Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, November 1, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

Project: SO LAKE TAHOE

PARKING STRUCTURE
Date: Fri 3/4/22
WALKER36C- CONSULTANTS | 047-2022 195

EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty not less than $10,000 and no more than $100,000 for such failure.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and

2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “ Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instruction.

Consultant: Walker Consultants
Name: Justin Chang
Title: Principal-in-Charge
By:________________________________________
C-047-2022
Justin Chang ( Apr 11, 2022 15:03 PDT)
Justin Chang
196

EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

Consultant: Walker Consultants
Name: Justin Chang
Title: Principal-in-Charge
By:________________________________________
C-047-2022
Justin Chang ( Apr 11, 2022 15:03 PDT)
Justin Chang
197
4/ 8/ 2022
Professional Concepts Insurance Agency, Inc.
1127 South Old US Highway 23
Brighton MI 48114- 9861
certs@pciaonline. com
800) 969- 4041 ( 800) 969- 4081
certs@pciaonline. com
Walker Parking Consultants Engineers, Inc.

Walker Consultants
601 California Street, Suite 820
San Francisco CA 94108
Travelers Indem. Co of America 25666
Travelers Indemnity Co. of CT 36170
Travelers Indemnity Co 25658
XL Specialty Ins. Co. 37885
21- 22 # 33
A
B
X
X
X Contractual Liability

X X, C, U
X
X Y 6801J1254172147 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022
6605N988754- FL
6801J1669102147- CA
1, 000, 000
300, 000
5, 000
1, 000, 000
2, 000, 000
2, 000, 000
C
X
X X
X Y BA8R00910A21GRP 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022
1, 000, 000
C
X X
X 10, 000 X Y CUP1D3197442147 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022 1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
C
N
UB5K3205582147 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022
X
1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
D Professional Liability DPR9976004 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022 Per Claim 1, 000, 000 Aggregate 1, 000, 000
Re: Walker Project #: 33- 002350. 00, City Parking Garage Access and Revenue Control System and Modification Project.

City of South Lake Tahoe its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are are considered additional insured' s with respects to general and auto liability coverages as long as required within a written contract. Waiver of subrogation in favor of certificate holder and additional insured' s as long as required within a written contract. Coverage is primary and non- contributory as it applies to general liability, auto liability and umbrella. Umbrella policy follws form. 30 day written City of South Lake Tahoe
Attn: Anush Nejad
1901 Airport Rd.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
anejad@cityofslt. us
Mike Cosgrove/ SUNNY
Y
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
1988- 2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

ACORD 25 ( 2014/ 01)

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

CANCELLATION

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
POLICY LOCJECTPROGEN' L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

OCCURCLAIMS- MADE

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
PREMISES ( Ea occurrence)$

DAMAGE TO RENTED
EACH OCCURRENCE $
MED EXP ( Any one person)$
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PRODUCTS - COMP/ OP AGG $

RETENTIONDED

CLAIMS- MADE
OCCUR
AGGREGATE $
EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES ( ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

INSRLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER

POLICY EFF(

MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EXP(

MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS
PER

STATUTE
OTHER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT

ANY PROPRIETOR/ PARTNER/ EXECUTIVE
If yes, describe under
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
Mandatory in NH)
OFFICER/ MEMBER EXCLUDED?

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

ANY AUTO

ALL OWNED SCHEDULED

HIRED AUTOS

NON- OWNED

AUTOS AUTOS
AUTOS

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
BODILY INJURY ( Per person)
BODILY INJURY ( Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

INSD
ADDL
WVD
SUBR
N / A
Ea accident)
Per accident)
OTHER:

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

INSURED
PHONE(
A/C, No, Ext):

PRODUCER
ADDRESS:

E-MAIL
FAX
A/C, No):

CONTACTNAME:

NAIC #
INSURER A :

INSURER B :

INSURER C :

INSURER D :

INSURER E :

INSURER F :

INSURER( S) AFFORDING COVERAGE

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INS025 (201401)
C-047-2022 198
notice provided to certificate holder and additional insured' s for cancellation of coverages listed. 10 day notice for nonpayment of listed policies.

COMMENTS/ REMARKS
OFREMARK COPYRIGHT 2000, AMS SERVICES INC.

C-047-2022 199
Insured: Walker Parking Consultants Engineers, Inc.

Policy No. 6801J1254172147 6801J1669102147, 66051\988754 Policy Period: 5/ 2 3/ 2 021- 5/ 2 3/ 2 022

COMMERCIAL GE NERAL LIABILITY
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ ITCAREFULLY.

ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS

COVERAGE XTEND ENDORSEMENT
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE This endorsement broadens coverage. However, coverage for any injury, damage or medical expenses described in any of the provisions of this endorsement may be excluded or limited by another endorsement to this Coverage Part, and these coverage broadening provisions do not apply to the extent that coverage is excluded or limited by such an endorsement The following listing is a general coverage description only. Limitations and exclusions may apply to these coverages. Read all the provisions of this endorsement and the rest of your policy carefully to determine rights, duties, and what is and is not covered.

A. Broadened Named Insured K. Additional Insured - Lessor Of Leased Equipment B. Incidental Medical Malpractice L. Additional Insured State Or Political C. Reasonable Fore Bodily Injury or Property Subdivisions - Permits Relating ToPremises Damage M. Additional Insured State Or Political
D. Non-Owned Watercraft - Increased To Up To 75 Subdivisions - Permits Relating ToOperations feet N. Who Is An Insured - Newly Acquired OrFormed
E. Aircraft Chartered With Crew Organizations
F. Damage To Premises RentedT o You 0. Knowledge And Notice Of Occurrence Or Offense G. Malicious Prosecution - Exception To Knowing P. Unintentional Omission Violation Of Rights OfAnother Exclusion
H. Medical Payments - Increased Limit
I. Increased Supplementary Payments
J. Additional Insured - Owner, Manager Or Lessor
Of Premises

PROVISIONS
A. BR OADENED NAMED IN SURED

1. The following is added to SECTION II - WHO
IS AN IN SURED :

Any organization, other than a partnership or
joint venture, over which you maintain
ownership or majority interest on the effective
date of the policy qualifies as a Named
Insured. However, coverage for any such
additional organization will cease as of the
date during the policy period that you no
longer maintain ownership of, or majority
interest in, such organization.

B. INCIDENTAL MED ICAL MALPRACTICE

1. The following is added to the definition of
occurrence" in the DEFlNITIONS Section:

Q. Waiver Of Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery
Against Others To Us When Required By Written
Contract
R. Amended Insured Contract Definition - Railroad
Easement
Unless you are in the business or occupation
of providing professional health care services,
occurrence" also means an act or omission
committed in providing or failing to provide
first aid or " Good Samaritan services" to a
person.

2. The following is added to the DEFINITIONS
Section:

Good Samaritan services" means any
emergency medical services for which no
compensation is demanded or received.

3. The following is added to Paragraph 2.a.(1) of
SECTION II -WHO IS AN INSURED :

Unless you are in the business or occupation
of providing professional health care services,
Paragraphs ( 1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) above
CG D379 0116 © 2016 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 6 C-047-2022 200
C-047-2022 201
C-047-2022 202
C-047-2022 203
C-047-2022 204
C-047-2022 205
Walker Parking Consultants Engineers,
Inc. Policy# CUP1D3197442147
Policy Period: 5/ 23/ 2021-5/ 23/ 2022

UMBRELLA
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under thefollowing:

COMMERCIAL EXCESS LIABILITY ( UMBRE LLA) INSURANCE
The following is added to Paragraph 11 ., OUR RIGHT
TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS., of SECTION IV -
CONDITIONS.:

If the insured has agreed in a contract or agreement
to waive that insured' s right of recovery against any
person or organization, we waive our right of recovery
against such person or organization, but only for
payments we make because of:
a." Bodily injury" or "property damage" caused byan
occurrence" that takes place; or
b." Personal injury" or "advertising injury" caused by
an " offense" that is committed;
subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement UM04 880708 © 2008 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of1 Includes the copyrighted material oflnsurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission.

C-047-2022 206
Insured: Walker Parking Consultants Engneers, Inc.

Policy No. 6801Jl254172147, 6801J1669102147,
66051\988754 Policy Period: 5/ 23/ 2021- 5/ 23/ 2022

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

BLANKET ADDITIONAL IN SURED

ARCHITE CTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYOR S)
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

1. The following is added to SEC TION II -WHO ISAN INSURED:

Any person or organization that you agree in a
written contract requiring insurance" to include as
an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but
a. Only with respect to liability for "bodily inJ ury", property damage" or "personal injury"; and
b. If, and only to the extent that the injury or
damage is caused by acts or omissions of
you or your subcontractor in the performance
of " your work" to which the " written contract
requiring insurance" applies, or in connection
with premises owned by or rented to you.

The person or organization does not qualify as an
additional insured:
c. With respect to the independent acts or
omissions of such person or organization; or
d. For " bodily injury", " property damage" or
personal injury" for which such person or
organization has assumed liability in a
contract or agreement
The insurance provided to such additional insured
is limited as follows:
e. This insurance does not apply on any basis to
any person or organization for which
coverage as an additional insured specifically
is added by another endorsement to this
Coverage Part
f. This insurance does not apply to the
rendering of or failure to render any
professional services".
g. In the event that the Limits of Insurance ofthe
Coverage Partshown in the Declarations
exceed the limits of liability required by the
written contract requiring insurance", the
insurance provided to the additional insured
shall be limited to the limits of liability required
by that " written contract requiring insurance".

This endorsement does not increase the
limits of insurance described in Section Ill -
Limits Of Insurance.
h. This insurance does not apply to " bodily
injury" or " property damage" caused by " your
work" and included in the " productscompleted operations hazard" unless the written contract requiring insurance"
specifically requires you to provide such
coverage forthat additional insured, and then
the insurance provided to the additional
insured applies only to such " bodily injury" or
endof propertydamage" that occurs beforethe
the period of time for which the " written
contract requiring insurance" requires you to
provide such coverage or the end of the
policy period, whichever is earlier.

2. The following is added to Paragraph 4.a. of

SEC TION IV - COMMER CIAL GENERAL
LIABILITY CONDITIONS:

The insurance provided to the additional insured
is excess over any valid and collectible other
insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or
on any other basis, that is available to the
additional insured fora loss we cover. However, if
you specifically agree in the " written contract
requiring insurance" that this insurance provided
to the additional insured under this Coverage Part
must andnon- apply on a primary basis or a primary
contributory basis, this insurance is primary
to other insurance available to the additionalinsured which covers that person or organizationsas a named insured for such loss, and we will notshare with the other insurance, provided that 1) The " bodily injury" or "property damage" for
which coverage is sought occurs; and
2) The " personal injury" for which coverage is
sought arises out of an offense committed;
after you have signed that " written contract
requiring insurance". But this insurance provided
to the additional insured still is excess over valid
and collectible other insurance, whether primary,
excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is
available to the additional insured when that
person or organization is an additional insured
under any other insurance.

CG D3 81 0915 © 201 S The Travelers Indemnity Co mpany All rights reserved. Page 1 of2 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission C-047-2022 207
C-047-2022 208
Walker Parking Consultants Engineers,
Inc. Policy#CUP1D3197442147
Policy Period: 5/ 23/ 2021-5/ 23/ 2022

UMBRELLA
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

AME NDMENT OF WHO IS AN INSURED
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL EXCESS LIABILITY ( UMBRELLA) INSURANCE
Paragraph 2.f. of SECTION II - WHO IS AN INSURED is deleted and replaced bythe following:
f. Any other person or organization insured under
any policy of the " underlying insurance" listed in
the SCHEDULE OF UNDERLYING INSURANCE
of the DECLARATIONS of this insurance. Thisinsurance is subject to all the provisions and limitations upon coverage under such policy of "underlying insurance", and, the limits of insurance afforded to such person or organization will be:
i) The difference between the "underlying insurance" limits and the minimum limits of insurance which you agreed to provide; or ii) The limits of insurance of this policy
whichever is less.

UM04 45 05 06 l'/' 2006 The St Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of1 C-047-2022 209

ONE TOWER SQUARE
HARTFORD CT 06183

WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY
ENDORSE ME NT WC 00 03 13 ( 00) - 001
Policy: UBSK3205582147

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. ( This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit any one not named in the Schedule.

SCHEDULE
DESIGNATED PERSON:

DESIGNATED ORGANIZATION:

ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THE INSURED HAS AGREED

BY WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED PRIOR TO LOSS TO FURNISH THIS WAIVER.

DATE OF ISSUE: 04- 8-2022 ST ASSIGN: PAGE 1 OF 1
C-047-2022 210

COMMERCIAL AUTO
THIS ENDORSEME NT CHA NG ES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED - PRIMARY AND

NON-CONTRIBUTORY WITH OTHER INSURANCE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM

PROVISIONS

1. TheWhoIs following is added toParagraph A.1.c.,
An Insured, of SECTION II - COVERED
AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE:

Any undera person or organization who is required
andthat writtencontract or agreement betweenyou
person or organization, that is signed andexecuted by you before the " bodily injury" or" property damage" occurs and that Is in effectduring the policy period, to be named as an additional insured is an " insured" forCovered Autos Liability Coverage, but only fordamages to which
this insurance applies and only to the extent that
person or organization qualifies as an"insured"
under the Wfio Is An Insured provision containedin SECTION II.

2. The followingis added toParagraph B.5., OtherInsurance of SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS:

Regardless of the provisions of paragraph a. and
paragraph d. of this part 5. Other Insurance, this
insurance is primary to and non- contributory with
applicable other insurance under which an additional insured person or organization is the firstnamed insured when the written contract or agreement between you and that person or organization, that is signed and executed by youbefore the " bodily injury" or " property damage" occurs and that is in effect during the policy period, andnon- requ_ iresthis insurance tobe primary contributory.

Walker Parking ConsultantsEngineers.

Inc. Policy#BA8R00910A21GRP
Policy Period: 5/23/2021-05/23/2022
C-047-2022 211
C-047-2022 212
C-047-2022 213
C-047-2022 214
C-047-2022 215
C-047-2022 Walker Consultants
Final Audit Report 2022- 04-11
Created: 2022- 04-11
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA0meYEUWrPHWXcVYIvhV7r7TY7rhn5OdK C-047-2022 Walker Consultants" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 11 - 8:04:29 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 8:08:04 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Heather Stroud ( hstroud@cityofslt. us) for signature 2022- 04- 11 - 8:08:08 PM GMT
Email viewed by Heather Stroud ([email protected])
2022- 04- 11 - 8:21:32 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by Heather Stroud ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 8:33:40 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 04- 11 - 8:33:44 PM GMT
Email viewed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 11 - 8:37:34 PM GMT- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Document e-signed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 8:37:54 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Document emailed to Justin Chang ( jchang@walkerconsultants. com) for signature 2022- 04- 11 - 8:37:58 PM GMT
Email viewed by Justin Chang ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 11 - 8:39:21 PM GMT- IP address: 73.223. 174. 248 Document e-signed by Justin Chang ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 10:03:27 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.223. 174. 248 216
Agreement completed.
2022- 04- 11 - 10:03:27 PM GMT
217
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Agenda Item #: 11
Agenda Item: Termination of Local Emergency Due to COVID-19 Executive Summary: On March 19, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a proclamation of local emergency in South Lake Tahoe due to COVID-19, which was ratified by City Council in an emergency meeting on March 20, 2020. Under the California Emergency Services Act, the City Council is required to proclaim the termination of a local emergency "at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant." Given the significantly reduced public threat from COVID-19, staff recommends that City Council terminate the local emergency at this time.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution proclaiming the termination of the local emergency due to COVID-19.

Responsible Staff Member: Heather Stroud, City Attorney Responsible Staff Member: Heather Stroud, City Attorney (530) 543-6046 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Attachments:
01-Staff Report Terminating Local Emergency.docx
02-Resolution Terminating Local Emergency.docx
03-Reso. No. 2020-026 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency.pdf 04-Emergency Order No. 6 - Cannabis Curbside Pickup.pdf 05-Urgency Ord. No 2020-1144.pdf
218
Council Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Title: Termination of Local Emergency Due to COVID-19
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Heather Stroud, City Attorney (530) 542-6046 Background:

On March 19, 2020, the Interim City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, issued a proclamation of local emergency in South Lake Tahoe due to COVID-19. In an emergency meeting held on March 20, 2020, the City Council ratified the proclamation of local emergency by adopting Resolution No. 2020-026.

During the course of this local emergency, the Director of Emergency Services issued six emergency orders which were ratified by City Council pursuant to the City’s emergency powers under South Lake Tahoe City Code chapter 1.15 and Article 14 of the California Emergency Services Act, Government Code sections 8630-8634, some of which have been terminated or rescinded:

1. Order No. 1 Regarding Administrative Fines for Violation of State and El Dorado County Stay at Home Orders (issued Mar. 27, 2020, amended on May 14, 2020, and rescinded Jun. 9, 2020);

2. Order No. 2 Regarding Deferred Payment of Business License Fees for Businesses Deemed “Non-Essential” by State and El Dorado County Stay at Home Orders (issued Apr. 30, 2020, amended July 21, 2020);

3. Order No. 3 Regarding Moratorium on Residential Evictions (Jun. 1, 2020);

4. Order No. 4 Regarding Modified Fee Schedule for Shared Mobility Devices (Jun. 11, 2020);

5. Order No. 5 Regarding Administrative Citations for Violations of State Guidance for Use of Face Coverings (issued Aug. 19, 2020, amended Nov. 17, 2020, and terminated Jun. 15, 2021);

6. Order No. 6 Regarding Curbside Pickup at Cannabis Retailers (Dec. 16, 2020).

Of the emergency orders that have not been terminated or rescinded, all of them except Order No. 6 have expired by their own terms because the applicable dates within the orders have passed. The California Department of Cannabis Control is undertaking a rulemaking to amend 4 Cal. Code Regs. sections 15025 and 15402 to permanently allow curbside pickup at cannabis retailers that is expected to be finalized later this year.

On May 28, 2020, City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-1144 pursuant to its authority under California Government Code section 36937(b), to temporarily relax certain regulations 219
Council Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 2 of 2
regarding temporary signage, building permit fees, and outdoor restaurant seating to remain in effect for the duration of the local emergency.

Issue and Discussion:

Consistent with the California Emergency Services Act, an “emergency” is defined in South Lake Tahoe City Code section 1.15.020 as:
the actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this city caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, avalanche, or earthquake, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from war or imminent threat of war, but other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the city, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat.

Government Code section 8630(d) requires the City Council to proclaim the termination of the local emergency “at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.” The reduced public threat from COVID-19 has resulted in the termination or relaxation of federal and state public health orders and guidelines for social distancing and masking, effective vaccines are now widely available, and case rates and severity have dropped significantly in 2022. Accordingly, impacts on local businesses have also eased significantly, reducing the need for special temporary measures to accommodate public health guidance for social distancing. Staff recommends that City Council proclaim the termination of the local emergency due to COVID-19 at this time.

Financial Implications:

Terminating the local emergency due to COVID-19 is not expected to have any meaningful financial impacts.

Environmental Considerations:

This action is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities of government that will not result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

Policy Implications:

Staff will focus on education and outreach to any businesses affected by the termination of the local emergency and resulting termination of Emergency Order No. 6 and the Urgency Ordinance prior to initiating enforcement.
220
Resolution 2022-XXX November 1, 2022 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
November 1, 2022
Proclaiming the Termination of the Local Emergency Due to COVID-19

BACKGROUND
A. On March 19, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a proclamation of local emergency in the City of South Lake Tahoe due to COVID-19.

B. In an emergency meeting held on March 20, 2020, the City Council ratified the proclamation of local emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services by adopting Resolution No. 2020-026.

C. During the course of this local emergency, the Director of Emergency Services issued six emergency orders which were ratified by City Council pursuant to the City’s emergency powers under South Lake Tahoe City Code chapter 1.15 and Article 14 of the California Emergency Services Act, Government Code sections 8630-8634, some of which have been terminated or rescinded: (1) Order No. 1 Regarding Administrative Fines for Violation of State and El Dorado County Stay at Home Orders (issued Mar. 27, 2020, amended on May 14, 2020, and rescinded Jun. 9, 2020); (2) Order No. 2 Regarding Deferred Payment of Business License Fees for Businesses Deemed “Non-Essential” by State and El Dorado County Stay at Home Orders (issued Apr. 30, 2020, amended July 21, 2020); (3) Order No. 3 Regarding Moratorium on Residential Evictions (Jun. 1, 2020); (4) Order No. 4 Regarding Modified Fee Schedule for Shared Mobility Devices (Jun. 11, 2020); (5) Order No. 5 Regarding Administrative Citations for Violations of State Guidance for Use of Face Coverings (issued Aug. 19, 2020, amended Nov. 17, 2020, and terminated Jun. 15, 2021); (6) Order No. 6 Regarding Curbside Pickup at Cannabis Retailers (Dec. 16, 2020).

