e-003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 708
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.72 0.29
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.72 0.28
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.25 0.21
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.25 0.21
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.59 8.68
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.59 8.97
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.46 4.09
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.36 1.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.07 0.99
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4600e-004 3.6880e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.8800e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.8200e-004 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.5810e-003 0.56
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.59
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.08 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.5810e-003 0.56
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.75
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.52 4.53
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.45 1.10
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.10 0.99
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9000e-004 4.9730e-003
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05
tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.8800e-003 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.8200e-004 3.5000e-005
tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.3600e-004 0.44
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 709
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.52
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.04
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.02
tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.3600e-004 0.44
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.68
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.10 0.02
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.46
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.46
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1720e-003 8.3300e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1720e-003 8.4800e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3740e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3740e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.47 0.09
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.13 0.18
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.62 20.81
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.37 8.77
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.32 0.59
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.93 0.72
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.1200e-004 2.6010e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1380e-003 4.2820e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5000e-005 1.3600e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.4000e-004 0.78
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.23 2.11
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.07
tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.4000e-004 0.78
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 710
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.33 3.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.08
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.46
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.1980e-003 8.2300e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.4260e-003 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.46 0.09
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.46 0.09
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.18
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.18
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.40 20.72
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.40 20.93
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.32 8.42
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.25 0.56
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.93 0.71
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.6200e-004 2.2800e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1380e-003 4.2820e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5000e-005 1.3600e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.0380e-003 0.96
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.23 2.12
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.0380e-003 0.96
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.33 3.05
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.45 9.24
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 711
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.34 0.60
tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.93 0.73
tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.8300e-004 3.0440e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1380e-003 4.2820e-003
tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5000e-005 1.3600e-004
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.0600e-004 0.75
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.23 2.10
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.08
tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.0600e-004 0.75
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 3.03
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.01
tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.09
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 2.8350e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 2.8350e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.00 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.21 0.22
tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.97 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.46 0.33
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.28 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.10 0.11
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6360e-003 6.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.4200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4600e-003 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 712
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.16 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4600e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.05 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.04 2.8350e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.00 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.00 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.22 0.22
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.22 0.22
tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.25 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.25 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.45 0.33
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.26 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.10 0.11
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.03
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6360e-003 6.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.4200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.3320e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.06
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.13 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.3320e-003 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.06 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.15 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.47 0.33
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.30 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.10 0.11
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.03
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 713
tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6360e-003 6.2200e-003
tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.4200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.0200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 0.06
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.17 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.0200e-004 0.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.05 0.07
tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 4.28
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 47.40
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 4.28
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 47.40
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 4.28
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 2.60
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 47.40
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 10.71 2.37
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 136.12
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 8.98
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 3.35 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 10.71 2.37
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 136.12
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 8.98
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 3.35 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 10.71 2.37
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 714

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2025 2.9916 27.9895 27.0932 0.0689 19.8869 1.1321 20.9748 10.1634 1.0416 11.1643 0.0000 6,874.952 8 6,874.952
8 1.9480 0.3321 6,990.438
0 2026 2.4378 17.5846 25.2396 0.0679 3.4173 0.5651 3.9824 0.9184 0.5317 1.4502 0.0000 6,768.322 9 6,768.322
9 0.6553 0.3229 6,880.914
8 2027 45.2353 17.3913 24.7301 0.0669 3.4173 0.5632 3.9806 0.9185 0.5300 1.4484 0.0000 6,665.265 4 6,665.265
4 0.7166 0.3138 6,775.036
7 2028 45.2244 1.2236 3.2265 7.4200e0030.5748 0.0538 0.6286 0.1524 0.0536 0.2061 0.0000 731.2010 731.2010 0.0234 9.2500e003734.5410 Maximum 45.2353 27.9895 27.0932 0.0689 19.8869 1.1321 20.9748 10.1634 1.0416 11.1643 0.0000 6,874.952 8 6,874.952
8 1.9480 0.3321 6,990.438
0 Unmitigated Construction
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 136.12
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 33.98 8.98
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 3.35 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 715