D. Of the emergency orders that have not been terminated or rescinded, all of them except Order No. 6 have expired by their own terms because the applicable dates within the orders have passed. The California Department of Cannabis Control is undertaking a rulemaking to amend 4 Cal. Code Regs. sections 15025 and 15402 to permanently allow curbside pickup at cannabis retailers that is expected to be finalized later this year.

E. On May 28, 2020, City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-1144 pursuant to its authority under California Government Code section 36937(b), to temporarily relax certain regulations regarding temporary signage, building permit fees, and outdoor restaurant seating to remain in effect for the duration of the local emergency.

F. The City Council has reviewed the need to continue the existence of the local emergency and finds that the local emergency does not continue to exist under Section 1.15.020 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code and Section 8558(c) of the California Government Code because the threat of COVID-19 to the public has greatly diminished. 221
Resolution 2022-XXX November 1, 2022 Page 2 of 2
G. The City Council also finds that it is appropriate for the remaining Order No. 6 and Ordinance No. 2020-1144 to expire upon adoption of this resolution, as the reduced public health threat from COVID-19 means that social distancing requirements are no longer impacting local business operations.

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

Proclaims the termination of the local emergency due to COVID-19.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October November 1, 2022, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

BACKGROUND
A. Under Section 1.15.030(C) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code, the Director of Emergency Services is empowered to issue a proclamation of local emergency if the City Council is not in session, to be ratified by the City Council within seven days thereafter.

B. On March 4, 2020, the Governor of California proclaimed a state of emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID- 19.

C. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID- 19 to be a pandemic.

D. On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a national emergency in response to COVID- 19.

E. On March 17, 2020, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors ratified a declaration of a local public health emergency under California Health & Safety Code section 101080 and a declaration of county-wide local emergency under California Government Code section 8630, both in response to COVID- 19.

F. On March 19, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a proclamation of local emergency in the City of South Lake Tahoe due to COVID- 19.

G. On March 19, 2020, the El Dorado County Public Health Officer issued a directive restricting activities in response to the COVID- 19 outbreak that directs all individuals living in El Dorado County, including the City of South Lake Tahoe, remain at their place of residence to the fullest extent possible except to provide or receive essential services or engage in essential activities and work. This directive is effective from 11:59 p.m. on Friday March 20, 2020, to 11:59 p.m. on April 16, 2020.

H. On March 19, 2020, the Governor of California issued Executive Order N-33-20 ordering all individuals living in the State of California to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, to go into effect immediately and stay in effect until further notice.

I. The rapid spread of COVID- 19, and the measures needed to mitigate it, threaten to impair City government operation and delivery of essential services should employees be exposed, and may necessitate that the City request mutual aid under the California Emergency Services Act.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8AF7B02D- 5D6D- 4E31-AAF2- 014AAC459260 223
Resolution 2020-026 March 20, 2020 Page 2 of 3
J. COVID- 19 is causing a world- wide economic slowdown that will fiscally impact the City.

The City anticipates substantial revenue loss from transient occupancy tax, sales tax, business license tax, recreation user fees, and other sources of revenue because of declining economic activity. The City also anticipates that its residents and local businesses may need economic assistance and services to mitigate the impacts from COVID- 19 that exceed the capacity of City resources.

K. Many residents of South Lake Tahoe are tenants who work in the tourism and service industries and have experienced sudden income loss, and further income impacts are anticipated. The loss of wages caused by the effects of COVID- 19 may impact tenants’ ability to pay rent when due, leaving tenants vulnerable to eviction.

L. During this local emergency, and in the interest of protecting the public health and preventing the spread of COVID- 19, it is essential to avoid unnecessary housing displacement, to protect the City’s affordable housing stock, and to prevent housed individuals from becoming homeless. Preventing evictions on a temporary basis is needed until the spread of the virus can be minimized.

M. While there are no confirmed cases of COVID- 19 within South Lake Tahoe or El Dorado County, the conditions of the COVID- 19 pandemic threaten a condition of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City, which are conditions likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat.

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

1. Ratifies the Proclamation of Local Emergency Due to COVID- 19, as issued by the Director of Emergency Services on March 19, 2020, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. Has reviewed the need for continuing the proclamation of local emergency and finds that current circumstances warrant continuance of the proclamation of local emergency related to COVID- 19.

3. Deems the local emergency to continue to exist until terminated by the City Council.

4. Directs South Lake Tahoe residents, visitors and local businesses to comply with Executive Order N-33-20 and the El Dorado County Public Health Official’ s directive dated March 20, 2020.

5. Finds that because Executive Order N-33-20 and the El Dorado County Public Health Official’ s directive dated March 20, 2020, requires governmental agencies to cease nonessential operations at physical locations, the City may be unable to timely respond to request for public records, or meet other deadlines, including those under the Permit Streamlining Act. The City considers any such deadlines to be tolled during the period in which non-essential operations at physical locations are required to be suspended.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8AF7B02D- 5D6D- 4E31-AAF2- 014AAC459260 224
Resolution 2020-026 March 20, 2020 Page 3 of 3

6. Directs the Director of Emergency Services to report to City Council at least every 60 days until terminated by the City Council as required by California Government Code section 8630.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on March 20, 2020 by the following vote:

Yes: Bass, Collin, Laine, Middlebrook and Wallace
Date:_________
Jason Collin, Mayor
Attest:

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8AF7B02D- 5D6D- 4E31-AAF2- 014AAC459260 3/ 20/ 2020
225

BACKGROUND
Proclamation of Local Emergency Due to COVID- 19
By the Director of Emergency Services
March 19, 2020
A. Under Section 1.15.030(C) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code , the Director of Emergency Services is empowered to issue a proclamation of local emergency if the City Council is not in session , to be ratified by the City Council within seven days thereafter .

B . On March 4 , 2020 , the Governor of California proclaimed a state of emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID -19 .

C . On March 11 , 2020 , the World Health Organization declared COVID- 19 to be a pandemic.

D. On March 13 , 2020 , the President of the United States declared a national emergency in response to COVID- 19 .

E. On March 17 , 2020 , the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors ratified a declaration of a local public health emergency under California Health & Safety Code section 101080 and a declaration of county-wide local emergency under California Government Code section 8630 , both in response to COVID- 19 .

F . The rapid spread of COVI D-19 , and the measures needed to mitigate it , threaten to impair City government operation and delivery of essential services should employees be exposed , and may necessitate that the City request mutual aid under the California Emergency Services Act.

G . COVID- 19 is causing a world-wide econom ic slowdown that will fiscally impact the City.

The City anticipates substantial revenue loss from transient occupancy tax , sales tax , business license tax , recreation user fees , and other sources of revenue because of declining economic activity . The City also anticipates that its residents and local businesses may need economic assistance and services to mitigate the impacts from COVID- 19 that exceed the capacity of City resources.

H. Many res idents of South Lake Tahoe are tenants who work in the tourism and service industries and have experienced sudden income loss , and further income impacts are anticipated . The loss of wages caused by the effects of COVID- 19 may impact tenants ' ability to pay rent when due, leaving tenants vulnerable to eviction .

I. During this local emergency , and in the interest of protecting the public health and preventing the spread of COVID -19 , it is essential to avoid unnecessary housing displacement, to protect the City 's affordable housing stock , and to prevent housed individuals from becoming homeless. Preventing evictions on a temporary basis is needed until the spread of the virus can be minimized .

ADocuSign Envelope ID: 8AF7B02D- 5D6D- 4E31-AAF2- 014AAC459260 Exhibit 226
J . Wh ile there are no confirmed cases of COVID- 19 within South Lake Tahoe or El Dorado County , the conditions of the COVID -19 pandemic threaten a condition of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City , which are conditions likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel , equipment, and facilities of the City , requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat.

K. The City Council is not now in session and cannot immediately be called into session .

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED THAT

1. I find that the cond itions in Section 1.15 .020 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code and Section 8558( c) of the California Government Code , relating to the proclamation of a local emergency are met, and that a local emergency now exists throughout the City of South Lake Tahoe.

2. During the existence of this local emergency , the powers , functions , and duties of the Director of Emergency Services shall be those prescribed by state law ordinances , and resolutions of the City of South Lake Tahoe , as well as the City of South Lake Tahoe 's Emergency Operations Plan .

3. The Director of Emergency Services is authorized to obtain any and all assistance from local , county , state , and federal agencies , including but not limited to aid and assistance pursuant to the California Disaster Assistance Act.
4 . The Director of Emergency Services may authorize emergency purchases unde r Sect ion

3.45 .070 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code as needed to address this local emergency .

5. The Director of Emergency Services may modify personnel policies to facilitate City employees working remotely, or for employees whose duties cannot be performed remotely , taking paid and unpaid time off, as needed to address this local emergency and maintain essential City services .
6 . Pursuant to the authority granted in the Governor' s Executive Order N-28-20 , a moratorium on residential evictions based on the nonpayment of rent arising out of a documented substantial decrease in household income caused by layoffs or a reduction in the numbe r of compensable hours of work , or documented substantial out-of-pocket medical expenses , documented to be caused by the COVID -19 pandemic or by any government response to COVID -19 , is hereby enacted to be in effect through the period of local emergency declared in response to COVID- 19 , but ending no later than May 31 , 2020 . No landlord shall endeavor to evict a tenant for nonpayment of rent if the tenant demonstrates that the inability to pay rent is due to COVID -19 or government response to COVID- 19 , and where the tenant has notified the landlord before rent is due that the tenant is unable to pay rent , or a portion of rent , for these reasons . Nothing in this moratorium shall relieve the tenant of liability for unpaid rent , which the landlord may seek after the sooner of the expiration of DocuSign Envelope ID: 8AF7B02D- 5D6D- 4E31-AAF2- 014AAC459260 227
this local emergency or May 31 , 2020 , and which the tenant is required to pay within 60 days of such request.
7 . The City of South Lake Tahoe urges its residents , visitors , and local businesses follow advisories from the federal , state, and county public health officials regarding social distancing of at least six feet , limiting group size to no more than 10 people , closing bars and wineries , closing dine-in service at restaurants , and advising people over 65 to stay home. The City further urges that non-essential travel should be avoided and urges potential visitors to postpone their travel to South Lake Tahoe , 8 . The City of South Lake Tahoe is subject to immunity under Government Code section 8655 to the maximum extent provided by law for any actions taken in furtherance of addressing this local emergency.
9 . This proclamation of local emergency shall continue for no more than seven days unless ified by City ouncil.
1lger
Director o Emergency Services/
Interim City Manager
Approved as to Form :
66~
Heather Stroud
City Attorney
Date # zc)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8AF7B02D- 5D6D- 4E31-AAF2- 014AAC459260 228
229
230
231
232
Ordinance 2020-1144 May 28, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Urgency Ordinance 2020- 1144
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
May 28, 2020
An Urgency Ordinance Relaxing Certain Regulations Regarding Temporary Signage, Building Permit Fees, and Outdoor Restaurant Seating Due to COVID- 19

FINDINGS
A. On March 4, 2020, the Governor of California proclaimed a state of emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19.

B. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic.

C. On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a national emergency in response to COVID-19.

D. On March 17, 2020, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors ratified a declaration of a local public health emergency under California Health & Safety Code section 101080 and a declaration of county-wide local emergency under California Government Code section 8630, both in response to COVID-19.

E. On March 19, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Proclamation of Local Emergency in the City of South Lake Tahoe due to COVID-19, which was ratified by City Council at an emergency meeting on March 20, 2020.

F. On March 19, 2020, the El Dorado County Public Health Officer issued a directive restricting activities in response to the COVID-19 outbreak that directs all individuals living in El Dorado County, including the City of South Lake Tahoe, remain at their place of residence to the fullest extent possible except to provide or receive essential services or engage in essential activities and work. This directive was effective from 11:59 p.m. on Friday March 20, 2020, to 11:59 p.m. on April 30, 2020.

G. On March 19, 2020, the Governor of California issued Executive Order N-33-20 ordering all individuals living in the State of California to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, to go into effect immediately and stay in effect until further notice.

H. On April 3, 2020, the El Dorado County Public Health Officer issued an order prohibiting nonessential travel into the Lake Tahoe Basin, which was extended indefinitely on April 29, 2020, to be reviewed with Barton Hospital and other medical professionals at least every 14 days.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 85C5FE4A- 6F48-4E56-833F-40644FE063E9 233
Ordinance 2020-1144 May 28, 2020 Page 2 of 5
I. On May 4, 2020, the Governor of California issued Executive Order N-60-20 allowing reopening of non-essential businesses in stages and in compliance with State Public Health Officer criteria, based on certain public health criteria being met on a county-by-county basis.

J. On May 12, 2020, the State granted El Dorado County’s request for a variance to move into full Stage 2 reopening, allowing business sectors including in-store retail and in-person dining to resume in compliance with State Public Health Officer criteria, which includes requirements for restaurants to space tables at least six feet apart, among other things.

K. The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially impacted the local economy by causing a drastic reduction in tourism and has caused serious negative impacts to local businesses including substantial loss of income due to the loss of compensable work hours and non-essential business closures ordered by Executive Order N-33-20.

L. It is in the public interest to take steps to ensure local businesses survive during this public health emergency, and this Ordinance temporarily relaxes certain regulations to support local businesses, promote economic stability, and to promote a stable business and job market for employers and employees to return to once the local emergency is abated.

M. Adopting this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to address the immediate threats to the public health, safety, and welfare of residents and local businesses related to the significant economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, to support businesses to be successful in their reopening in compliance with public health criteria, and to support compliance with public health orders and criteria related to COVID-19 to continue to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the City.

N. Under California Government Code section 36937, a four-fifths vote of City Council is required to pass this Ordinance.

Now, Therefore, the City Council of City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Each fact set forth in the recitals is true and correct and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2. A temporary waiver of the restrictions on temporary signs is enacted, as follows:

A. Banners and sandwich board signs. South Lake Tahoe City Code section 6.40.080(O)(i), as may be amended, regarding time restrictions for displaying banners and sandwich board signs limiting such displays to weekends, holidays, and City-sanctioned community events, is temporarily waived to allow displays of banners and sandwich board signs at any time without a permit.

B. Window signage. South Lake Tahoe City Code section 6.40.060(Q), as may be amended, prohibiting window signs exceeding 25 percent of the window area, and 6.40.080(N), as may be amended, setting the permissible area for window signage at 25 percent of the window area, are temporarily waived to allow window signage exceeding 25 percent of the window area without a permit.

SECTION 3. The requirement of South Lake Tahoe City Code section 6.15.020 that payment of building permit fees is required prior to issuance of building permit is temporarily waived, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 85C5FE4A- 6F48-4E56-833F-40644FE063E9 234
Ordinance 2020-1144 May 28, 2020 Page 3 of 5
payment of building permit fees shall be deferred to becoming due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.

SECTION 4. Restaurants may temporarily relocate some or all of their existing indoor seating capacity to outdoor seating, as follows:

A. Seating Layout Review and Site Inspection. A Seating Layout Review and Site Inspection is required to relocate some or all of permitted indoor restaurant seating to outdoor seating in adjacent privately-owned outdoor areas not originally permitted for outdoor seating, such as landscaped areas and parking lots, and in adjacent public areas such as sidewalks and on-street parking spaces. The Seating Layout Review and Site Inspection shall be conducted by a City Building Inspector and/or Fire Inspector who will review and either approve or require modifications to the proposed outdoor seating layout based on the following criteria:
i. Seating layout does not create a safety risk and adequate pedestrian and vehicular separation is maintained, including with movable barriers as appropriate where outdoor seating is to be placed in parking lots or on-street parking spaces. ii. Seating layout accommodates appropriate vehicle and pedestrian circulation and maintains adequate paths of travel and complies with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
iii. Any tents comply with fire codes and safety standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association for fire-resistant tents and must include an affixed manufacturer’s label stating the tent meets NFPA requirements. A State Fire Marshal seal on the tent or a certificate is needed to prove treatment.

B. No Fee. No fee will be charged for conducting a Seating Layout Review and Site Inspection.

C. Occupancy. Total seating occupancy (including all indoor and outdoor seating) shall not exceed the overall occupancy for which the restaurant is permitted.

D. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. As a condition of approving outdoor seating on City-owned property including sidewalks and on-street parking, the restaurant owner is required to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from any liability for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries, direct or indirect including any and all costs in connection therein), which may arise from restaurant’s operations on City-owned property, except for any such claims arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

E. Insurance Required. At the time of the Seating Layout Review and Site Inspection that includes a request to use City-owned property including sidewalks and on-street parking, the DocuSign Envelope ID: 85C5FE4A- 6F48-4E56-833F-40644FE063E9 235
Ordinance 2020-1144 May 28, 2020 Page 4 of 5
applicant shall submit proof of insurance including certificates of insurance with original endorsements as follows:
i. Commercial General Liability Coverage to be maintained no less broad that ISO form GC 00 01 in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. Coverage must be made on the standard occurrence form.
ii. Automobile Liability Coverage to be maintained covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities under the permit, including coverage for owned, hired, and nonowned vehicles in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence.
iii. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing an AM Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language: The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured’s with respect to liability arising out of the activities under the temporary activity permit; the policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers, and any insurance maintained by the City including any self-insured retention shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it; the insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring permittee; the insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers; any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers; and no policies of insurance carried by permittee shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or changed in coverage or limits except after thirty days written notice to the City Attorney by certified mail.

F. Other Regulations and Approvals. Restaurants requesting a Seat Layout Review and Site Inspection from the City are responsible for maintaining compliance with all other applicable regulations and obtaining any approvals required from other agencies, including but not limited to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the South Tahoe Public Utilities District, State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and the El Dorado County Environmental Health Department. The restaurant shall post on site its COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization to expand its licensed footprint for serving alcoholic beverages from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall remain in effect for the duration of the local emergency.

SECTION 6. This action is statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 20180(b)(4) (specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines 15301 (existing facilities), 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 85C5FE4A- 6F48-4E56-833F-40644FE063E9 236
Ordinance 2020-1144 May 28, 2020 Page 5 of 5
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall not be codified.

SECTION 8. If any provision of this Ordinance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be considered a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published as required by law.

Passed and Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 28, 2020 by the following vote:

Yes: Bass, Collin, Laine, Middlebrook and Wallace
Date:_________
Jason Collin, Mayor
Attest:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading: n one
Published: within 15 days of passage
Effective: May 28, 2020
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 85C5FE4A- 6F48-4E56-833F-40644FE063E9 5/ 29/ 2020
237
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Agenda Item #: 12
Agenda Item: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance for The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Blvd., File # 20-114
Executive Summary: On September 15, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission approved a design review, special use permit, and a variance for the the addition of nine new tourist accommodation cabins at The Landing at Tahoe Resort located at 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard. On September 29, 2022, an appeal was filed with the City Clerk by Patrcia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Merrikh.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission decision to approve a Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance for The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Blvd., File # 20-114 Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager (530) 542-7472 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-CCStaffReport.docx
02-Merrikh - Landing Resort 09 29 2022.pdf
03-Mailed Notices.pdf
04- PC Resolution 2022-014 Design Review 4104 Lakeshore Blvd.pdf 05-September 15 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report.pdf 06-ProofofMailing_20221014.pdf
07-TribunePublicNotice_20221014.pdf
08-Resolution Denying Appeal
09-KLT to City Council re The Landing Appeal.Final.pdf
10-Appeal Proceedures - The Landing.pdf
11-Merrikh letter to City Council with attachmt 10-26-22.pdf 238
City Council November 1, 2022 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Title: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance for The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Blvd., File # 20-114
Location: 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard
Responsible Staff Members: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager (530) 542-7472 Background:

Diamond Rock Hospitality Company submitted a Design Review, Variance, and Special Use Permit application to the City of South Lake Tahoe to construct nine cabins with 14 hotel units at The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa. The new buildings will add a total of 7,149 square feet of gross floor area and increase the number of hotel units from 82 to 96.

The additional hotel units will be constructed with TRPA-verified tourist accommodation units previously banked on the property.

The project also involves the addition of exterior stairs to a rooftop deck, which fronts Lakeshore Boulevard. A 3,094 square foot storage building, landscaping, and water quality improvements are proposed as well. Coverage will be relocated within the property, and no new coverage will be created. The property's parking layout will be modified to accommodate the new tourist accommodation buildings, and a total of 88 onsite spaces will be provided.

A Major Design Review application is required for non-residential projects greater than 5,000 square feet. A Special Use application is required when property owners request a reduction in required parking ratios. A variance is required for the parking lot and exterior staircase encroachment into the side street setback.

On August 18, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project (see Attachment 02, Planning Commission Staff Report). After taking public comment and hearing from the project applicant, the Planning Commission made a motion to continue the item to the October 13, 2022 meeting with the following recommendations:

1. Revise the plans to show adequate snow storage onsite 239
City Council November 1, 2022 Page 2 of 4

2. Include a trash enclosure on the plan set

3. Add bicycle parking

4. Add additional parking
The applicant subsequently made revisions to the plan according to the Planning Commission's recommendation and requested the item be considered at the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.

On September 15, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, took public comment, deliberated, and voted 3-2 to approve the Major Design Review Permit, the Special Use Permit, and Variance.

On September 29, 2022, the City Clerk received an appeal for the Planning Commission's approval. Pursuant to Section 6.10.090.E, a Major Design Review Permit and Special Use Permit may be appealed to the City Council (see Attachment 02).

Issue and Discussion:

Appeal
The appellant, Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Merrikh, submitted a timely appeal on September 29, 2022. The appellant provided the following reasons for the appeal:
 The appellant did not receive a notice of the October 15, 2022 or the September 15, 2022 public hearing. The appellant claims that the City has been aware of their mailing address because they had previously operated a vacation home rental property.
 The granting of a variance does not comply with the intent and practical reasons for the code requirements.
 The variance results in a "taking" of the appellant right to a 15-foot setback.  There should be an independent review of the parking analysis when a variance is requested.
 The applicant should explore alternatives such as offsite shared parking.  Code requirements are being bypassed.
 Deed restriction for hauling snow offsite is not enforceable.

Response to Appeal
City staff provides the following information in response to the appellant:
 A public notice of both August 18, 2022 and September 15, 2022 was sent to the appellant but was returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091 notice of public hearings is mailed to the owner of real property 240
City Council November 1, 2022 Page 3 of 4
as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll or records of the county assessor or tax collector. The City does not use the VHR database for the purpose of mailing public hearing notices to affected property owners (see Attachment 03).  Pursuant to City Code Section 6.55.630, a variance may be granted to encroach into required setbacks for parking pads if the Planning Commission makes the required findings. The Planning Commission voted in the affirmative (3-2), finding that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations (i.e., setback standards) would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical plan area (see Attachment 04, Resolution 2022-014).
 The City Code provides provisions to grant a variance to the setback standard if the Planning Commission makes specified findings.
 The City Code does not require the City to seek an independent review of a traffic/parking analysis to grant variances. The applicant requesting a modification to the parking demand ratios specified in the City Code is required to submit a technically adequate parking analysis (SLTCC § 6.10.350.B). City staff has found that the submitted analysis is technically adequate and includes the required analysis.
 As described in the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 05), offsite parking is an option but is not a requirement. The applicant provided a technical analysis indicating that 94 parking spaces and two loading spaces are adequate for tourist accommodation use. City staff did analyze offsite options within 300 feet of the subject parcel; however, other properties in the area do not appear to have excess parking available to accommodate shared parking for the Landings Resort.
 The City Code requirements are not being bypassed. The City Code allows modifications of the adopted parking standards if findings are made and a use permit is approved by the Planning Commission (SLTCC § 6.10.350.B). City Code also allows the Planning Commission to approve a variance to setback standards when specified findings are made (SLTCC §6.55.630).
 A deed restriction recorded on the property is fully enforceable by the City. Design Review Permit #20-114 includes a condition of approval requiring a deed restriction documenting the requirement for a contract to haul snow offsite. The applicant has agreed to accept this condition, and moreover, the condition requires the applicant to provide the City with proof of contract.
241
City Council November 1, 2022 Page 4 of 4

PUBLIC NOTICE
A public notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on October 14, 2022. A notice of the November 1, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on October 14, 2022 (See Attachments 06 and 07).

Financial Implications:

The construction of 14 new tourist accommodation units would potentially increase transient occupancy tax and property tax associate with the property.

Policy Implications:

There are no policy implications if the City Council denies or grants an appeal. Pursuant to Chapter 2.35 of the City Code, an aggrieved person(s) may pursue an appeal of a decision, act, ruling, order, rule, or directive from an officer, board, or commission of the City if allowed by the City Code.
242

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

APPEAL FORM
Return this form and Appeal Fee to the Office of the City Clerk Susan Blankenship, City Clerk [email protected] (530) 542-6005 1901 Lisa Maloff Way (Airport Road), South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Appeal from decision of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Date decision rendered: SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
subject: VARIANCE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF THE

LANDING RESORT
Action taken: THE COMMISSION GRANTED THE VARIANCES WITH NEW CONDITIONS R .c. l We are the neighbors of the Landing and did not receive any notice of the hearing. eason 1or appea : ----c4F"'b-7'---::"9--,lr-f---------- - - - - ---- with the Landing. Our property line is feet long. The Landing requested variances from the city code as to requiried set backs to the property lline for the parking lot. The commission voted to grant the Landing an encroachment of 8' into the 15 foot code required set back. The Commission also granted a variance from the number of parking spaces required for their business operation. The code requires 105 spaces, and the variance granted !Mr.1'f SEP 2 9 2022
City of South Lake Tahoe
04 2022
Applicant Na
4121 Azure Ave. , South Lake Tahoe, CA
Mailing Address
530 318-0802 or 318-3444
Telephone Number
n/a
Fax Number
[email protected]
Email address
243
Notice of appeal of Meeting Date September 15, 2022 decisions.

Submitted by: Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Merrikh
Re: File# 20-114 - Diamond Rock Hospitality
This letter is an attachment to the Notice of Appeal and Appeal of the Planning Commission decision of September 15, 2022.

Jurisdiction and Due process: We never received Notice of the Hearing mailed by the Planning Commission for any of the hearings relevant to the Landing/Diamond Rock Hospitality permit referenced :above. We were informed the day before the hearing that a planning commission hearing was scheduled for September 15, 2022 by the Lakeside Park administration. Once we realized that the hearing was scheduled, we began a review of the agenda packet and realized that the decisions that were being contemplated would absolutely affect our property. We immediately tried to review the plans that were submitted, but they were about 100 plus pages, and we drafted a letter requesting a continuance of the hearing to give us an opportunity to review the plans and permit requests vis-a-vis our property. We wrote a letter to you and also appeared at the hearing completely unprepared because of the lack of notice.

During the hearing, Mr. Hitchcock stated that the Notices were sent to us at a P.O. Box and acknowledged that they were returned undelivered. The PO Box was closed since the Post Office behind Bank of America closed probably 12 years ago. Our existence has been known to the planning department because, we built a duplex on our property, we had a Vacation home rental for years, we had met with Mr. Hitchcock and the Planning department over the years.

We also discovered at the Commission meeting on September 15, 2021 , that the Landing permit issues were actually Noticed for the October 15, 2022 meeting, but for some reason the Landing permit had been moved up to September 15, 2022. We did not receive that October notice either.

As we said in our letter to you of September 15, 2022, (Attached) we asked Mr.

Hitchcock last year if the Landing was planning any development. We asked because we heard from the Landing General Manager that they are applying for a new development of the property. Mr. Hitchcock responded - not to his knowledge. At that time we were investigating the possibility of getting a special use, bed and breakfast tourist accommodation for our property, but was told that the City council wanted to stick to the intent of Measure T and our request for a ~pecial use permit would be a waste of time and money.

This is our first issue regarding the appeal for lack of actual notice .. 244
Other Appeal issues:

We present this appeal because the set back and parking codes variances granted by the Commission do not comply with the intent and practical reasons for the Code requirements and injure us who share a 329' property line with the Landing .. 1, Codes have been established to protect the safety of the public and to provide uniformity in application of land use requirements. The grant of the variances do not comply with the intent and practical reaso H. s for the code requirements. Variances should be permitted if there is a reasonable need for it, and if it does not undermine the code requirements and does not injure others.

A. Set back encroachment - The set back requirement for commercial parking lots is 15 feet from the property line. The Landing's variance request was to reduce the set back requirement between my home and the Landing to 7 feet. A set back is established by our code to provide a reasonable area of distance between my property and the parking lot of the Landing. By allowing the encroachment into the set back to enable a commercial business to increase the number of parking spaces is not a reasonable solution to the Landing's parking problems, but inflicts an injury to our family. We are entitled to have that set back provide the distance between our house and the cars. Why should the Landing be able to impact our code establish interests? The decision to allow the variance results in a "taking" of our right to a 15 foot set-back by approximately 300' x 8' = 2,400 square feet. What are our damages of this taking of our rights?
B. Size of parking spaces. There is a further variance request for the size of the parking spaces, shortening the length of the parking spaces.

The reason? To try to smash into the parking space cars that do not fit in order to achieve the maximum hotel rooms for the resort.

The Result? Parking chaos, damaged vehicles and potential injury to persons and property.

The remedy? None, nothing is built into the permit conditions that would be enforceable in any practical way.

C. There is a third variance granted which is a reduction in the overall number of parking space requirements per code. The planning department recognizes that there should be a minimum of 105 parking spaces to conform to the city code, for the hotel portion. The. parking problems in Lakeside beach area are numerous and serious. It is not clear from the plan review whether a study has been made regarding the restaurant parking additional requirements. The fact that there has been a parking lot assessment from the LSU is not the end of the inquiry. An independent review of the parking allotment and configuration of the parking lot, for public, guests, and restaurant goers should be the standard when a variance is requested. There is also the fact that the Landing, and the beach have wedding, parties, and other events for non-guests which also require additional parking. It appears that the planning department has only reviewed what was presented by the Landing's representatives, and not taken a look at it 245
from an independent viewpoint.

At the hearing, the Planning Commission did address our concerns, but did not grant a continuance of the hearing. The decision was 3-2 that the variance for size and location of the parking spaces would be permitted with the proviso that a barrier was erected along the south side of the property, (my 300 feet property line) to prevent cars from busting through the wood fence, and the property line and into my home, and yard. We are grateful for this condition, however we would appreciate the ability to provide some oversight of this aspect of the project.

Our preference would be to provide a solid rock wall along the 300 feet shared property line, and the added 29 feet at the back of our property (west side of the property), and the 50 feet which is at the back of Mr. Rezmond's property ( our next door neighbor whose property also abuts the Landing) in addition to wheel stops so that cars are stopped from entering our property .. This would enhance the parking lot, the neighborhood, and the protection of my property and others. It would make the Landing "four-star" property really look like one.

We attach pictures of the fence that separates our two properties, you can see that snow plowing is an issue for the fencing, and the break through onto our property with their maintenance issues.

D. Not all solutions have been explored by the Landing or the Planning Department.

At page 4 of 10 of the Planning Departments 10 page report dated 9-15-22 it states that "Alternatively shuttle service from an offsite shared parking lot over 300 feet away is an option but has not been pursue by the applicant." (Emphasis mine.) Perhaps if this had been pursued, the parking requirements could be met with a solution that is easier than striking down all of the code requirements.

We do not understand why are you bypassing so many code requirements, when it does not appear that other options have been fully explored. I We ask you to look at the parking plan with a practical eye, for instance, what will this valet parking area look like at check out time. It will be congested, noisy, car exhaust fumes, and ugly. Why are they cramming 94 cars in an area they will have to expertly maneuver around and manage all of the c ars, when the parking spaces and aisle widths are smaller than the code required size?
Snow:

1. We do not even know how to begin to address the snow issues. The requirement of snow removal capabilities was approved by the Commission with the condition that the Landing enter into a contract for snow removal, and that this condition would be made a deed restriction. This prospect of a deed restriction does not have any enforcement capability. Last year, we did not have that much snow, but we calculated that the Landing had a snow pile (where they used to put up the tent), that must have been approximately 72,000 cubic feet in quantity. That is also not counting the snow they pushed across the streets. In looking at their plans, where are they going to put that snow and how will a snow removal 246
contract help the situation.

Please ask yourself, how practical · are the variances you are allowing? How intrusive is the noise from large snow removal equipment and trucks to the residential neighborhood?
How do the variances you granted with conditions impact your codes for the future? How will you enforce the conditions you have imposed?
We want the Landing to succeed and want their facility to be first class looking. However, not at our expense or the neighborhood's expense.

Sometimes trying to fit too large of a project it too small of a site plan is like trying to fit into clothes that are three sizes too small, it busts at the seams to the detriment of those sitting next to you, and looks horrible.

Please grant our appeal from their latest decisions and have the planning commission re-visit the submittal.

I
Respectfully sub
,· I.,., ___ ,.,- /' 'lr~-- . ricia L. Suda Merri
247
Aptos Office
311 Bonita Dr.

Aptos, California 95003
Telephone: 83 1. 722.22 12
September 14, 2022
Patricia L. Suda
Attorney at Law
Members of the City Council of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
Meeting Date September 15, 2022
Re: File# 20-114
Diamond Rock Hospitality
Attention: Mr. John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
South lake Tahoe Office
41 2 1 Azure Ave.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156
I received for the first time a Notice of Hearing date for September 15, 2022 (tomorrow) at 3 pm regarding some development plans for my neighbor, The Landing. I never received any Notices of any actions from your office for this hearing or any other hearing, as to the changes requested in the Landing's permit application. But for the fact that the Lakeside Park Association secretary decided to email me your Notice, we would not have been informed at all about your hearing and would have had to unknowingly suffer the implications of the commission's grant of the mentioned variance request.

I wish to request a continuance of this matter to your October planning commission meeting as I have not had a chance to fully review your agenda packet which is comprised of over 100 pages of findings and assumptions that apparently directly effect my property and my enjoyment of my property. I share the Azure side and the 300 feet of the fence side of the Landing property.

Unfortunately, we have been having our share of problems with the Landing with their snow removal, and fire issues. Our relationship with the Landing, will be directly affected by the parking lot proposal and the request for a variance.

As you should recall, my husband and I specifically met with you in September of 2021 , (when my vacation home rental permit was going to expire in October 2021) to discuss the possibility of a special use designation for my property and to be permitted as a tourist accommodation or bed and breakfast.

At that time I specifically asked you if anything was happening at the Landing because the general manager had told my husband that they were going to develop their property. You replied that to your knowledge you were not aware of anything being applied for with you.

Please respond to my request if possible today, and I will be at the meeting tomorrow to address the committee now that I know that something is planned at the Landing and the grant of a variance for the parking lot, ( and possibly other things) will effect me directly. How comfortable can I be if my family cannot enjoy our backyard because a parking valet hits the gas instead of the brakes. Which happens all of the time.
·c~~
a icia L. Suda
248
The Landing application for Variance
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 03:41 PM PDT
To: The Planning Commission
I realized that you may not grant my request to postpone any decisions on the development project, so I will try to summarize my concerns.

1. My issue is primarily with the Landing's request to reduce the set back of the parking spaces which are otherwise required by code. The area which they seek to get a variance for is right up against 300 feet of my property line. My house is five feet away from the property line and will be up against their proposed parking area. Si
milarly my back yard and garden area, and another cabin will be similarly right up against their proposed parking area. There is a fence on the property line, however the fence is wood and has been knocked down onto my property a few times over the years. I am fearful that cars, particularly in winter, will cause injury to either my guests or family or building because the Landing's cars are parked closer to my property than is required per code.. The Code is for safety. The existing fence would not provide protection against a rogue car, or driver.

2. I believe that their idea of providing a valet service with parking spaces in every inch of permitted space is bizarre. I live next door to the Landing and share a 300 foot property line. I have witnessed first hand their existing problems with parking, not just on the street, but within the existing parking spaces. I have witnessed larger vans and RVs have difficulty maneuvering in the current spaces, however to reduce the number of spaces, and reduce the size length and width of some of the spaces will make parking within the confines of their property lines hazardous. The garbage truck can barely maneuver in their existing space. Add the reality of snow falling on their property and the parking places will be impossible to use as they wish. The parking space requirements are there for a reason, safety.

If there is a catastrophe, natural or not, everywhere close by will be impacted.

3. Lastly, where are they going to put their snow and snow equipment. Currently their tractor and snow removal equipment takes up a large parking area. In looking at what I have seen of their plans, there is no room for snow. In the past, I have let the prior owners of the Landing use part of my land for their snow. I do not have an understanding with the new owners. They are also pushing their snow to the street and across the street on Azure and Stateline, The berms across the street from my house make Azure a one lane road when a snowfall is large. That is the situation now, and yet they are requesting to cover their existing snow area with parking and hotel suites to further magnify the problem with snow storage and removal.

Imagine reality - a 12 - 18 feet of snow fall overnight. Their parking lot is full. How will they get rid of it.

They will barely be able to move. Also, hauling away the snow on a daily basis will not work in that situation because of the berms and the one lane on Azure or Stateline. It will be extremely disruptive to traffic on Stateline and Azure.

I would like to have the opportunity to review their entire plan for their development as it affects my home in greater detail. However, the lack of the proper required notice has prevented me from doing that.

Sincerely,
Patricia L. Suda Merrikh
249
Wednesday • Jan 12, 2022 •
1:02 PM
~ I G_0765
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
Adjust
250
Tuesday• Dec 14, 2021 • 4:55 PM Adjust
(D IMG 0356
Apple iPhone 7 Plus -::c~·:

Wide Camera - 28 mm f 1.8
12 MP · 4032 x 3024 · 759 KB
1S080 82mm O ev /1 .8 1/15s
251

ACCOUNT

PAYMENT

PATRICIA L SUDA
ATTORNEY AT lAW
4121 AZURE AVE. SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150
A-2701
__::,~.,.._-+---------- T-46800
252
253
Resolution 2022- 014
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
September 15, 2022

APPROVING A MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE FOR 4104 LAKESHORE BOULEVARD, FILE #20-114, APN 029-602-013

BACKGROUND
A. On August 18, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Design Review Application, Special Use Application, and a Variance Application (File #20-114) for the construction of 14 tourist accommodation units, construction of a storage building and reconfiguration of parking areas at 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard.

B. The Planning Commission took public comment, deliberated, and passed a motion to continue the item and recommended the applicant revise the project to provide adequate snow storage onsite, include an onsite trash enclosure, add bicycle parking, and review options for increasing the number of parking spaces.

C. On September 15, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the Design Review Application, Special Use Application, and a Variance Application (File #20 -114) D. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, received public comments, considered the evidence in the record, and deliberated.

E. A public notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on September 2, 2022. A notice of the September 2, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting was also published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on August 5, 2022.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission:
254
Resolution 2022- 014 September 15, 2022 Page 2 of 2
a. Find the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction; and Section 15332, Class 32, which consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section including: (a) the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. b. Approve findings contained in the staff report and grant a use permit to reduce the parking space requirement to 94 onsite parking spaces and two loading spaces.
c. Approve findings contained in the staff report and grant a variance to allow encroachment into the Azure Avenue and Lakeshore Boulevard side street setbacks and rear interior setbacks.
d. Approve Design Review Permit #20-114 as amended by the Planning Commission to revise the site plan to remove snow storage along the southern property line and to install physical barriers.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission on September 15, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes: Feiger, Roberts and Williams
No: Rahbeck and Wieczorek
Date:_________
Kili Rahbeck, Chair
Attest:

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

Sue Blankenship ( Sep 21, 2022 08:59 PDT)
Kili Rahbeck (Sep 21, 2022 09:02 PDT)
Kili Rahbeck Sep 21, 2022
255
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 1 of 10
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to Planning Commission
Meeting Date: September 15, 2022
Title: Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance for The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Blvd., File # 20-114 Location: 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard
Responsible Staff Members: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager (530) 542-7472 Background:

The additional hotel units will be constructed with TRPA-verified tourist accommodation units previously banked on the property.

The project also involves the addition of exterior stairs to a rooftop deck, which fronts Lakeshore Boulevard. A 3,094 square foot storage building, landscaping, and water quality improvements are proposed as well. Coverage will be relocated within the property, and no new coverage will be created. The property’s parking layout will be modified to accommodate the new tourist accommodation buildings, and a total of 88 onsite spaces will be provided.