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2025 2.9916 27.9895 27.0932 0.0689 19.8869 1.1321 20.9748 10.1634 1.0416 11.1643 0.0000 6,874.952 8 6,874.952
8 1.9480 0.3321 6,990.438
0 2026 2.4378 17.5846 25.2396 0.0679 3.4173 0.5651 3.9824 0.9184 0.5317 1.4502 0.0000 6,768.322 9 6,768.322
9 0.6553 0.3229 6,880.914
8 2027 45.2353 17.3913 24.7301 0.0669 3.4173 0.5632 3.9806 0.9185 0.5300 1.4484 0.0000 6,665.265 4 6,665.265
4 0.7166 0.3138 6,775.036
7 2028 45.2244 1.2236 3.2265 7.4200e0030.5748 0.0538 0.6286 0.1524 0.0536 0.2061 0.0000 731.2010 731.2010 0.0234 9.2500e003734.5410 Maximum 45.2353 27.9895 27.0932 0.0689 19.8869 1.1321 20.9748 10.1634 1.0416 11.1643 0.0000 6,874.952 8 6,874.952
8 1.9480 0.3321 6,990.438
0 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 716

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.3377 6.9000e0040.0767 1.0000e0052.7000e0042.7000e0042.7000e0042.7000e0040.1654 0.1654 4.3000e0040.1761 Energy 0.0431 0.3915 0.3289 2.3500e0030.0298 0.0298 0.0298 0.0298 469.7826 469.7826 9.0000e0038.6100e003472.5743 Mobile 4.7915 1.3331 23.9816 0.0116 1.3444 9.1400e0031.3536 0.3885 6.3100e0030.3948 1,179.718 6 1,179.718
6 0.1399 0.0742 1,205.334
8 Total 9.1722 1.7253 24.3871 0.0140 1.3444 0.0392 1.3836 0.3885 0.0363 0.4248 1,649.666 7 1,649.666
7 0.1493 0.0828 1,678.085
2 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.3377 6.9000e0040.0767 1.0000e0052.7000e0042.7000e0042.7000e0042.7000e0040.1654 0.1654 4.3000e0040.1761 Energy 0.0431 0.3915 0.3289 2.3500e0030.0298 0.0298 0.0298 0.0298 469.7826 469.7826 9.0000e0038.6100e003472.5743 Mobile 4.7915 1.3331 23.9816 0.0116 1.3444 9.1400e0031.3536 0.3885 6.3100e0030.3948 1,179.718 6 1,179.718
6 0.1399 0.0742 1,205.334
8 Total 9.1722 1.7253 24.3871 0.0140 1.3444 0.0392 1.3836 0.3885 0.0363 0.4248 1,649.666 7 1,649.666
7 0.1493 0.0828 1,678.085
2 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 717

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2025 1/9/2025 5 7 2 Grading Grading 1/10/2025 1/29/2025 5 14
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/30/2025 10/6/2027 5 700 4 Paving Paving 10/7/2027 11/24/2027 5 35
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/25/2027 1/12/2028 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 226,430; Non-Residential Outdoor: 75,477; Striped Parking Area: 14,808 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 10.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 42
Acres of Paving: 5.55
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 718

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 225.00 89.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 45.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 719

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4727 25.2339 17.9118 0.0381 1.0868 1.0868 0.9999 0.9999 3,689.103 7 3,689.103
7 1.1931 3,718.932
0 Total 2.4727 25.2339 17.9118 0.0381 19.6570 1.0868 20.7438 10.1025 0.9999 11.1023 3,689.103 7 3,689.103
7 1.1931 3,718.932
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0813 0.0420 0.6859 1.9400e0030.2299 1.1000e0030.2310 0.0610 1.0200e0030.0620 196.3522 196.3522 4.2700e0034.4100e003197.7737 Total 0.0813 0.0420 0.6859 1.9400e0030.2299 1.1000e0030.2310 0.0610 1.0200e0030.0620 196.3522 196.3522 4.2700e0034.4100e003197.7737 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 720