On October 15, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project (see Attachment 02, Planning Commission Staff Report). After taking public comment and hearing from the project applicant, the Planning Commission made a motion to continue the item to the October 13, 2022 meeting with the following recommendations:

1. Revise the plans to show adequate snow storage onsite

2. Include a trash enclosure on the plan set
181 256
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 2 of 10

3. Add bicycle parking

4. Add additional parking
Issue and Discussion:

Snow Storage
The applicant has revised the site plan to show onsite snow storage. Snow is proposed to be stored along the southern and eastern fence line and along Stateline Avenue within the front yard setback. The area dedicated to snow storage is approximately 11,357 square feet, which is likely not adequate for the amount of snow that will fall on site. Moreover, storing snow along the eastern and south fence line will also be limited due to the height of the fence. Any snow storage over six feet in height will impact the adjacent residential properties (see Attachment 03, Revised Site Plan).

Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to enter into a contract to haul snow offsite in addition to the onsite locations designated for snow storage. A condition of approval has been included in the recommended permit to record a deed restriction requiring that the property owner maintain the onsite snow storage areas and a contract to remove any additional snow from the site.

Trash Enclosure
There are currently two trash enclosures located onsite. One enclosure is located in the parking lot, and the other is located along Stateline Avenue in the front yard setback. The plans have been revised to relocate the trash enclosure that currently encroaches into the front yard setback and relocate it outside the setback adjacent to the existing swimming pool restrooms. The new enclosure will accommodate two dumpsters and an existing trash enclosure in the parking lot will be demolished to create additional parking spaces. The new trash enclosure would be accessible from the Azure Avenue driveway entrance.

The City Code does not specify how many dumpsters are required; however, it does require a sufficient amount to accommodate the type of refuse generated by a use. In the event the property is determined to constitute a nuisance because of blowing debris originating from the container, or the container is determined to be insufficient to contain refuse, or is determined to be a hazard to the public health or is otherwise in violation of health codes, the City may order a change in the size of container, and/or increase the frequency of collection, as well as any other alternatives set forth in Section 4.150.150(A) of the City Code.
182 257
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 3 of 10
Bicycle Parking
The Planning Commission asked that bicycle parking be included in the project. The original plans submitted for review did not indicate any proposed bicycle parking. The revised plan indicates existing bike storage adjacent to the porte cochere, however it was not observed during site visits. City staff recommends a permit condition requiring a minimum of eight bicycle parking spaces.

Parking Demand
As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, August 18, 2022 (see Attachment 02), there are three entrances to the property. The main entrance is from Stateline Avenue, with secondary entrances along Lakeshore Boulevard and Azure Avenue. The entrances along Lakeshore Boulevard and Azure Avenues are currently roped off to prevent vehicular access. The project involves reconfiguring the entrances and parking areas as follows:

1. Removing parking surfaces, including parking spaces located adjacent to Building A.

2. Retaining the existing driveway entrance from Lakeshore Boulevard; however, continue to restrict vehicular traffic

3. Reconstruct the driveway entrance from Azure Avenue and allow vehicular access.

4. Removing 90-degree parking spaces along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue and relocating the spaces onsite.

5. Changing the onsite parking layout to 50 tandem and triple valet parking spaces and 38 non-valet parking spaces.

6. Extending the Hill Road pedestrian path to connect to the Building A and the Lakefront Cabins.

Parking demand ratios for different land uses are established in City Code Section

6.10.410. Pursuant to the City Code a total of 102 parking spaces are needed to meet the adopted parking demand ratio. However, an applicant my request a reduction in the parking demand ratio, if a technically adequate parking analysis is submitted and the Planning Commission grants a special use permit. There are currently 71 onsite parking spaces at The Landing hotel, and 17 spaces that encroach into the City right-of-way along Stateline and Azure Avenues. As shown in the plan set, Diamond Rock is proposing to remove and relocate the spaces in the City right-of-way, reconfigure the parking areas on the property, and create 50 valet parking spaces and 38 non-valet parking spaces. The LSC analysis estimated a 22 percent non-auto access rate for The Landing hotel after considering the number of hotel guests that use group travel. LSC concluded this percentage would increase with the addition of micro transit in the Stateline area. 183 258
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 4 of 10
Accordingly, LSC has concluded that 82 parking spaces are needed for guests, and 5 parking spaces are needed for employees for a total of 87 spaces.

During the public hearing, Planning Commissioners expressed concerns about the number of parking spaces not being adequate. They requested that other viable options be evaluated including offsite shared parking or creating additional parking spaces within the Azure Avenue setback.

Offsite shared parking lots are required to be located within a commercial/public service plan area and within 300 feet of the subject parcel. The site is within 300 feet of other tourist accommodation uses in the Tourist Core Area Plan; however, properties in the area do not have excess parking available to accommodate The Landing employees and visitors. Alternatively, shuttle service from an offsite shared parking lot over 300 feet away is an option but has not been pursued by the applicant.

Planning staff has explored the option of creating parking spaces within the Azure Avenue Setback with City Engineering staff. However, there are existing site constraints that would require the parking spaces to encroach into the City right-of-way and/or back into the travel lane to exit parking spaces, creating potential pedestrian and traffic pattern conflicts, similar to those that currently occur along Stateline Avenue. Since signage prohibiting parking is not installed on Azure Avenue, any member of the public may parallel parking within the right-of-way.

Based on feedback from the Planning Commission, the applicant has revised their site plan to create additional onsite parking spaces and to convert all parking spaces to valet format.

Parking can be managed onsite safely and efficiently by providing full valet service. The plans were revised to add seven additional spaces for a total of 96 spaces. However, two of those spaces will also be managed as loading spaces near the proposed storage buildings.

Driveways and Parking Dimensions
The proposed parking lot reconfiguration is not entirely in compliance with parking standards (e.g., parking space dimensions, and aisle widths). Aisle width varies from 16 feet at its narrowest up to the required standard 24 feet.

The applicant has submitted a revised plan that shows the triple valet spaces, the tandem valet spaces and the valet spaces along the southern property line meet city standards for size and width (spaces #19 through #58). The valet spaces between Building B and Building C (26 total spaces) vary from eight feet in width to nine feet and 17 feet to 18 feet 184 259
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 5 of 10
in depth. Because of onsite constraints and turning movement, it is not feasible to bring these parking valet parking spaces into compliance with the city standard.

Pursuant to the City Code Section 6.10.350, standards may be modified provided 1) the lesser improvement, 2, will lessen environmental impact) traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrian is enhanced, and the lesser improvement meet the intent of the requirement.

City staff is recommending the Planning Commission grant a special use permit for the reduction in parking and allow a modification to the parking standards to allow a lesser improvement for the 26 parking stalls located between Building B and Building C and allow for a lesser aisle width. The environmental impact of the reconfigured parking lot will be lessened, and vehicle and pedestrian safety will be enhanced by allowing the applicant to remove existing parking located in the City right-of-way. Moreover, by relocating the parking onsite, the applicant can install a 5-foot sidewalk along Stateline Avenue, further enhancing pedestrian safety. In addition, all onsite parking spaces will be converted to valets parking, which will efficiently allow onsite management of parking and thus reduce any potential onsite conflicts as a result of reduced aisle widths, and undersized parking stalls.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
California Environmental Quality Act
This proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction, and Section 15332, Class 32, Infill Projects, based on the conditions described below:
1) The proposed addition of new hotel units project is consistent with both the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and the Lakeside Park Plan Area. 2) The proposed development is located within the City of South Lake Tahoe on a site less than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. 3) The site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. 4) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
5) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

FINDINGS
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
185 260
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 6 of 10
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, as the City’s General Plan supports the provision of tourist uses near highways, transit stops, and other visible locations:

Goal LU-6: To provide tourist-serving uses near highways and other highly visible locations in South Lake Tahoe
Policy LU-4.2: Infill and Reinvestment Promotion – The City shall promote infill and reinvestment to increase density within walking distance of transit stops.

Policy LU-4.4: Development Priority – The City shall give priority to developments on underutilized sites that use existing infrastructure, coverage, and development rights.

Policy LU‐6.1: Stateline Node Tourist Center - The City shall establish the Stateline Node as the primary tourist destination for South Lake Tahoe.

Lakeside Park PAS
The Landing Resort is compliant with the permissible uses allowed in the Lakeside Park Plan Area (PAS 089) following the approval of the TRPA Special Use Permit in 2019. The project is consistent with the maximum density for tourist accommodation units. With a parcel size of 2.42 acres, the maximum allowable density is 96 tourist accommodation units.

Citywide Design Standards
The proposed project is consistent with the Citywide design and development standards contained in the City Code Chapters 6.10 and 6.55 provided the applicant meets the conditions of approval addressed in the staff report and included in the City Permit.

Special Use Permit Findings for Tourist Accommodation Use The Planning Commission may grant a use permit to authorize a special use and structure devoted to such use on a specific parcel within a plan area: provided that such use is allowed by use permit and the following findings are made.

1. Necessary or desirable on a specific parcel.

The tourist accommodation use is necessary and desirable on the specific parcel. The tourist accommodation use is an existing use that was built in 1960 before the incorporation 186 261
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 7 of 10
of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The parcel is located in Plan Area 089, Lakeside, a residential plan area where bed & breakfast, hotels, motels, and other transient dwelling units are permissible with a special use permit. The tourist accommodation use is also adjacent to recreation opportunities and a short distance from the Stateline Node.

2. Not injurious to the neighborhood.

Moreover, a sidewalk will be constructed the length of Stateline Avenue, which would relocate pedestrian traffic out of vehicle travel lanes and parking areas.

3. Consistent with the intent of this chapter.

The proposed project, as described in the staff report, is consistent with the intent of Section 6.55.620 of the City Code. The chapter allows granting a use permit to authorize a special use on a specified parcel where the applicable plan area statement/area plan includes the use as permissible. Furthermore, the proposed use is consistent with other similar tourist accommodation uses (e.g., Station House Inn, Quality Inn, Parkside Lone Pine Lodge) operating in the area. It is desirable on this specific parcel to provide tourist accommodation use within close proximity to recreation and entertainment opportunities.

4. Consistent with the permitted uses in such plan area.

The subject parcel is located within Plan Area 089, Lakeside Park. Tourist accommodation uses may be approved with a special use permit. The proposed use is consistent with other similar permitted tourist accommodation uses in the area.

Special Use Permit Findings for Parking Ratio Adjustment and Parking Standards Exception
The Planning Commission may grant a special use permit for adjusting the parking demand ratios contained in City Code, provided a technically adequate parking analysis is submitted with the application. The parking analysis is required to include a parking demand ratio estimate, proposed measures or programs (if any) to be incorporated into a project, a schedule of funding and cost of implementation of transportation management plan measures, and any additional information.
187 262
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 8 of 10
As described in the LSC Parking Analysis, the parking demand for this tourist accommodation use is 87 spaces. Pursuant to input from the Planning Commission, the applicant has revised the proposal to add additional parking spaces for a total of 94 and two loading spaces. This reduction is only eight less than the City Code requirement (102 spaces). Furthermore, the applicant has revised its plans to convert all parking spaces to a valet format, allowing onsite parking to be managed efficiently and safely.

5. Adequate off-street parking will be provided for the proposed use as determined by a parking analysis;

6. The parking analysis submitted by LSC (August 2022) states that 87 parking spaces would be adequate for the proposed tourist accommodation and accessory restaurant uses. LSC concludes that the parking spaces are sufficient due to a significant level of non-motorized access. However, the applicant has revised its plans to add additional parking spaces for a total of 94 valet spaces and two loading spaces. Adding additional parking spaces and converting to valet parking spaces will allow the applicant to manage onsite parking efficiently and safely.

7. The environmental impact of the use will be lessened by the reduction in parking spaces (staff may condition the use permit);
Granting a reduction in parking will lessen the environmental impact of the use. Removing the parking within the right-of-way and relocating the spaces onsite will create an opportunity to construct a pedestrian sidewalk along Stateline Avenue that will reduce pedestrian/traffic conflicts and eliminate parking on unpaved surfaces, thus reducing water quality impacts.

8. Traffic safety for other vehicles and pedestrians will be enhanced by the lesser requirement.

The proposed reconfiguration of the parking lot will improve traffic safety by removing the existing 90-degree hotel parking spaces near the corner of Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue, requiring drivers to back into the travel lanes.

Findings for Granting a Variance
The Planning Commission may grant a variance to authorize specific exceptions to any regulations of Chapter 6.55. The Planning Commission may vary setback requirements for buildings, structures, and parking pads provided that the Planning Commission finds that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, 188 263
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 9 of 10
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical plan area.

The property is an existing developed site with existing buildings/structures and a parking lot that currently does not meet the required setback standards. The property also has existing non-conforming parking spaces located in the City right-of-way along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue and within the street corner clear zone. These parking spaces require drivers to back out into the travel lanes creating a traffic and pedestrian safety hazard. In addition, the property does not have an onsite loading space, and delivery offloading is conducted in the City right-of-way.

There is also an existing 6-foot fence that runs the length of the southern property line, thus eliminating any impact from vehicle headlights on the adjacent residential uses.

Granting a variance for the staircase will provide an additional egress and ingress access to the rooftop and give a second point of excavation during an emergency situation.

The City Code requires four onsite loading spaces. However, as described above, site constraints would make it infeasible to add four. Although only two spaces will be used for onsite loading, it will be managed by onsite staff and thus it is anticipated that two spaces are adequate. Moreover, by granting a variance to reduce the requirement would improve the current situation of loading and offloading within the City right-of-way.

Thus, the strict application of the regulation would continue exacerbating the traffic safety hazard along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue; on-street parking will continue on unpaved surfaces, and deliveries will continue to occur within the right-of-way. Application of the regulations would also deprive the property owner of providing additional access and egress from the rooftop of Building C to ensure adequate safe access.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A public notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on September 2, 2022. A notice of the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on September 2, 2022 (See Attachments 04). 189 264
Planning Commission September 15, 2022 Page 10 of 10
The City has not received any public comments on this application. Any comments received will be transmitted to the Planning Commission and posted on the City website.

Financial Implications:

The construction of 14 new tourist accommodation units would generate TOT revenue for the City.

Policy Implications:

There are no policy implications if the Planning Commission approves the design review, special use permit, and variance for the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 6.10.350 and 6.55.630 of the City Code, the Planning Commission may grant an exception to the adopted parking standards and may grant a variance for encroachment into adopted setback standards.

The proposed project is consistent with adopted General Plan policies as described in the findings section above.
190 265
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 1 of 14
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to Planning Commission
Meeting Date: August 18, 2022
Title: Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance for The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Blvd., File # 20-114 Location: 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard
Responsible Staff Members: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager (530) 542-7472 Background:

The project also involves the addition of exterior stairs to a rooftop deck, which fronts Lakeshore Boulevard. A 3,094 square foot storage building, landscaping and water quality improvements are proposed as well. Coverage will be relocated within the property, and no new coverage will be created. The property’s parking layout will be modified to accommodate the new tourist accommodation buildings, and a total of 88 onsite spaces will be provided.

The applicant has submitted a separate application to TRPA due to the fact that property is located along the Shorezone and TRPA has retained permitting authority for properties in the Shorezone.

Issue and Discussion:

Project Description
Diamond Rock Hospitality Company is proposing to construct 14 additional tourist units in nine (9) detached cabins on the property, demolish an existing building, construct a new storage building, and reconstruct the parking lot. The nine cabins will be systems-built (modular) buildings. The project also includes a new outside staircase to the event deck above Jimmy’s Restaurant. All of 267 191 266
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 2 of 14
the cabins will have two stories and two hotel units except for Cabin 4, which will only contain one story and one hotel unit.

There are currently 71 existing onsite parking spaces at the property and 17 spaces that encroach into the City right-of-way along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue., The applicant is requesting to reconfigure the parking areas and relocate the 17 spaces from the right-of-way to on-site paces, keeping the same total number of spaces for the proposed project. The parking areas will be reconfigured to include 50 valet parking spaces and 38 non-valet parking spaces. More specific information on each item is provided below.
● Construction of 9 detached modular cabins to provide 14 hotel rooms and a storage building.
● A new outside staircase in the Lakeshore Boulevard street side yard setback to access an event deck above the existing restaurant
● Demolition of Building D adjacent to the pool
● Permanent removal and relocation of parking spaces that encroach into the city right-of-way. ● Reconfiguration of parking arrangements to provide 30 triple and 20 tandem valet parking spaces and 38 non-valet parking spaces, for a total of 88 spaces. ● Revegetation and new landscaping adjacent to cabins and along the perimeter of the property.
● Construction of a 5-foot asphalt sidewalk along Stateline Avenue.

Site Description
The property is located at 4104 Lakeshore Blvd at the corner of Stateline Avenue and Lakeshore Boulevard. The main entrance to The Landing hotel is located on Stateline Ave (See Attachment 02). The property contains three hotel buildings (Buildings A, B, and C), a pool, a restroom building, and back of house building (Building D) adjacent to the pool area. The accessory restaurant was added to the property several years ago (City Minor Design Review Permit 13-041) in between Buildings B and C. The parcel contains 2.42 acres (105,201 square feet) and 51,917 square feet of gross floor area in Buildings A, B, and C and 3,781 square feet of patio area above the restaurant. Each hotel building contains three stories and there are currently 82 tourist units on the property.

There are 88 parking spaces at the property, including 71 spaces onsite and 17 parking spaces that partially encroach into the City right-of-way along Stateline and Azure Avenues. These parking spaces are configured at 90 degrees and require the driver to back out into the travel lanes, which does not comply with current City Code standards.

Existing Site Factors
Parcel Size: 2.42 Acres (105,201 SF)
Assessor’s Parcel Number 029-602-013
General Plan Land Use Designation High-Density Residential Planning Area Lakeside Park PAS 089
Zoning Lakeside Park PAS 089
268 192 267
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 3 of 14
Flood Zone X Unshaded, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, FIRM Panel 06017C0380F
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Not Applicable
The Landing hotel is surrounded by residential properties to the north (across Stateline Avenue), south, and east. Lakeside Beach is directly west of the property.

Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
General Plan Land UseZoning Development Status
North High-Density Residential Lakeside Park Single-Family Residential South High-Density Residential Lakeside Park Single-Family Residential West High-Density Residential Lakeside Park Lakeside Beach, Lake Tahoe East High-Density Residential Lakeside Park Single-Family Residential Project Review
The project review includes the Major Design Review and Variance application for the proposed hotel additions and parking reconfiguration as well as a Special Use Application for the reduced parking request, as further described below.

The City previously issued Minor Design Review Permits for remodeling the hotel and the addition of an accessory restaurant (File 12-139, 13-041, 13-169, and 13-217). In 2019, the City issued another Minor Design Review Permit to allow the conversion of storage areas on the first floor of Building B and the fitness room and business center into five new hotel units (File # 19-018).

Diamond Rock used five of 19 banked tourist accommodation units for the conversion, leaving 14 banked TAUs onsite.

Land Uses
The proposed project is the addition of 14 hotel units to The Landing. The hotel currently contains 82 units in three separate buildings (A, B, and C). Fourteen banked TAUs will be converted into the proposed units.

City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan (2011): The South Lake Tahoe General Plan designates this parcel as high-density residential (HDR). The HDR land use designation provides for highdensity single-family and multi-family dwellings (8 to 15 dwelling units per acre) and is applied to areas that are currently developed as multi-family and areas near commercial, employment, transit, and public services. The Neighborhood Priority List Chapter of the General Plan recognizes that Lakeside Park consists of single-family and multi-family dwellings and motels. The Neighborhood Priority List for Lakeside Park is to improve the infrastructure, including streets and drainage, and to preserve historic structures and land use patterns.

Lakeside Park Plan Area Statement (PAS 089): The property is located in the Lakeside Park Plan Area. Tourist accommodation uses require a Special Use Permit. To make the property conform with the Lakeside Park Plan Area Statement, TRPA required the owners to apply for a Special Use 269 193 268
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 4 of 14
Permit in 2019 as part of the request to convert the storage units and fitness room to new hotel units (ERSP2019-0369). As a result, The Landing is now in compliance with the Lakeside Plan Area Statement.

Use findings to grant a City Special Use Permit are provided in the findings section below.

Density
The maximum density for tourist uses in the Lakeside Park Plan Area is 40 units per acre when less than 10% of the units have kitchens. Accordingly, the allowable density based on 40 units per acre would be 96 units (2.42 acres x 40 = 96.8 units). The project would add 14 banked tourist accommodations units for a total of 96 units, which would comply with the maximum allowable density.

Flood Zone
Based on Map 06017C0380F (April 3, 2012), the project is located in Zone X Unshaded, which is an area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.