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4727 25.2339 17.9118 0.0381 1.0868 1.0868 0.9999 0.9999 0.0000 3,689.103 7 3,689.103
7 1.1931 3,718.932
0 Total 2.4727 25.2339 17.9118 0.0381 19.6570 1.0868 20.7438 10.1025 0.9999 11.1023 0.0000 3,689.103 7 3,689.103
7 1.1931 3,718.932
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0813 0.0420 0.6859 1.9400e0030.2299 1.1000e0030.2310 0.0610 1.0200e0030.0620 196.3522 196.3522 4.2700e0034.4100e003197.7737 Total 0.0813 0.0420 0.6859 1.9400e0030.2299 1.1000e0030.2310 0.0610 1.0200e0030.0620 196.3522 196.3522 4.2700e0034.4100e003197.7737 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 721

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 1.1309 1.1309 1.0404 1.0404 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Total 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 9.2036 1.1309 10.3345 3.6538 1.0404 4.6942 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0903 0.0466 0.7621 2.1600e0030.2555 1.2300e0030.2567 0.0678 1.1300e0030.0689 218.1691 218.1691 4.7500e0034.9000e003219.7485 Total 0.0903 0.0466 0.7621 2.1600e0030.2555 1.2300e0030.2567 0.0678 1.1300e0030.0689 218.1691 218.1691 4.7500e0034.9000e003219.7485 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 722

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 1.1309 1.1309 1.0404 1.0404 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Total 2.9012 27.9429 26.3311 0.0621 9.2036 1.1309 10.3345 3.6538 1.0404 4.6942 0.0000 6,008.281 4 6,008.281
4 1.9432 6,056.861
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0903 0.0466 0.7621 2.1600e0030.2555 1.2300e0030.2567 0.0678 1.1300e0030.0689 218.1691 218.1691 4.7500e0034.9000e003219.7485 Total 0.0903 0.0466 0.7621 2.1600e0030.2555 1.2300e0030.2567 0.0678 1.1300e0030.0689 218.1691 218.1691 4.7500e0034.9000e003219.7485 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 723

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1144 4.8025 1.1632 0.0177 0.5433 0.0257 0.5690 0.1563 0.0246 0.1809 1,864.076 6 1,864.076
6 6.0600e0030.2770 1,946.769
3 Worker 1.0160 0.5246 8.5733 0.0243 2.8739 0.0138 2.8877 0.7621 0.0127 0.7749 2,454.401 8 2,454.401
8 0.0534 0.0551 2,472.170
7 Total 1.1304 5.3271 9.7365 0.0419 3.4172 0.0395 3.4567 0.9184 0.0373 0.9557 4,318.478 4 4,318.478
4 0.0595 0.3321 4,418.939
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 724

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1144 4.8025 1.1632 0.0177 0.5433 0.0257 0.5690 0.1563 0.0246 0.1809 1,864.076 6 1,864.076
6 6.0600e0030.2770 1,946.769
3 Worker 1.0160 0.5246 8.5733 0.0243 2.8739 0.0138 2.8877 0.7621 0.0127 0.7749 2,454.401 8 2,454.401
8 0.0534 0.0551 2,472.170
7 Total 1.1304 5.3271 9.7365 0.0419 3.4172 0.0395 3.4567 0.9184 0.0373 0.9557 4,318.478 4 4,318.478
4 0.0595 0.3321 4,418.939
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 725