Building Design, Materials, and Color
The nine cabins are systems-built cabins that will have grey vertical wood siding, grey treated wood lumber slats, and dark grey asphalt composition shingle roofs. The cabins also incorporate a 5:12 pitched shed roof, which is consistent with the citywide design standards. The wood lumber slats are designed to provide privacy screening in the back of the cabin and also to provide façade articulation to create visual interest. The building design, materials, and colors are consistent with the standards of the citywide design manual and the design guidelines (https://www.cityofslt.us/871/Design-Guidelines) that encourages the use of natural and natural appearing materials and natural earthtone colors that blend with the natural environment.

The proposed storage building uses the same materials proposed for the cabins; however, the façade facing Azure Avenue architecturally lacks articulation or visual interest. To ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, the City Permit has been conditioned to require the applicant to add architectural articulation to the façade facing Azure Avenue.

Building Placement
The required setbacks for properties located in the Lakeside Park Plan Area are provided below.

Diamond Rock is proposing to construct a staircase in front of the restaurant to allow access to the event deck above the restaurant. The proposed staircase landing would encroach into the side street yard setback and would not be compliant with City Code setback standards. 270 194 269
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 5 of 14
Front Setback Required Setback Proposed Setback
Front Setback
(Stateline Avenue)
20 feet All proposed buildings are in compliance with the setback standard.

Side Street Yard
(Lakeshore Blvd
and Azure Ave)
15 feet Existing Building C encroaches into the side
street setback by three feet, and the patio fronting
Lakeshore Boulevard encroaches by 15 feet.

The proposed staircase will be constructed in an
existing patio that currently encroaches into the
side street setback. The staircase itself will
encroach into the side street setback along
Lakeshore Boulevard by 9.5 feet
The proposed reconfigured parking lot
encroaches six feet into the side yard setback
along Azure Avenue and five feet into the rear
setback.

Interior Side Yard 15 feet All proposed buildings are in compliance with the setback standard.

Rear Setback 15 feet All proposed buildings are in compliance with the setback standard.

The applicant has requested a variance for the reconfigured parking lot and the proposed rooftop access stairways. The parking area is proposed to encroach into the setback by six feet but does not affect a driveway or street corner vision clearance triangle or create safety hazards. Removing the existing 90-degree hotel parking spaces located near the corner of Stateline and Azure Avenues and relocating them to the interior parking area will improve the overall traffic safety and circulation in the area.

Granting a variance for the staircase will provide an additional egress and ingress access to the rooftop and provide a second point of excavation during an emergency situation. The staircase will be built within the footprint of an existing patio that currently encroaches but is considered legal non-conforming.

Findings to grant a Variance are provided below in the findings section.

Height and Roof Pitch
The maximum allowable height for the cabins will be covered as part of the TRPA review. City Code requires a minimum roof pitch of 5:12 for all tourist accommodation buildings. As shown on the elevations, all of the cabins will have a 5:12 roof pitch. The three lakefront cabins have a height of 28’-1” to 28’-2”. The three poolside cabins range from 18’-2” for the one-story cabin to 27’-7”” for the two-story cabins. The three garden cabins range from 27’-6” to 27’-7”. The storage building is 31’-0” high.

The proposed heights are in compliance with TPRA height standards. 271 195 270
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 6 of 14
Building Cross Slope (%) Max Allowed Height Proposed Height Building 1 3.3 31’ 28’-1”
Building 2 3.3 31’ 28’-1”
Building 3 3.3 31’ 28’-2”
Building 4 6 31’-6” 19’-8”
Building 5 3.3 31’ 27’-7”
Building 6 3.3 31’ 28’-11”
Building 7 3.8 31’ 27’-8”
Building 8 0 30’ 28’-5”
Building 9 3.1 31’ 28’-1”
Storage 3.3 31’ 31’-0”
Dumpster Enclosure:

City Code Section 6.10.110 (A5) requires a screened enclosure for dumpsters. There is an existing trash enclosure on the property south of the pool, but the revised plan set shows the enclosure removed for the valet parking spaces.

The City Permit will include a condition of approval to require a dumpster enclosure to be shown on the plan set. The location and design will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with City Code prior to permit acknowledgement.

Fences:

There is an existing 6’ fence between the property and the residential structures to the east and south of the parcel boundary. No additional fencing is proposed.

Landscaping & WELO
The existing landscaping on the property extends into the City Right-of-Way along Lakeshore Blvd. and Stateline Ave. As shown in the landscaping plan, the project includes removing existing parking next to Building A and installing turf and deciduous and evergreen trees. Additional landscaping is proposed along the perimeter of the property and does not encroach into the City right-of-way along Stateline Avenue. Several of the detention areas will be replaced with subsurface infiltration chambers (see Stormwater discussion below).

The proposed landscaping includes a mix of trees, shrubs, perennials, and ornamental grasses.

The proposed species are consistent with the TRPA Home Landscaping Guide for Lake Tahoe and Vicinity.

The City permit has been conditioned to require the applicant to submit a landscape/irrigation documentation package that is consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The documentation package shall be submitted with the building permit application. 272 196 271
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 7 of 14
Pedestrian Paths
The revised plan set depicts an ADA path of travel on the property as well as the proposed extension of the Hill Road pedestrian path to Building A. The Hill Road pedestrian path between Sunrise Lane to Lakeshore Boulevard is located within undeveloped City right-of-way. The existing path is constructed of asphalt and is deteriorating in certain sections.

The City Permit includes a condition requiring the applicant to obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department and to resurface and bring the path into compliance with the City’s Public Infrastructure and Engineering Standards.

Snow Storage
City Code Section 6.10.140 requires developments to provide adequate snow storage areas within the project area. As no snow storage areas are depicted on the plan set, the City Permit will include a condition to revise the plan set to show snow storage areas or provide evidence that the property has entered into a contract for snow removal and storage offsite.

Stormwater
The applicant is proposing a stormwater infiltration system for the proposed development. The City Public Works Department has reviewed the adequacy of the proposed infiltration chambers and has made the following comments.

1. The plans shall be revised to include access for maintenance and pre-treatment as required by TRPA.

2. Pre-treatment is required prior to infiltration.

3. Applicant shall submit the BMP calculator worksheet with the building permit application.

These items have been added as conditions to the City Permit.

Lighting
The plan set depicts black aluminum cylinder down light fixtures that are compliant with City lighting standards.

Parking and Driveway Standards
There are three entrances to the property. The main entrance is from Stateline Avenue, with secondary entrances along Lakeshore Boulevard and Azure Avenue. The entrances along Lakeshore Boulevard and Azure Avenues are currently roped off to prevent vehicular access. The project involves reconfiguring the entrances and parking areas as follows:

1. Removing parking surfaces, including parking spaces located adjacent to Building A. 273 197 272
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 8 of 14

2. Retaining the existing driveway entrance from Lakeshore Boulevard; however, continue to restrict vehicular traffic

3. Reconstruct the driveway entrance from Azure Avenue and allowing vehicular access.

4. Removing 90-degree parking spaces along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue and relocating the spaces onsite.

5. Changing the onsite parking layout to 50 tandem and triple valet parking spaces and 38 non-valet parking spaces.

6. Extending the Hill Road pedestrian path to connect to the Building A and the Lakefront Cabins.

The driveway entrance from Lakeshore Boulevard is only 19.5 wide. The City Code requires a minimum of 20 feet for tourist accommodation uses. The City permit is conditioned to either widen the driveway, or reduce the width and convert the driveway to a pedestrian path.

The driveway entrance from Stateline Avenue is approximately 35 feet wide, which exceeds the maximum width of 30 feet. A maximum width standard is adopted in the City Code to allow the City to adequately and efficiently plough snow located in the City right-of-way. The City permit is conditioned to require the driveway entrance to be reduced to 30 feet.

The Azure Avenue driveway is to be reconfigured. The proposed driveway width is 35 feet. The maximum width permitted for tourist accommodation use is 30 feet measured at the property line.

The City permit has been conditioned to require the applicant to reduce the driveway width. Access from Azure will be signed as emergency/employee access only to prevent guests from circumnavigating the check-in process. This restriction would also restrict hotel guests from selfparking in the valet spaces.

The proposed parking lot reconfiguration is not entirely in compliance with parking standards (e.g., parking space dimensions, aisle widths). Aisle width varies from 16.19 feet to 24 feet. All parking spaces are 9 feet wide as required by Code; however, parking depth varies from 17 to 19 feet.

Nineteen of the self-park spaces located along the southern property line are sized 17 feet by 9 feet. Per the City Code, parking spaces adjacent to landscaping may be reduced to 17 feet in length, provided a wheel stop is installed outside the 17 foot stall. The City permit is conditioned to require the installation of wheel stops for these parking spaces. However, the proposed aisle width in this location is only 16 feet and does not meet the City standard.

Twenty of the tandem valet parking spaces along the southern property line are sized 9 feet by 18 feet. Because 10 of the spaces are located adjacent to a landscaped bed, the size can be reduced by one foot to 17 feet deep. As a result of the reduction in size, the ten adjacent tandem spaces can be stripped 9 feet by 19 feet. The City permit is conditioned to require the spaces be reduced to 17 feet next to the landscape bed and wheel stops installed and stripe the adjacent tandem parking 19 feet.
274 198 273
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 9 of 14
All thirty of the triple valet parking spaces located adjacent to Stateline Avenue are sized 9 feet by 19 feet and meet the City standard. The aisle width in the location (valet parking) also meets the City minimum standard of 24 feet.

Eighteen existing self-parking spaces adjacent to Building B are sized 9 feet by 19 feet and meet the City standard. However, the aisle width is 21 feet and does not meet the minimum City standard.

Through permit conditions, all of the proposed parking spaces can be brought into compliance with the City parking standards. However, in order to accommodate all required parking onsite, and due to site constraints, the property cannot meet the minimum aisle width standard of 24 feet.

Pursuant to the City Code Section 6.10.350, standards may be modified provided 1) environmental impact will be lessened by the lesser improvement, 2) traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrian is enhanced, and the lesser improvement meet the intent of the requirement.

The environmental impact of the reconfigured parking lot will be lessened, and vehicle and pedestrian safety will be enhanced by allowing the applicant to remove existing parking located in the City right-of-way and allowing a reduction in the aisle width for the self-parked spaces.

Moreover, by relocating the parking onsite, the applicant can install a 5-foot sidewalk along Stateline Avenue, further enhancing pedestrian safety.

Loading Areas
City Code requires loading spaces for hotels based on the gross floor area of a building. Based on the total gross floor area of 58,475 of gross floor area for Buildings A, B, C, and the nine cabins, four loading spaces are required. City Code Section 6.10.410.G requires four loading spaces for gross floor area of 40,001 to 60,000 square feet.

Due to site constraints there is inadequate room for four loading spaces while maintaining the required parking spaces. The applicant has informed staff that deliveries are offloaded along Stateline Avenue within the right-of-way. Although the site cannot accommodate four spaces, the City Permit has been conditioned to require the applicant to incorporate one loading space.

Parking Ratios:

Parking demand ratios for different land uses are established in City Code Section 6.10.410. As required by City Code Section 6.10.350 (B), if an applicant proposes a reduced the number of parking spaces for a proposed project, a technically adequate parking analysis must be submitted with a Special Use Application. There are currently71 onsite parking spaces at The Landing hotel, and 17 spaces that encroach into the City right-of-way along Stateline and Azure Avenues. As shown in the plan set, Diamond Rock is proposing to remove and relocate the spaces in the City right-of-way and reconfigure the parking areas on the property and create 50 valet parking spaces and 38 non-valet parking spaces.
275 199 274
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 10 of 14
In order to request a reduction in parking requirements, the applicant submitted a parking analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants in April 2020 (See Attachment 04). The LSC analysis estimated a 22 percent non-auto access rate for The Landing hotel after considering the number of hotel guests that use group travel. LSC concluded this percentage would increase with the addition of micro transit in the Stateline area. Accordingly, LSC has concluded that 82 parking spaces are needed for guests, and 5 parking spaces are needed for employees for a total of 87 spaces.

As shown in the proposed parking plan, the parking spaces will be reconfigured for 50 valet parking spaces and 38 non-valet parking spaces for a total of 88 spaces.

The required findings for a Special Use Permit to reduce the required parking ratios are provided under the Findings section of this staff report.

Pedestrian Circulation and Public Improvements
Stateline Avenue provides direct access from the Casino Core/Heavenly Village area to Lakeside Beach and Lake Tahoe. As such, a high volume of pedestrian traffic along Stateline Avenue has created pedestrian/traffic conflicts due to the lack of public sidewalks. Pursuant to Section 6.10.180 of the City Code, public improvements in the street right-of-way can be required if the city engineer determines that the offsite improvements are necessary for the orderly development of the area.

To improve pedestrian safety and access to Lake Tahoe and reduce traffic conflicts, the City Permit has been conditioned to require the applicant to construct a sidewalk within the public right-of-way along Stateline Avenue from Azure Avenue to Lakeshore Boulevard. The City Permit will require the applicant to coordinate with the Public Works Department to design and construct a sidewalk that is consistent with the City’s Public Infrastructure Engineering Standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
California Environmental Quality Act
This proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction, and Section 15332, Class 32, Infill Projects, based on the conditions described below:
1) The proposed addition of new hotel units project is consistent with both the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and the Lakeside Park Plan Area. 2) The proposed development is located within the City of South Lake Tahoe on a site less than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
3) The site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. 4) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
5) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 276 200 275
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 11 of 14

FINDINGS
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, as the City’s General Plan supports the provision of tourist uses near highways, transit stops, and other visible locations:

Policy LU-4.4: Development Priority – The City shall give priority to developments on underutilized sites that use existing infrastructure, coverage, and development rights.

Policy LU‐6.1: Stateline Node Tourist Center - The City shall establish the Stateline Node as the primary tourist destination for South Lake Tahoe.

1. Necessary or desirable on a specific parcel.

The tourist accommodation use is necessary and desirable on the specific parcel. The tourist accommodation use is an existing use that was built in 1960 before the incorporation of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The parcel is located in Plan Area 089, Lakeside, a residential plan area where 277 201 276
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 12 of 14
bed & breakfast, hotels, motels, and other transient dwellings units are permissible with a special use permit. The tourist accommodation use is also adjacent to recreation opportunities and a short distance from the Stateline Node.

2. Not injurious to the neighborhood.

The existing tourist accommodation use is not injurious to the neighborhood. As a result of this proposed project, all parking will be located onsite, and all existing parking spaces in the City rightof-way will be removed, thus removing the traffic and pedestrian conflicts. Moreover, a sidewalk will be constructed the length of Stateline Avenue, which would relocate pedestrian traffic out of vehicle travel lanes and parking areas.

3. Consistent with the intent of this chapter.

The proposed project, as described in the staff report, is consistent with the intent of Section

6.55.620 of the City Code. The chapter allows granting a use permit to authorize a special use on a specified parcel where the applicable area/area plan includes the use as permissible. Furthermore, the proposed use is consistent with other similar tourist accommodation uses (e.g., Station House Inn, Quality Inn, Parkside Lone Pine Lodge) operating in the area. It is desirable on this specific parcel to provide tourist accommodation use within close proximity to recreation and entertainment opportunities.

4. Consistent with the permitted uses in such plan area.

Special Use Permit Findings for Parking Ratio Adjustment The Planning Commission may grant a Special Use Permit for adjusting the parking demand ratios contained in City Code, provided a technically adequate parking analysis is submitted with the application. The parking analysis is required to include a parking demand ratio estimate, proposed measures or programs (if any) to be incorporated into a project, a schedule of funding and cost of implementation of transportation management plan measures, and any additional information.

As discussed in this staff report, there are 71 parking spaces on the property, and this Special Use Permit would allow the property owner to reconfigure the parking to 50 valet parking spaces and 38 spaces to non-valet parking for a total of 88 spaces. With the increase in hotel units, City Code would normally require 99 spaces for the hotel units and 6 spaces for employees. It should be noted that the existing restaurant is considered an accessory use but is open to the public and onsite parking is required. City Code Section requires the following findings for requests to reduce the parking ratios for different land uses:
278 202 277
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 13 of 14

5. Adequate off-street parking will be provided for the proposed use as determined by a parking analysis;
The parking analysis submitted by LSC (August 2022) states that 87 parking spaces would be adequate for the proposed tourist accommodation and accessory restaurant uses. LSC concludes that the parking spaces are sufficient due to a significant level of non-motorized access.

6. The environmental impact of the use will be lessened by the reduction in parking spaces (staff may condition the use permit);
Granting the reduction in parking will lessen the environmental impact of the use. Removing the parking located within the right-of-way and relocating the spaces onsite will create an opportunity to construct a pedestrian sidewalk along Stateline Avenue that will reduce pedestrian/traffic conflicts and would eliminate parking on unpaved surfaces, thus reducing water quality impacts.

7. Traffic safety for other vehicles and pedestrians will be enhanced by the lesser requirement.

Findings for Granting a Variance
The Planning Commission may grant a variance to authorize specific exceptions to any regulations of Chapter 6.55. The Planning Commission may vary setback requirements for buildings, structures, and parking pads provided that the Planning Commission finds that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical plan area.

The property is an existing developed site with existing buildings/structures and a parking lot that currently does not meet the required setback standards. The property also has existing nonconforming parking spaces located in the City right-of-way along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue and within the street corner clear zone. These parking spaces require drivers to back out into the travel lanes creating a traffic and pedestrian safety hazard. In addition, the property does not have an onsite loading space and delivery offloading is conducted in the City right-of-way.

Granting a variance to allow the applicant to maintain a portion of the parking area that encroaches into the side street setback and rear setback will enable the applicant to relocate the right-of-way parking spaces onsite, thus reducing the traffic/pedestrian safety hazard and allowing for the construction of a pedestrian sidewalk along Stateline Avenue. There is also an existing 6-foot fence that runs the length of the southern property line, thus eliminating any impact from vehicle headlights on the adjacent residential uses.
279 203 278
Planning Commission August 18, 2022 Page 14 of 14
Granting a variance for the staircase will provide an additional egress and ingress access to the rooftop and give a second point of excavation during an emergency situation.

The City Code requires four onsite loading spaces. However, as described above, site constraints would make it infeasible to add four. By granting a variance to reduce the requirement to one loading space would improve the current situation of loading and offloading within the City right-ofway.

Thus, the strict application of the regulation would continue exacerbating the traffic safety hazard along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue; on-street parking will continue on unpaved surfaces and deliveries would continue to occur in the right of way. Application of the regulations would also deprive the property owner of providing additional access and egress from the rooftop of Building C to ensure adequate safe access.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A public notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on August 5, 2022. A notice of the August 18, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on August 5, 2022 (See Attachments 05).

The City has not received any public comments on this application. Any comments received will be transmitted to the Planning Commission and posted on the City website.

Financial Implications:

The construction of 14 new tourist accommodation units would generate TOT revenue for the City.

Policy Implications:

None.
280 204 279
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Subject Parcel
The Landings Resort
ATTACHMENT 02
281 205 280
TRPA Plan Area Statements
089 - LAKESIDE PARK Page 1
089

LAKESIDE PARK
PLAN DESIGNATION:

Land Use Classification RESIDENTIAL
Management Strategy MITIGATION
Special Designation NONE
DESCRIPTION:

Location: This is a residential/recreation area on the California side of South Stateline and is located on TRPA maps H-16 and H-17.

Existing Uses: This area includes some motels, the Lakeside Marina and beach, and older residences. The area is 95 percent built out.

Existing Environment: The land classification of this area is a mixture of high and low hazard. The shorezone tolerance district is 1. Land coverage and disturbance is high.

PLANNING STATEMENT: This area should continue as a residential/recreation area while improving lake access opportunities.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

1. There is a disturbed barrier beach with littoral drift problems.

2. This area contains Scenic Shoreline Unit 31.

3. The USFS has identified bald eagle habitat in this Plan Area.

SPECIAL POLICIES:

1. The Lakeside Marina harbor and adjacent barrier should be reviewed to determine whether or not significant littoral drift problems exist. If a significant littoral drift problem does exit, then reasonable alternatives should be reviewed. Any alternative to mitigate a significant littoral drift problem should receive appropriate private and public financial assistance to accomplish this goal.

2. Restoration of the barrier beach/SEZ area should be a high priority.

PERMISSIBLE USES: Pursuant to Chapter 18 PERMISSIBLE USES and if applicable, Chapter 51

PERMISSIBLE USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE SHOREZONE AND LAKEZONE, the following primary uses may be permitted within all or a portion of the Plan Area. The list indicates if the use is allowed (A) or must be considered under the provisions for a special use (S).

Existing uses not listed shall be considered nonconforming uses within this Plan Area. The establishment of new uses not listed shall be prohibited within this Plan Area. 282 206 281
TRPA Plan Area Statements
089 - LAKESIDE PARK Page 2
General List: The following list of permissible uses is applicable throughout the Plan Area.

Residential Multiple family dwelling (S), and single family dwelling (A).

Tourist Accommodation Bed and breakfast facilities (S), hotels, motels, and other transient dwelling units (S).

Commercial Eating and drinking places (S), and vehicle storage and parking (S).

Public Service Churches (A), collection stations (S), cultural facilities (A), day care centers/pre-schools (S), local assembly and entertainment (S), local post office (A),
local public health and safety facilities (A), social
service organizations (A), pipelines and power
transmission (S), transit stations and terminals (S),
transportation routes (S), and transmission and
receiving facilities (S).

Recreation Day use areas (A), participant sports facilities (S), sport assembly (S), beach recreation (A), boat
launching facilities (S), outdoor recreation
concessions (A), marinas (S), riding and hiking trails
(S), and visitor information center (S).

Resource Management Reforestation (A), sanitation salvage cut (A), management thinning (A), timber stand improvement
(A), tree farms (A), early successional stage
vegetation management (A), nonstructural fish
habitat management (A), nonstructural wildlife
habitat management (A), structural fish habitat
management (A), structural wildlife habitat
management (A), fire detection ad suppression (A),
fuels treatment (A), insect and disease suppression
(A), sensitive plant management (A), uncommon
plant community management (A), erosion control
(A), runoff control (A), and SEZ restoration (A).

Shorezone: Within the specified shorezone tolerance district, the following primary uses may be permitted in the backshore, nearshore, and foreshore. Accessory structures shall be regulated pursuant to the regulations applicable to the primary use upon which they are dependent in accordance with Chapter 18. The following structures may be permitted in the shorezone as an allowed (A) or special (S) use only if they are accessory to an existing, allowed use located on the same or adjoining littoral parcel.

Tolerance District 1
Primary Uses Water oriented outdoor recreation concessions (A), beach recreation (A), waterborne transit (A), boat
launching facilities (S), tour boat operations (A),
safety and navigation facilities (A), and marinas (S).

Accessory Structures Buoys (A), piers (S), fences (S), boat ramps (S), floating docks and platforms (A), shoreline protective
structures (S), and water intake lines (A).
283 207 282
TRPA Plan Area Statements
089 - LAKESIDE PARK Page 3
MAXIMUM DENSITIES: Pursuant to Chapter 21 DENSITY, the following list establishes the maximum allowable densities that may be permitted for any parcel located within the Plan Area.

The actual development permitted may be further limited by transfer of development rights limitations, residential density incentive program, special use determinations, allocation limitations and general site development standards.

USE MAXIMUM DENSITY
Residential
Single Family Dwelling 1 unit per parcel
Multiple Family Dwellings 15 units per acre
Tourist Accommodation
Bed and Breakfast 10 units per acre
Hotel, Motel and other Transient Units
• with less than 10% of units with kitchens 40 units per acre • with 10% or more units with kitchens 15 units per acre RESIDENTIAL BONUS UNITS: Pursuant to Chapter 35, the maximum number of residential bonus units which may be permitted for this Plan Area is 0 units.

MAXIMUM COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL:. The maximum community noise equivalent level for this Plan Area is 55 CNEL.

ADDITIONAL DEVELOPED OUTDOOR RECREATION: The following are the targets and limits for additional developed outdoor recreation facilities specified in Chapter 13 to be located within this Plan Area. Specific projects and their timing are addressed in the TRPA Five-Year Recreation Program pursuant to Chapter 33 Allocation of Development. The following additional capacities allowed are measured in persons at one time.

SUMMER DAY USES 0 PAOT WINTER DAY USES 0 PAOT OVERNIGHT USES 0 PAOT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS: The capital improvement and other improvement programs required by the Regional Goals and Policies Plan for this area shall be implemented. The improvements include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Improvements required by Volume IV of the Water Management Plan.

2. The highway and transit improvements indicated in the Transportation Element of the Regional Goals and Policies Plan.

3. Stream zone restoration as indicated in Volume III of the Water Quality Management Plan.
284 208 283
TRPA Plan Area Statements
089 - LAKESIDE PARK Page 4
285 209 284
August 1, 2022
Cody O’Kelly, Principal
OCG Design Construct Manage
RE: The Landing Lake Tahoe - Parking and VMT Analysis
Dear Mr. O’Kelly:

Per your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a parking and VMT (vehicle miles traveled) evaluation for the proposed improvements to The Landing Lake Tahoe Resort and Spa located at 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard in South Lake Tahoe, California. The proposed project would add 14 new guest rooms for a total of 96 rooms, increase the size of the restaurant, and revise the parking layout. This report presents the calculation of the parking demand of the resort as a whole with the proposed improvements, including consideration for non-auto access. Then the VMT is evaluated for the proposed improvements.

Parking Demand
The standard parking rates were obtained from the South Lake Tahoe City Code Section

6.10.410. The hotel currently includes 82 rooms which will increase to 96 rooms with the renovation. Also on site are a restaurant, spa, pool and meeting areas. The definition of a hotel (land use code 310) in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Parking Generation 5th Edition is as follows “A hotel is a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities (pool, fitness room), and/or other retail and service shops.” Therefore, The Landing Lake Tahoe Resort and Spa meets the definition of a hotel and the parking rates and associated parking demand are shown in Table 1.

The project area has a significant level of non-motorized access due to its location close to nearby destinations, flat topography and presence of pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Most of this type of non-auto travel will occur after guests of the hotel have parked their cars at the hotel. Due to the non-auto travel options after guests arrive at the hotel, a significant number of people can also arrive at the hotel via non-auto modes (since they don’t need a car once they arrive). This would include groups traveling in vans or buses or one car arriving but using 286 210 285
The Landing – Parking and VMT Page 2 August 1, 2022
multiple rooms. For the year 2019, the hotel records indicate that group travel (which is a group which books 6 or more rooms) booked 12 percent of the rooms.

Next, data was obtained from the hotel for the month of February 2020 (prior to the impacts of COVID-19) detailing the number of rooms booked and the number of cars parked in the onsite parking lot each night. This data shows that an average of 51 percent of the occupied rooms didn’t have a car associated with them. Upon further review, hotel staff indicated guests parallel park along Stateline Avenue (approximately 17 spaces available) as well. Street parking is allowed year-round on the south side of Stateline where these 17 spaces are. Adding these spaces with the spaces counted in the hotel parking area reduces the ‘rooms without a car’ to 17 percent as shown in the bottom of Table 2. Based on these two data points: 12 percent of people are group travel and 17 percent access the room without a car it would be reasonable to assume a 15 percent non-auto access rate for the hotel rooms, as shown in Table 1.

Employees also would have a significant amount of non-auto travel to/from work at The Landing. While the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) conducts travel surveys, there are not enough recent survey responses for work trips in the Stateline area to determine a nonauto usage. Therefore, US Census ‘Journey to Work’ data was used to determine the percent of workers who travel to/from work via non-auto modes. Data from the 2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2014-2018) was reviewed for Stateline, Nevada and South Lake Tahoe, California with a resulting a non-auto mode share of 22 percent. This percent could increase in the future with the addition of micro transit in the Stateline general area.

Applying the non-auto reductions to the parking demand results in a total of 87 parking spaces, as shown in Table 1. Of these, 82 vehicles are generated by guests and the remaining 5 vehicles generated by employees. Upon review of existing documents for the US 50/South Shore Community Revitalization Project, no employee parking is designated in these plans so all employees will be expected to park on-site. And no spaces will be designated for either employees or guests.

Existing Parking Supply
The existing parking supply for The Landing Lake Tahoe Resort and Spa is 88 parking spaces. As the anticipated parking demand after reductions is 87 parking spaces, the existing parking supply is adequate.

VMT Screening Analysis
Vehicle miles traveled was evaluated in accordance with TRPA’s “Project Impact Assessment Guidelines” (TRPA June 2021). Per TRPA standards, this analysis focuses on VMT generated within the Tahoe Basin only. The project VMT was evaluated using the online Project Impact Analysis Tool by TRPA. The tool shows the project being within ½ mile of a Town or Regional Center and the VMT being lower than 1,300, therefore the project is considered a low VMT project and is screened from requiring further analysis. 287 211 286
The Landing – Parking and VMT Page 3 August 1, 2022
VMT and Mitigation Fee Calculation
Next the VMT is calculated for the proposed 14 TAUs based on the number of daily trips, the non-auto percent, and the zone average trip length, as shown in Table 3. First the trips were divided by trip type as each trip type has a different non-auto percentage. The non-auto percentages are the same as the parking study with the addition of the ‘tourist – local trips’ rate which was obtained from the TRPA survey data for visitors stay at hotels in the Stateline area.

The resulting daily trips with the non-auto reduction is 63 daily trips. Using the zone average trips length from the PIA tool for the project area the total VMT would be 313 daily VMT and the total mobility mitigation fee for the project would be $61,410.60.

Conclusions
The following conclusions are made based on this analysis:
• The total parking demand including reductions for non-auto is 87 parking spaces. • As the existing parking supply is 88 spaces, there is sufficient parking provided. • The total VMT for the project is 313 daily VMT which makes it a low VMT project and is therefore screened from further analysis.
• The mobility mitigation fee for the project is $61,410.60. ▴ ▴ ▴
Please contact our office at (530) 583-4053 with any questions or comments pertaining to this analysis.

Respectfully Submitted,
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
by ____________________________
Leslie Suen, PE, Associate
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Enclosure: Tables 1 – 3
288 212 287
The Landing – Parking and VMT Page 4 August 1, 2022
Table 1: The Landing Resort Parking Demand
Descripti Quantity Units Parking Ratio Category
Non-Auto
Reduction
Required Parking
Spaces
96 Rooms 1.00 per room 15% 82
35 Employees 0.17 employee 22% 5
Total Demand 87
Parking Supply 87
Parking Surplus 0
Note 1: South Lake Tahoe Code - Section 6.10.410
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

South Lake Tahoe
Parking Rate1
Hotel, motel and other
transient dwelling units Hotel
Table 2: The Landing Resort Hotel Parking Data
Date
Total Number of
Cars Parked
Total Number of
Cars Parked plus
17 On-street
Spaces
Rooms
occupied
Rooms
with No
Cars
% of Rooms
with No Cars
Daily
% of Rooms
with No Cars
Weekend
% of Rooms with No Cars
Including the Additional
17 On-Street Spaces
Sunday, February 2, 2020 49 66 41 (8) -20% 0%
Monday, February 3, 2020 14 31 30 16 53% 0%
Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10 27 29 19 66% 7%
Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11 28 30 19 63% 7%
Thursday, February 6, 2020 17 34 37 20 54% 8%
Friday, February 7, 2020 37 54 57 20 35% 35% 5%
Saturday, February 8, 2020 44 61 70 26 37% 37% 13%
Sunday, February 9, 2020 1 18 35 34 97% 49%
Monday, February 10, 2020 29 46 30 1 3% 0%
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 13 30 39 26 67% 23%
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 7 24 38 31 82% 37%
Thursday, February 13, 2020 10 27 48 38 79% 44%
Friday, February 14, 2020 22 39 71 49 69% 69% 45%
Saturday, February 15, 2020 37 54 79 42 53% 53% 32%
Sunday, February 16, 2020 48 65 79 31 39% 18%
Monday, February 17, 2020 20 37 46 26 57% 20%
Tuesday, February 18, 2020 29 46 46 17 37% 0%
Wednesday, February 19, 2020 30 47 53 23 43% 11%
Thursday, February 20, 2020 28 45 58 30 52% 22%
Friday, February 21, 2020 37 54 71 34 48% 48% 24%
Saturday, February 22, 2020 61 78 82 21 26% 26% 5%
Sunday, February 23, 2020 25 42 42 17 40% 0%
Monday, February 24, 2020 11 28 18 7 39% 0%
Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6 23 10 4 40% 0%
Wednesday, February 26, 2020 1 18 4 3 75% 0%
Thursday, February 27, 2020 7 24 81 74 91% 70%
Friday, February 28, 2020 19 36 62 43 69% 69% 42%
Saturday, February 29, 2020 65 82 82 17 21% 21% 0%
Maximum 66 97% 69% 70%
Average 24 51% 45% 17%
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
289 213 288
The Landing – Parking and VMT Page 5 August 1, 2022
Table 3: The Landing Resort VMT Analysis
Land Use Quantity
Daily Trip
Rate Daily Trips
Non-Auto
percent
Daily Trips
with
Reductions
Zone Average
Trip Length
(miles) Daily VMT
Tourist
Accommodation
Units
14 8.36 117
Service Trips 4 0% 4
Employee Trips 15 22% 12
Tourist - Basin Access Trips 11 15% 9
Tourist - Local Trips 87 56% 38
TOTAL 117 63 4.97 313
Mobility Mitigation Fee per VMT $ 196.20
Total Mobility Mitigation Fee $ 61,410.60
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
290 214 289

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on August 18, 2022, at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way (formerly Airport Road), South Lake Tahoe. Beginning at 2:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time, Commissioner Feiger will be participating via teleconference from11414 Dawn Street, Anchorage, AK, to consider the following agenda item:

Major Design Review, Special Use Permit and Variance, The Landings at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard, File #20-114 Summary: Diamond Rock Hospitality Company submitted a development application to the City of South Lake Tahoe to construct 9 cabins with 14 hotel units at The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa. The new buildings will add a total of 7,149 square feet of gross floor area and increase the number of hotel units from 82 to 96. The additional hotel units will be constructed with TRPA verified tourist accommodation units banked on the property. (John Hitchcock, [email protected]).

Page 1 of 3 ends

MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Project Name: The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa
File: 20-114
Location: 4104 Lakeshore Blvd.

Project APN: 029-602-013
Owner(s): Diamond Rock Hospitality Company
Applicant: Kara Thiel, Feldman Thiel LLP
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
General:
1) This major design review, special use permit and variance is for the addition of nine (9) new cabins with 14 tourist units, one (1) storage building, reconfiguration and striping of the parking lot, and installation of landscaping at an existing tourist accommodation use located in the Lakeside Park Plan Area.
2) This special use permit grants a reduction in parking for a total of 88 off-street parking spaces.
3) The permit grants a variance for the parking lot to encroach 9.5 feet into the Azure Avenue side street setback.
4) This permit grants a variance to allow the proposed staircase to encroach 8.5 feet into the Lakeshore Boulevard side street setback.
5) The City will file a Notice of Exemption, pursuant to Section 15062 of the CEQA Guidelines, with the County Clerk's Office for posting, within five days of project approval, as required by CEQA. The filing of a Notice of Exemption and the posting on the list of notices start a 35- day statute of limitations period on legal challenges to the City's decision that the project is exempt from CEQA. If a Notice of Exemption is not filed, a 180-day statute of limitations will apply.
6) This approval is based on the permittee's representation that all plans and information contained in the subject application are true and correct. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with the project application be incorrect or untrue, the City may rescind this approval or take other appropriate action. Approval of this permit is only for what is described in this permit based on the plan submittals. 7) The permittee shall obtain all necessary City of South Lake Tahoe building or other City improvement permits prior to commencement of any construction if applicable for this project. An encroachment permit is required for any work in the City right-of-way. 293 217 292

Page 2 of 3 ends

8) The permittee shall add additional architectural articulation to the façade of the storage building facing Azure Avenue.
9) The permitee shall revise the site plan as follows:
a) Include an onsite dumpster/trash enclosure.
b) Add wheel stops to the 19 self-park spaces located along the southern property line c) Add wheel stops to the 10 tandem valet spaces along the southern property line and reduce the parking space to 17 feet.
d) Restripe the 10 tandem spaces from 18 feet to 19 feet. e) Include one loading space.
f) The permittee shall revise the site plan to indicate snow storage locations. Alternatively, the permittee may provide evidence that the property owner has entered into a contract for snow removal and offsite storage.
g) The permittee shall revise the site plan to reduce the width of the Azure Avenue driveway to 30 feet measured at the property line.
h) The permittee shall revise the site plan to reduce the width of the Stateline Avenue driveway entance to 30 feet.
i) The permittee shall revise the site plan to increase the width of the Lakeshore Boulevard driveway to 20 feet or reduce the driveway width and convert it to a pedestrian path. 10) The permittee shall submit a $5,000 security deposit. The security deposit is refundable upon completion of a final inspection.
11) The permitee shall submit a landscape/irrigation documentation package that is consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The documentation package shall be submitted with the Building Permit application.
12) The permittee shall revise the BMP plan to include access to the infiltration gallery for maintenance and pre-treatment.
13) The permittee shall submit a BMP calculator worksheet with the Building Permit Application.

The BMP worksheet shall reference the 2012 Soils Hyrdo Report for groundwater depth. 14) The BMP Plan shall be revised to require pre-treatment prior to infiltration. 15) The permittee shall construct a sidewalk along Stateline Avenue in the City right-of-way.

The permittee shall coordinate with the Public Works Department to design, engineer, and construct a sidewalk that is consistent with the City's Public Infrastructure Engineering Standards.
16) A Building Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the public improvement in the City right-of-way is constructed.
17) The permittee shall coordinate with Public Works to repave the Hill Road pedestrian path and bring it into compliance with the City's Public Infrastructure Engineering Standards. 294 218 293

Page 3 of 3 ends

18) The owner or authorized representative shall acknowledge this permit and the conditions contained within by satisfying all conditions of approval and signing below.

CITY APPROVAL: Having made the finding that the project is consistent with all applicable City-wide Design Standards, City-wide Parking, Driveway and Loading Standards, and the City Code, the City approves the project, subject to the conditions of approval listed in this permit.

City Approval Signature Date
PERMITTEE'S ACCEPTANCE: I have read the permit and the conditions of approval and understand and accept them. I also understand that I am responsible for compliance with all the conditions of the permit and responsible for agents' and employees' compliance with the permit conditions. I understand that it is my sole responsibility to obtain any and all required approvals from any other state, local or federal agencies that may have jurisdiction over this project whether or not they are listed in this permit.

Signature of owner or authorized representative Date
CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The permittee has complied with all conditions of approval.