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1112 4.6419 1.1489 0.0174 0.5433 0.0245 0.5678 0.1563 0.0234 0.1797 1,832.222 0 1,832.222
0 5.8800e0030.2712 1,913.172
8 Worker 0.9592 0.4731 8.0060 0.0235 2.8739 0.0131 2.8870 0.7621 0.0120 0.7742 2,379.626 5 2,379.626
5 0.0484 0.0517 2,396.244
0 Total 1.0704 5.1149 9.1550 0.0409 3.4173 0.0375 3.4548 0.9184 0.0355 0.9539 4,211.848 5 4,211.848
5 0.0543 0.3229 4,309.416
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 726

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1112 4.6419 1.1489 0.0174 0.5433 0.0245 0.5678 0.1563 0.0234 0.1797 1,832.222 0 1,832.222
0 5.8800e0030.2712 1,913.172
8 Worker 0.9592 0.4731 8.0060 0.0235 2.8739 0.0131 2.8870 0.7621 0.0120 0.7742 2,379.626 5 2,379.626
5 0.0484 0.0517 2,396.244
0 Total 1.0704 5.1149 9.1550 0.0409 3.4173 0.0375 3.4548 0.9184 0.0355 0.9539 4,211.848 5 4,211.848
5 0.0543 0.3229 4,309.416
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 727

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1084 4.4930 1.1372 0.0170 0.5434 0.0234 0.5668 0.1563 0.0224 0.1787 1,797.800 5 1,797.800
5 5.7100e0030.2650 1,876.921
5 Worker 0.9042 0.4286 7.5082 0.0229 2.8739 0.0123 2.8862 0.7621 0.0113 0.7734 2,310.990 5 2,310.990
5 0.0440 0.0488 2,326.617
1 Total 1.0125 4.9216 8.6454 0.0399 3.4173 0.0357 3.4530 0.9185 0.0337 0.9522 4,108.791 0 4,108.791
0 0.0497 0.3138 4,203.538
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 728

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1084 4.4930 1.1372 0.0170 0.5434 0.0234 0.5668 0.1563 0.0224 0.1787 1,797.800 5 1,797.800
5 5.7100e0030.2650 1,876.921
5 Worker 0.9042 0.4286 7.5082 0.0229 2.8739 0.0123 2.8862 0.7621 0.0113 0.7734 2,310.990 5 2,310.990
5 0.0440 0.0488 2,326.617
1 Total 1.0125 4.9216 8.6454 0.0399 3.4173 0.0357 3.4530 0.9185 0.0337 0.9522 4,108.791 0 4,108.791
0 0.0497 0.3138 4,203.538
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 43 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 729

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.4155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3306 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0603 0.0286 0.5006 1.5200e0030.1916 8.2000e0040.1924 0.0508 7.5000e0040.0516 154.0660 154.0660 2.9300e0033.2500e003155.1078 Total 0.0603 0.0286 0.5006 1.5200e0030.1916 8.2000e0040.1924 0.0508 7.5000e0040.0516 154.0660 154.0660 2.9300e0033.2500e003155.1078 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 44 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 730

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.4155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3306 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0603 0.0286 0.5006 1.5200e0030.1916 8.2000e0040.1924 0.0508 7.5000e0040.0516 154.0660 154.0660 2.9300e0033.2500e003155.1078 Total 0.0603 0.0286 0.5006 1.5200e0030.1916 8.2000e0040.1924 0.0508 7.5000e0040.0516 154.0660 154.0660 2.9300e0033.2500e003155.1078 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 45 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 731

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 44.8836 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 45.0545 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1808 0.0857 1.5017 4.5700e0030.5748 2.4500e0030.5772 0.1524 2.2600e0030.1547 462.1981 462.1981 8.8000e0039.7500e003465.3234 Total 0.1808 0.0857 1.5017 4.5700e0030.5748 2.4500e0030.5772 0.1524 2.2600e0030.1547 462.1981 462.1981 8.8000e0039.7500e003465.3234 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 46 of 57 Date: 11/3/2021 2:05 PM 56 Acre Master Plan - El Dorado-Lake Tahoe County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 732