City Acknowledgment Signature Date

CITY APPEAL OPPORTUNITY
Pursuant to Section § 2.35 of the City Code, should the applicant disagree with any member of a city commission or city staff decision or conditions of this permit, they may appeal to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the city clerk. A completed appeal form available through the City Clerk's Office, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way (formerly Airport Road), along with the appeal fee, must be filed with the Clerk's office within fifteen days from the date of this decision. 295 219 294

GENERAL NOTES

ROOM NAME
XXXXX
X
X
A0.X
X
X
A1
ROOM

NAME/NUMBER

EXISTING COLUMN

CENTERLINE
COLUMN

CENTERLINE

ACCESSORY

BUILDING WALL

SECTION

ELEVATION

SECTION DETAIL

PLAN, BLOW-UP
DETAIL

PARTITION TYPE

WITH NO SOUND

ATTENUATION

PARTITION TYPE

WITH SOUND

ATTENUATION

SYMBOLS

BUILDING

EXPANSION JOINT

GYP BD CEILING

SUPPLY AIR

RETURN AIR

ACCESS PANEL

TROFFER LIGHT

WALL MOUNTED

FLUORESCENT

FIXTURE

SMOKE DETECTOR

WALL WASHER

PENDANT TYPE LIGHT

FIXTURE

WALL MOUNTED LIGHT

FIXTURE

RECESSED CAN LIGHT

STRIP LIGHT

SPEAKER
SD
01 +9'-0" CEILING HEIGHT
S

EXHAUST AIR
A0.X
X
01 SUSPENDED LIGHT

SUSPENDED

FLUORESCENT LIGHT

CHANDELIER

PROJECTOR
A0.X
X
01 A0.X
X

AB ANCHOR BOLT

ACT ACOUSTIC CEILING TILE

AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR

ALUM ALUMINUM

AP ACCESS PANEL

APPROX APPROXIMATE

ARCH ARCHITECTURAL

ASSOC ASSOCIATED

BD BOARD

BLDG BUILDING

BLK BLOCK

BO BOTTOM OF

BOT BOTTOM

BRG BEARING

BSMT BASEMENT

CJ CONTROL JOINT

CL CENTERLINE

CLG CEILING

CLR CLEAR

CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT

COL COLUMN

CONC CONCRETE

CONT CONTINUOUS

COVR COVER

CPT CARPET

CT CERAMIC TILE

CTR CENTER

DEC DETENTION EQUIPMENT CONTRACTOR

DET DETENTION

DEMO DEMOLITION

DIA DIAMETER

DIM DIMENSION

DF DRINKING FOUNTAIN

DGB DETENTION GRAB BAR

DR DOOR

DWG DRAWING

EA EACH

EJ EXPANSION JOINT

ELEC ELECTRICAL

ELEV ELEVATOR

EQ EQUAL

EQUIP EQUIPMENT

ER EPOXY RESIN

EXT EXTERIOR

FD FLOOR DRAIN

FDN FOUNDATION

FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER

FF EL FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION

FIN FINISH

FRT FIRE RESISTANT TREATED

FLR FLOOR

FS FOOD SERVICE

FT FOOT

FTG FOOTING

FUT FUTURE

GA GUAGE

GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR

GL GLASS

GR GRADE

GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD

HC HOLLOW CORE

HT HEIGHT

HM HOLLOW METAL

HORIZ HORIZONTAL

INT INTERIOR

INSUL INSULTATION

JAN JANITOR

JST JOIST

LAV LAVATORY

MAX MAXIMUM

MECH MECHANICAL

1. CONTRACTOR TO ISSUE COMPLETE SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO EACH

SUBCONTRACTOR FOR COORDINATION OF WORK AND DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE

2. ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE COMPLEMENTARY AND WHAT IS CALLED FOR

BY ONE WILL BE AS BINDING AS IF CALLED FOR BY ALL DOCUMENTS

3. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AND OVERSEEN BY THE GENERAL

CONTRACTOR WHO IS TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS,

TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES, AND PRCEDURES AND FOR COORDINATING ALL

PORTIONS OF THE WORK REQUIRED BY THE OMISSIONS OF THE WORK

REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

4. THERE SHALL BE NO SUBSTITUTION OF MATERIALS WHERE A MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCT IS SPECIFIED IN THE DRAWINGS. WHERE THE TERM "OR EQUAL" IS

USED OR INFERRED, THE ARCHITECT SHALL DETERMINE EQUALITY BASED ON

INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR

5. DIMENSIONS FOR ROUGH OPENINGS ARE PROVIDED ON THE DRAWINGS TO

SHOW INTENT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER PRODUCTS SELECTED FOR INSTALLATION. AN EXAMPLE IS WINDOW AND DOOR ROUGH OPENINGS WHICH

WILL REQUIRE REVISION PER MANUFACTURER'S REQUIREMENTS AND CAN VARY

GREATLY BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS

6. ALL INCIDENTAL PRODUCTS AND ACCESSORIES FOR COMPLETE SYSTEM

INSTALLATIONS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFIED OR SHOWN BY THE CONTRACT

DOCUMENTS BUT ARE REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE AND FINISHED ASSEMBLY

ARE TO BE PROVIDED AND COORDINATED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR

7. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS

8. LARGE SCALE DETAILS SHALL GOVERN OVER SMALL SCALE DETAILS

9. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL REINFORCING

10. ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND NON-STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS,

COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO STRUCTURES,

INCLUDING SUPPORTING STRUCTURES AND ATTACHMENTS AND NON-BUILDING

STRUCTURES THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY OTHER STRUCTURES, SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS PER 2015 IBC CHAPTER 16 AND ASCE 7-10 SECTION CHAPTER 13

COORDINATE DESIGN WITH ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD

11. PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY BLOCKING IN WALLS AND CEILINGS FOR GRAB-BARS,

FIXTURES, TELEVISIONS, ACCESSORIES, CABINETRY, COUNTERTOPS, SHELVES,

CLOSET RODS, AND DECORATIVE ITEMS

12. DOORS ARE TO BE 6" FROM OPENING ON HINGE SIDE TO PERPENDICULAR WALL

AS A STANDARD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR OTHERWISE REQUIRED TO BE

CENTERED BETWEEN OBSTACLES

13. THERE SHALL BE NO EXPOSED PIPE, DUCTWORK, OR SERVICE LINES. ALL

SERVICES SHALL BE CONCEALED OR FURRED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

14. SIZING OF ALL EQUIPMENT, WINDOWS AND DOORS, ETC. ARE TO BE VERIFIED IN

FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION

MEM MEMBRANE

MFR MANUFACTURER

MIN MINIMUM

MR MOISTURE RESISTANT

MTL METAL

NIC NOT IN CONTRACT

NO NUMBER

NOM NOMINAL

NTS NOT TO SCALE

OA OVERALL

OAM OVERALL MASONRY

OC ON CENTER

OH OVERHEAD

ORD OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN

OS OVERFLOW SCUPPER

OPG OPENING

OPOI OWNER PROVIDED OWNER INSTALLED

OPCI OWNER PROVIDED CONTRACTOR INSTALLED

PC PRECAST

PF PREFINISHED

PJ PANEL JOINT

PL PLATE

PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE

PLMG PLUMBING

PNL PANEL

PT PRESSURE TREATED

PTD PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER

REINF REINFORCED

REQ REQUIRED

REV REVISED

RD ROOF DRAIN

RM ROOM

RO ROUGH OPENING

SAP SECURE PANEL ACCESS

SC SEALED CONCRETE

SCHED SCHEDULED

SEC SECURITY

SECT SECTION

SHT SHEET

SHWR SHOWER

SK SINK

SPEC SPECIFICATIONS

SS STAINLESS STEEL

STL STEEL

STIFF STIFFENER

STRUCT STRUCTURAL

T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE

TO TOP OF

TOF TOP OF FOOTING

TPH TOILET PAPER HOLDER

TS TUBE STEEL

TYP TYPICAL

UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

VAR VARIES

VB VAPOR BARRIER

VCT VINYL COMPOSITE TILE

VERT VERTICAL

VIF VERIFY IN FIELD

VT VINYL TILE

VTR VENT THROUGH ROOF

VWC VINYL WALL COVERING
W WITH

WC WATER CLOSET

WD WOOD

WDW WINDOW

WP WATERPROOF

WT WALL TYPE

WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC

PROJECT TEAM

CONCRETE/ PRECAST

CONCRETE
SOIL

SAND, EIFS FINISH
COAT
BRICK
CMU
STONE

XPS RIGID

INSULATION

FIBERGLASS BATT

INSULATION

GYPSUM BOARD OR
FIBERGLASSREINFORCED GYPSUM
BOARD

PLYWOOD

COVER BOARD

MATERIALS

CEILING SYMBOLS

FOIL-FACED POLYISO

RIGID INSULATION
ccSPF - CLOSED CELL

SPRAY POLYISO

FOAM INSULATION

BATHROOM FAN
A1s

COORDINATION OF GRIDLINES

ARCHITECTURE
359 DESIGN, LLC
3459 RINGSBY CT. UNIT 307
DENVER, COLORADO 80216
CONTACT: WILL HENTSCHEL
[email protected]
303.884.9131
OWNER

DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY COMPANY
2 BETHESDA METRO CENTER, SUITE 1400
BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20814
CONTACT: JOSH PERLMAN
[email protected]
202.815.8291

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE LANDING AT TAHOE IN HEAVENLY, CALIFORNIA. IT IS PART OF A LARGER EXISTING TOURIST SITE WITH EXISTING HOTEL BUILDINGS A, B, AND C. THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS CONSIST OF 14 GUEST UNITS IN 9 DIFFERENT CABINS AND ONE STORAGE BUILDING. THREE CABINS ARE GROUPED IN THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ON THE SITE: LAKEFRONT CABINS, POOLSIDE CABINS, AND GARDEN CABINS.

THE CABINS ARE SYSTEMS-BUILT BUILDINGS WITH R-1 OCCUPANCY. THE GUESTS ARE TRANSIENT IN NATURE.

GROSS AREA PER BUILDING

PROJECT DATA

PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS
BUILDING 1: 780 GROSS SF
BUILDING 2: 780 GROSS SF
BUILDING 3: 780 GROSS SF
BUILDING 4: 390 GROSS SF
BUILDING 5: 780 GROSS SF
BUILDING 6: 780 GROSS SF
BUILDING 7: 953 GROSS SF
BUILDING 8: 953 GROSS SF
BUILDING 9: 953 GROSS SF
STORAGE BUILDING: 3,094 SF

ZONING DISTRICT

EXISTING PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING HEIGHT

PARCEL SIZE
105,201 SF

PARCEL VERIFIED LAND CAPABILITY DISTRICT

AND ALLOWABLE COVERAGE BY DISTRICT
RE: SITE COVERAGE L0.01

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER
029-602-013

TOTAL PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS
10,243 GROSS SF

TRPA CODE OF ORDINANCES ALLOWABLE HEIGHT PROPOSED
TABLE 37.4.1-1:
5:12 SLOPE/ 0% ACROSS SITE: 30' -0"
TABLE 37.5.2:

TOURSIST ACCOMMODATION ADDITIONAL 4'-0"
TOTAL HEIGHT ALLOWED WITH WORST CASE 0% SLOPE IS 34'-0" ASSSUME WORST CASE 0% SLOPE UNITS
FROM NATURAL GRADE: 32' -6"

RESIDENTIAL

EXISTING BUILDING A
LEVEL 1: 3,040
LEVEL 2: 3,040
LEVEL 3: 3,040
TOTAL: 9,120

EXISTING BUILDING B & C
LEVEL 1: 11,673
LEVEL 2: 15,526
LEVEL 3: 15,526
TOTAL: 42,725
ROOF PATIO: 3,781
22/07/01

TITLE PAGE

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-0.00 TITLE PAGE
4104 LAKESHORE BOULEVARD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA 96150

THE LANDING LAKE TAHOE RESORT AND SPA

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT LOCATION
STATELINE AVE.

LAKESHORE
BLVD
Sheet Number Sheet Name
Z-5.10 BLDG HEIGHT CALC_ STORAGE
Z-5.11 BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 1, 2, 3
Z-5.12 BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 4, 5, 6
Z-5.13 BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 7, 8, 9
C1.0 CIVIL TITLE SHEET
C3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS & BMP PLAN
C3.1 PROPOSED OVERLAY & DEMO PLAN
C4.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN
C5.0 OVERALL SITE UTILITY PLAN
C6.0 OVERALL SITE GRADING PLAN
D1.1 BMP DETAILS
D1.2 DETAILS
D1.3 DETAILS
D1.4 DETAILS
L0-1 COVERAGE PLAN
L0-2 OVERALL SITE PLAN
L0-3 SITE PLAN
L0-4 SITE PLAN
L2-1 PLANTING PLAN
L2-2 PLANTING PLAN
TOTAL SHEETS: 41
Sheet Number Sheet Name
Z-4.14 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATION- 9
Z-0.00 TITLE PAGE
Z-1.00 SITE PLAN
Z-1.31 PLANS_BUILDING- 1, 2, 3
Z-1.32 PLANS_BUILDING- 4
Z-1.33 PLANS_BUILDING- 5
Z-1.34 PLANS_BUILDING- 6
Z-1.36 PLANS BUILDING- 7, 8
Z-1.37 PLANS_BUILDING- 9
Z-1.38 PLANS_BUILDING- STORAGE
Z-2.30 ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 1, 2, 3
Z-2.31 ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 4
Z-2.32 ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 5
Z-2.33 ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 6
Z-2.34 ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 7, 8
Z-2.35 ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 9
Z-2.36 ELEVATION_BUILDING- STORAGE
Z-4.10 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 1, 2
Z-4.11 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 3, 4
Z-4.12 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 5, 6
Z-4.13 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 7, 8
296 220 295
.

EXISTING BLDG C

EXISTING BLDG B

EXISTING POOL
STATELINE AVE.

LAKESHORE
BLVD
2 3
4 5 6
7 8
9 1

EXISTING

RESTROOMS

STORAGE
BLDG

EXISTING BLDG A

ACCESSIBLE

FIRST LEVEL
SINGLE
LEVEL

ACCESSIBLE

FIRST LEVEL
22/07/01

SITE PLAN

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.00 SITE PLAN
1 3/64" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
297 221 296
.

EXISTING BLDG C

EXISTING BLDG B
STATELINE AVE.

LAKESHORE
BLVD

EXISTING BLDG A
2 0' -
0 "
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
AZURE
AVE.
1 5' -
0 15'
"
- 0"
1 5' -
0 "
15' - 0"
5' -
0 "

EXISTING POOL
2 3
4 5 6
8 9
1 EXISTING RESTROOMS

STORAGE
BLDG

ACCESSIBLE

FIRST LEVEL
SINGLE
LEVEL

ACCESSIBLE

FIRST LEVEL
7 07/27/2022

EXISTING DESIGN

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-6.1 EXISTING DESIGN
1 3/64" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
298 222 297
.

EXISTING BLDG C

EXISTING BLDG B
STATELINE AVE.

LAKESHORE
BLVD

EXISTING BLDG A

SIDE, STREET

REAR, INTERIOR
FRONT

SIDE, STREET

REAR, INTERIOR
15' - 0"

REAR, INTERIOR

SIDE, INTERIOR

SIDE, INTERIOR
2 0' -
0 "
AZURE
AVE.
15' - 0"
adjoins residential land use classification
adjoins residential land use classification
adjoins residential land use classification
adjoins residential land use classification
15' - 0"
1 5' -
0 "
15' - 0"
1 5' -
0 "
5' -
0 "
AZURE
AVE.
4 5 6
8 9

EXISTING RESTROOMS

STORAGE
BLDG

ACCESSIBLE

FIRST LEVEL
SINGLE
LEVEL
2 3
1 7

EXISTING POOL ADDITIONAL

ARCHITECTURAL

ARTICULATION ON

BUILDING FACADE
FACING AZURE AVE.

PROPOSED EGRESS STAIR

ALLOWS DIRECT EGRESS FROM

ROOFTOP AMENITY TO STREET

AND FITS WITHIN EXISTING
PATIO BOUNDARIES.

EXISTING
PATIO
BUILDINGS 8 & 9 HAVE BEEN

REPOSITIONED TO NOT

ENCROACH ON SETBACK
BUILDINGS 1, 2 & 3 HAVE

BEEN REPOSITIONED TO NOT

ENCROACH ON SETBACK

STORAGE BUILDING HAS

BEEN ADJUSTED TO

NOT ENCROACH ON

SETBACKS
PROPOSED 5'-0" SIDEWALK WITH CURB AND
GUTTER. FINAL DESIGN & ENGINEERING TO

BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC WORKS
5' - 0"
07/27/2022

PROPOSED REVISIONS

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-6.2 PROPOSED REVISIONS
1 3/64" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
1 3
4 2
8 299 223 298
SSCO
SSCO
FDC
SSCO
SSCO
FDC
SSCO
FDC
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
FDC
SSCO
SSCO
FDC
SSCO
FDC
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
4" FDC
4" FDC
4" FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC

FOUND IP AND CAP

FOUND IP AND CAP
8" PINE
SSMH
RIM = 6233.07
IE IN N 8" = 6227.22
IE IN W 6" = 6227.33
IE OUT E 8" = 6227.15

EX IRR BOX

EX IRR BOX AND FDC

EX BOX

EX SIGN

EX TRANS AND PAD
FOUND 5/8 REBAR

AND CAP

DECK OVERHANG
(ABOVE)

EX FENCE LANDSCAPE / DETENTION AREA

EXISTING BUILDING
FF = 6233.8±

EXISTING POOL DECK
ELEV = 6237.8±

EXISTING TENT PAD
EG = 6235.0±
EX 6X6 POSTS

WITH CHAIN

EXISTING BUILDING
(SECOND FLOOR DECK)

EXISTING BUILDING

EX GLASS FENCE

EX TRANS AND PAD

EXISTING PORTICO

EX TRANS AND PAD

EX GREASE

INTERCEPTOR

EX YELLOW

PAINT MARK (TYP)

EX UG ELEC
VAULT

EX IRR BOX
36" PINE
30" PINE

LANDSCAPE / DETENTION AREA

EX AC AND PAD
SSMH
RIM = 6233.15
IE IN E 12" = 6228.19
IE OUT S 8" = 6228.06
SSMH
RIM = 6233.15
IE IN E 12" = 6228.10
IE IN N 8" = 6228.37
IE IN N 6" = 6228.41
IE OUT W 12" = 6228.08
SSMH
RIM = 6233.69
IE 8" 6231.69±
(DRY ABANDONED) SSMH
RIM = 6239.15
IE IN NW 12" = 6228.01
IE IN E 15" = 6228.16
IE IN W 15" = 6227.63
IE OUT S 18" = 6227.59

EX PP AND

ELEC BOX

EX PP AND
DROP

EX SIGN
22" PINE
22" PINE
22" PINE
12" PINE

TRASH &

MECH AREA

EX FENCE
STATELINE BLVD.

LAKESHORE BLVD.

PATIO AREA

EX SIGN

HILL ROAD
APN
029-60-203
APN
029-60-204
APN
029-60-209
APN
029-60-210

EX SDDI

PARKING SPACES MARKED BY

WHITE PAINT ON TOP OF CURB

PARKING SPACES MARKED BY

WHITE PAINT ON TOP OF CURB

EXISTING BUILDING
APN 029-60-213

VALHALLA ENTERPRISE

2.42 ac.
105,329 SF

EXISTING BUILDING
FF = 6234.5±

EXISTING BUILDING
FF = 6233.8±

GAS SHUT OFF
SIGN

EX PP AND
DROP

EXISTING BUILDING
(3) SPRUCE
TREES
(3) PINE
TREES

GAS VALVE

EX GAS PIPE

EX ELEC ROOM

EX GAS METER

EX ELEC ROOM

EX GAS METER

AND SHED

EX GAS PIPE

EX WATER IN

POOL MECH
BLDG
TRASH
ENC.

BATH
ROOMS
10" PINE 12" PINE
18" CEDAR
10" CEDAR
24" CEDAR
60"
PINE

EX FENCE

EX RAILING

EX BOLLARD

W/LIGHT (TYP)

EX BOLLARD

W/LIGHT (TYP)

EX FENCE

EX GAS METER

EX ELEC BOX

EXISTING RAMP

EX STAIRS

EX BALCONY
ABOVE

EX WATER SPIGOT

EX STAIRS

EX GAS LINE

UNDER DECK

EX GAS METER
60"
PINE 24"
PINE 30"
PINE

EX TRANS AND PAD

EX ELEC PANEL

BREEZEWAY
30"
PINE

DIRT PARKING AREA

LANDSCAPE AREA

EX STAIRS

EX BALCONY
ABOVE

EX FENCE

EX SIGN

LANDSCAPE AREA

EX BOLLARD

W/LIGHT (TYP)
(LANDSCAPED)

EX RAMP

2.0%

3.5%

2.0%

1.0%

1.5%

0.5%

1.0%

2.0%

20.27'

18.26'

24.34'

22.76'

22.82'

22.93'

18.25'

18.52'

33.94'

23.86'

17.66'

17.20'

15.57'

24.33'

17.79'

18.25'

18.84'

10.24'

12.80'

GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60
C
# DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN:
1 REVISIONS
0000
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D

E THE LANDING RESORT CABINS

DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 11:15am Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-EX. conditions.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929

TRPA SUBMITTAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
C 3.0
Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-EX. conditions.dwg, 4/7/2022 11:15:52 AM 300 224 299
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
S17°12'43"W
150.00
S88°34'17"E
331.04
N20°42'43"E
100.16
N84°47'17"W

65.06 S86°17'17"E
149.53
N20°42'43"E
208.00
S88°34'17"E
203.77
(33) VALET PARKING
PARKING (18)
(20) VALET PARKING
PARKING (18)
SITE PARKING:

VALET PARKING: 53
SURFACE PARKING: 36
TOTAL PARKING: 89
6235.52
6235.44
6235.52
6236.52
6237.02
6237.02
6234.52
6234.52
6234.52

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

17.00' 16.00'

9.00'

18.00'

9.00' 18.00'

36.00'

58.00'

19.00'

20.00'

19.00' 9.00'

19.00'

9.00'

21.58'

21.24'

16.19'

22.63'

GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60
C
# DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN:
1 REVISIONS
0000
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D

E THE LANDING RESORT CABINS

DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 11:17am Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-Site Plan.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929

TRPA SUBMITTAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

OVERALL SITE
PLAN
C 4.0
Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-Site Plan.dwg, 4/7/2022 11:17:57 AM 301 225 300
6232
6233
6233
6233
62336233
6233
6233
6233
6233
6233
6234
6234
6234
6234
6234
6234
6234
6235
6235
6235
6235
6235
6236
6236
6237
6237
6238
6238
6238
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
WM BNK
4"
6"
S17°12'43"W 150.00
S88°34'17"E
331.04
N20°42'43"E 100.16
N84°47'17"W

65.06 S86°17'17"E
149.53 N20°42'43"E 208.00
S88°34'17"E
203.77
WM
WM WM
WM
WM
WM
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
SSCO
6"
6"
6"
6"
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00 14+00 14+29.33
20+00 21+00
22+00
23+00
30+00
31+00
CONNECT TO EX. SANITARY SEWER
MAIN CONNECT TO EX. SANITARY SEWER
MAIN
CONNECT TO EX. SANITARY SEWER
MAIN
CONST. SSMH
CONST. WATER METER
BANK
CONNECT TO EX. WATER MAIN

SEWER LATERAL

CONNECTION (TYP)
CONST. SD WATER QUALITY

VAULT AND INLET
CONST. SD WATER QUALITY

VAULT AND INLET
CONST. SSMH
CONST. SSMH
CONST. SSMH
CONST. LOOPED 6"

WATER MAIN (DOMESTIC)
CONNECT TO EX. SANITARY SEWER
MAIN
CONST. UNDERGROUND DETENTION

FINISH GRADE
TOP BASIN: 6232.09
BTM BASIN: 6231.42
GRND WTR: 6230.42
CONST.3 4" WATER

SERVICE AND WATER
METER
CONST. UNDERGROUND DETENTION

FINISH GRADE
TOP BASIN: 6234.42
BTM BASIN: 6231.42
GRND WTR: 6230.42
CONST. UNDERGROUND DETENTION

FINISH GRADE
TOP BASIN: 6233.00
BTM BASIN: 6231.42
GRND WTR: 6230.42

GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
0000 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 11:21am Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-utility.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929

TRPA SUBMITTAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

OVERALL SITE

UTILITY PLAN
C 5.0
Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-utility.dwg, 4/7/2022 11:21:22 AM 302 226 301
6232
6233
6233
6233
62336233
6233
6233
6233
6233
6233
6234
6234
6234
6234
6234
6234
6234
6235
6235
6235
6235
6235
6236
6236
6237
6237
6238
6238
6238
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
FDC
S17°12'43"W 150.00
S88°34'17"E
331.04
N20°42'43"E 100.16
N84°47'17"W 65.06
S86°17'17"E
149.53 N20°42'43"E 208.00
S88°34'17"E
203.77
30+00
31+00 FFE: 6234.52 FFE: 6234.52 FFE: 6234.52
FFE: 6235.52
FFE: 6235.52
FFE: 6235.44
FFE: 6237.02
FFE: 6236.52 FFE: 6237.02
S=2.0%
S=2.0%
S=2.0%
S=1.8%
S=1.0%
S=2.0%
S=1.0%
S=1.0%
S=1.0%
S=1.0%
S=1.0%
S=1.0% MATCH EG
S=2.0%

MATCH EG
EX. POOL DECK
FFE: 6237.8±
EX. BLDG
FF: 6233.8±
EX. BLDG
FF: 6234.5±
STATELINE BLVD.

LAKESHORE BLVD.

EG: 38.05
EG: 35.53
EG: 36.01 EG: 36.23 EG: 37.81
EG: 32.39
EG: 33.20
EG: 34.33 EG: 35.56
EG: 36.08
EG: 33.97
EG: 33.69 EG: 33.43
EG: 33.34 EG: 33.57
EG: 33.52 EG: 33.66
EG: 33.58
EG: 33.81
EG: 33.91
EG: 33.76
EG: 33.19 EG: 33.42
EG: 33.15
EG: 33.16
EG: 33.96
EG: 34.11
EG: 33.51
EG: 33.51
EG: 33.42
EG: 32.83
EG: 32.89
6240.11
EP: 6240.11
EP: 6238.50
EP: 6236.25 EP: 6237.80
S=1.6%
EP: 6236.15 EP: 6234.80
EP: 6237.50
EP: 6236.50 EP: 6235.40
EP: 6233.80
EP: 6233.43
EP: 6233.10
S=1.0%
S=1.0%
EP: 6233.80
EP: 6233.20 S=1.0%
EP: 6233.00
EP: 6232.70
EP: 6233.45
EP: 6233.80

MATCH EG
EG: 34.21
EG: 33.80 S=2.0%
EP: 6233.40

MATCH EG
S=2.0%

GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
0000 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 11:24am Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-Grading.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929

TRPA SUBMITTAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

OVERALL SITE

GRADING PLAN
C 6.0
Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-Grading.dwg, 4/7/2022 11:24:45 AM 303 227 302

PINE NEEDLE-FILLED WATTLE

WOODEN STAKE

WATTLE BOTTOM IS FLATTENED

FOR GREATER SOIL CONTACT

WATTLES SHALL BE MADE FROM CLEAN PINE NEEDLES,

FREE FROM GARBAGE, SEDIMENT OR OTHER
DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. WATTLE MAY EITHER BE

WRAPPED AND STAKED TO THE SOIL SURFACE OR

NEEDLES CAN BE LAID IN A WINDROW AND COVERED
WITH COIR FABRIC AND STAKED IN PLACE. IN EITHER

CASE, THE BOTTOM OF THE WATTLE SHALL HAVE AT

LEAST EIGHT INCHES OF PINE NEEDLES IN CONTACT
WITH THE SURFACE. BERMS CAN BE AS WIDE AS 24 TO
36 INCHES IN ORDER TO INCREASE FILTRATION
CAPACITY. COVER FABRIC SHALL CONSIST OF COIR
(COCONUT) DeKoWe 900 OR EQUIVALENT. STAKES CAN

CONSIST OF POINTED WOOD STAKES OR METAL SPIKES
DRIVEN INTO THE SOIL AT 60 DEGREES FROM THE

HORIZONTAL PLANE SO THAT THE TOP OF THE COIR

MATERIAL IS STRETCHED TIGHTLY OVER THE TOP

SURFACE OF THE PINE NEEDLES AND DEEPLY ENOUGH SO
THAT LATERAL FORCE CANNOT LOOSEN THE STAKES. A

MINIMUM OF EIGHT INCHES SOIL PENETRATION IS

GENERALLY SUFFICIENT EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY LOOSE
AND UNCONSOLIDATED SOILS.

OTHER FASTENERS/HOLD DOWNS
-GRAVEL BAGS, LARGE ROCKS.
-HILTI NAILS IF IN ASPHALT.

PINE NEEDLE WATTLE SPECIFICATIONS:

PUBLIC ROAD
R=25'
50' MINIMUM
R=25'
6" MINIMUM
2" AGGREGATE

SUBGRADE REINFORCEMENT

GEOTEXTILE, IF REQUIRED

PROVIDE FULL WIDTH

OF INGRESS/EGRESS
AREA (30' MIN.)

1. A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE USED AT ALL POINTS OF CONSTRUCTION INGRESS AND EGRESS.

2. THE AGGREGATE SHALL BE 2 IN. CRUSHED ROCK OR 1 TO 3 IN. DIAMETER WASHED WELL-GRADED GRAVEL.

3. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE PROPERLY GRADED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.

4. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON LEVEL GROUND.

5. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL CRUSHED ROCK SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENTRANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION.

6. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL.

7. CRUSHED ROCK MATERIAL SHALL BE ADDED WHEN SURFACE VOIDS ARE FILLED WITH FINE SOIL.

8. ALL SEDIMENT DEPOSITS ON ADJACENT PAVED ROADWAYS SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS.

9. THE CRUSHED ROCK AND GEOTEXTILE SHALL BE REMOVED AT COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.

NOTES

HILTI NAIL

OF OPEN TRENCH SECTION

FILTER FENCE OR FILTER ROLL

SEDIMENT BARRIER AS NECESSARY
NOTE: RELOCATE FILTER FENCE / FILTER ROLL

OPEN TRENCH SECTIION

SEDIMENT BARRIER, SEE DETAIL

LOCATE SPOIL UPHILL

NEW PIPELINE SLOPE (TYP)

PINE NEEDLE WATTLES TYPICAL OPEN TRENCH SECTION CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

PLACE GRAVEL BAGS

FLUSH TO CURB
NO LONGER NEEDED.

7. REMOVE CHECK DAM AND ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT WHEN CHECK DAMS ARE NO

6. REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEPTH REACHES ONE-THIRD OF THE CHECK DAM HEIGHT.

5. INSTALL ALONG A LEVEL CONTOUR.

4. ROCK SHALL BE PLACED INDIVIDUALLY BY HAND OR BY MECHANICAL METHODS.

SMALL POOLS TO FORM BEHIND THEM.

3. CHECK DAMS SHALL BE PLACED AT A DISTANCE AND HEIGHT TO ALLOW

2. NOT TO BE USED IN LIVE STREAMS.

NATURAL OR MAN MADE CHANNEL OR DRAINAGE DITCH.

1. CONSTRUCT CHECK DAMS OF ROCK OR GRAVEL BAGS PLACED ACROSS A NOTES:

CURB INLET

GRAVEL BAGS

CURB & GUTTER
PLAN

FLOW DIRECTION

ENSURE GOOD

CONTACT WITH CURB

INSTALL FILTER
FABRIC MIRAFI-140N

OR EQUIVALENT

CURB & GUTTER

DI ON GRADE
2 1
3 2

INSTALL PINE NEEDLE

WATTLES IN FRONT OF

CHECK DAM RELATIVE

TO SW FLOW

WEIGHT WITH ROCKS

OR GRAVEL BAGS

SURROUND DI WITH

PINE NEEDLE WATTLE

AND WEIGH DOWN WITH

GRAVEL BAGS

INSTALL FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI-140W OR EQUIVALENT)
2 3
1 2

INDIVIDUAL TREE PROTECTION

CORRECT

INCORRECT
LINE
DRIP
2X6 X 8' LUMBER TIED TIGHTLY TO TREE
WITH POLY ROPE. 8" GAPS MAXIMUM.

PROTECT 50% OF CIRCUMFERENCE ON
SIDE FACING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

PROVIDE FULL WIDTH

5. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL CRUSHED ROCK SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENTRANCE MIN.

2.0'

3.0'

5.0'
6"
6"
3'
6' O.C.

STEEL T-POSTS

BACKFILL AFTER

SILT FENCE
2'
6"
FLOW

CUTOFF TRENCH
FLOW

BACKFILL

STEEL T-POSTS
FENCE

INSTALLING SILT

CUTOFF TRENCH
NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR MAY USE MANUFACTURED SILT FENCING

IN LIEU OF THE ABOVE, SUBJECT TO SUBMITTAL OF MANUFACTURER'S DATA SHEETS TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL.

SILT FENCE

SEE PROFILE
C
# DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN:
1 REVISIONS
0000
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D

E THE LANDING RESORT CABINS

DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 11:23am Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-DETAILS.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929

TRPA SUBMITTAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

BMP DETAILS
D 1.1

ROCK / FILTER ROLL CHECK DAM
C7.0
1 C7.0

DROP INLET PROTECTION
C7.0
2 C7.0

DROP INLET PROTECTION
C7.0
3 C7.0

PINE NEEDLE WATTLE DETAIL
C7.0
5 C7.0

TYPICAL OPEN TRENCH DETAIL
C7.0
6 C7.0

CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
C7.0
7 C7.0

SILT FENCE DETAIL
C7.0
8 C7.0

TREE PROTECTION FENCING DETAIL
C7.0
9 C7.0
Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-DETAILS.dwg, 4/7/2022 11:23:04 AM 304 228 303
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
0000 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 11:23am Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-DETAILS.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929

TRPA SUBMITTAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

DETAILS
D 1.2
VARIES
12"
MIN.
12" 12"
VARIES
12" 12" 12"

UNDERGROUND
INFILTRATION BASIN 2-

AS REQD
NOTES:
12" MIN
PIPE OD3" MIN
6" CLR
OD OF MANHOLE + 12"

STEEL TROWEL
FINISH

BASE RING PER MFRS
6" EPOXY GROUT FILLET
CLASS "A" CONCRETE
#4 @ 12" EW
(MUST BE POURED IN PLACE)

FORM GROOVE IN

MANHOLE BASE W/

STEEL OR ALUMINUM
DETAIL
30" TO 36"
IN UNPAVED AREAS SET 2" ABOVE GRADE.

FRAME AND COVER 1/2" BELOW AC PAVEMENT.

AC PAVEMENT OR SOIL BACKFILL. SET MANHOLE

SPECIFIED
48" UNLESS OTHERWISE

ECCENTRIC CONE (SHOWN
ROTATED 90°) SEE NOTE 1

JOINT SEALING COMPOUND
WITHIN MANHOLE (SEE TYP.

CUT OUT TOP OF PIPE

PRECAST MANHOLE BARRELS

THICKNESS AS SPECIFIED
(TYP) SEE NOTE 2

BASE SECTION)
24" GRADE RINGS 6" MIN
AND 12" MAX HEIGHT

SEWER &
STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 3-
SEWER CLEANOUT 8-

1. LOCATE MANHOLE COVER ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF MANHOLE. 24" MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER TO BE A 1032 DL SUPPLY - STAMPED "STPUD" ON TOP.

2. JOINT SEALING COMPOUND SHALL BE QUIK-SEAL BY ASSOCIATED CONCRETE PRODUCTS; RAM-NEK BY K.T. SNYDER COMPANY; OR APPROVED EQUAL.

3. FOR SHALLOW MANHOLES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBSTITUTE A PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE CAP, DESIGNED FOR H-20 TRAFFIC LOADING, IN LIEU OF THE ECCENTRIC CONE. THE 24-INCH OPENING SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE MANHOLE CAP. PROVIDE A

DESIGN SUBMITTAL, PREPARED AND SEALED BY A QUALIFIED REGISTERED ENGINEER, DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED LOADING CRITERIA.

4. FOR MANHOLE PENETRATIONS MAKE TRANSITION FROM DIFFERING PIPE MATERIALS AT THE CENTER OF THE MANHOLE, PROVIDING A 12"-LONG U-SHAPED OPEN CHANNEL TRANSITION SECTION OF HAND- FORMED CONCRETE TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO PIPE MATERIALS.

5. ALL MANHOLE PIPE PENETRATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FLANGE, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIAL DEVICE WELDED ONTO OR CAST INTEGRALLY WITH THE PIPE. SUCH DEVICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE ENGINEER'S REVIEW AND SHALL BE ADEQUATE TO RESTRAIN LATERAL MOVEMENT DUE TO TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIALS IN THE PIPE. FOR MANHOLES WITH PVC PIPE CONNECTIONS, FOR A

WATERTIGHT SEAL TO BE ACHIEVED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE A FLEXIBLE ELASTOMERIC GASKET MATERIAL CAPABLE OF ACCOMMODATING THE DIFFERENTIAL THERMAL EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION BETWEEN THE CONCRETE AND PVC PIPE.

6. MANHOLE BASES SHALL BE CAST IN PLACE ONLY.

VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 4-
12"
10"
7-5/8" (TYP)
26"
16"
6"
3"
FOG SEAL 2' BEYOND SAWCUT
3' MIN. TIE IN AC
12"
Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-DETAILS.dwg, 4/7/2022 11:23:40 AM 305 229 304
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
0000 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 11:24am Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-DETAILS.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929

TRPA SUBMITTAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

DETAILS
D 1.3
24" X 36"

DRAIN INLET
MODEL NO. WEIGHT

EXTENSION C
UP TO 6'-0" INSIDE DEPTH

DROP INLET
MODEL NO.

A B WEIGHT

1.44' 1.92' B C A
D
24" 36"
MODEL NO. WEIGHT

FRAME AND GRATE
RATING
D

JENSEN PRECAST
24"x36" DROP INLET 5-
TRENCH DETAILS 9-
4' MIN.
24" MIN.

BOLLARD BAR 10-
STORM DRAIN LATERAL 6- 2
L5.7 1L5.7 3L5.7
SEWER LATERAL 7-
Q:\399100-The Landing\ACAD Plans\Sheets\C-DETAILS.dwg, 4/7/2022 11:24:05 AM 306 230 305
26' - 4" 5' - 0"
15' - 4"
15' - 1"
DECK
BED
LIVING
ENTRY
W.C.

MECH

BATHROOM
Z-2.30 1
3 Z-2.30
Z-2.30
4 Z-2.30
2 Z-2.30 1
3 Z-2.30
Z-2.30
4 Z-2.30
2 BED
LIVING
DECK
ENTRY

BATHROOM
CLOSET
W.C.
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
9' - 0"
Z-2.30 1
3 Z-2.30
Z-2.30
4 Z-2.30
2 22/07/01
PLANS_BUILDING- 1, 2, 3

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.31 PLANS_BUILDING- 1, 2, 3
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 2, 3 - LEVEL 1 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 1, 2, 3, - LEVEL 2 3 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 1, 2, 3 - ROOF LEVEL

BUILDING SF
BUILDING NET : 698 sf
BUILDING GROSS; 780 SF
NET SF: 349 SF
GROSS SF: 390 SF
NET SF: 349 SF
GROSS SF: 390 SF
307 231 306
Z-2.31
2 Z-2.31
1 3 Z-2.31
Z-2.31 4
BATHROOM W.C.

ENTRY
BED
LIVING
DECK
26' - 4" 5' - 0"
14' - 9"
15' - 4"
Z-2.31
2 Z-2.31
1 3 Z-2.31
Z-2.31 4
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
3' - 10"
22/07/01
PLANS_BUILDING- 4

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.32 PLANS_BUILDING- 4
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 4- LEVEL 1 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 4- ROOF LEVEL NET SF: 349 SF
GROSS SF: 390 SF
BUILDING NET SF: 349 SF
BUILDING GROSS SF: 390 SF

BUILDING SF
308 232 307
5' - 0" 26' - 4"
15' - 4"
14' - 9"
3 Z-2.32
Z-2.32
4 Z-2.32
2 Z-2.32 1
LIVING
DECK
LIVING
BATHROOM W.C.

MECH
ENTRY
3 Z-2.32
Z-2.32
4 Z-2.32
2 Z-2.32 1
LIVING
DECK
LIVING
BATHROOM W.C.

CLOSET
ENTRY
3' - 10 1/8"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
3 Z-2.32
Z-2.32
4 Z-2.32
2 Z-2.32 1
22/07/01
PLANS_BUILDING- 5

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.33 PLANS_BUILDING- 5
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 5- LEVEL 1 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 5- LEVEL 2 3 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 5- ROOF LEVEL

BUILDING SF
BUILDING NET : 698 sf
BUILDING GROSS; 780 SF
NET SF: 349 SF
GROSS SF: 390 SF
NET SF: 349 SF
GROSS SF: 390 SF
309 233 308
Z-2.33
1 Z-2.33 4
Z-2.33
2 BATHROOM
BED
LIVING
ENTRY
W.C.

MECH.

DECK
5' - 0" 26' - 4"
15' - 4"
14' - 9"
Z-2.33
1 Z-2.33 4
Z-2.33
2 BED

BATHROOM
ENTRY
LIVING
DECK
W.C.

CLOSET
3' - 10 1/8"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
Z-2.33
1 Z-2.33 4
Z-2.33
2 22/07/01
PLANS_BUILDING- 6

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.34 PLANS_BUILDING- 6
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 6- LEVEL 1 2 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 6- LEVEL 2 3 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 6- ROOF LEVEL NET SF: 349 SF
GROSS SF: 390 SF
NET SF: 349 SF
GROSS SF: 390 SF
BUILDING NET SF: 698 SF
BUILDING GROSS SF: 780 SF

BUILDING SF
310 234 309
1 Z-2.34
Z-2.34
4 Z-2.34 3
Z-2.34
2 26' - 4" 5' - 0"
4' - 2" 15' - 4"
18' - 1"
LIVING

MURPHY BED
BATHROOM W.C.

ENTRY
DECK
3' - 0"

STORAGE
1 Z-2.34
Z-2.34
4 Z-2.34 3
Z-2.34
2 LIVING
BED
BATHROOM W.C.

ENTRY
DECK
MECH
1 Z-2.34
Z-2.34
4 Z-2.34 3
Z-2.34
2 1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
22/07/01
PLANS BUILDING- 7, 8

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.36 PLANS BUILDING- 7, 8
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 7, 8 - LEVEL 1 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 7, 8 - LEVEL 2 3 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 7, 8 - ROOF LEVEL NET SF: 416 SF
GROSS SF: 461 SF
NET SF: 447 SF
GROSS SF: 492 SF
BUILDING NET SF: 863 SF
BUILDING GROSS SF: 953 SF

BUILDING SF
311 235 310
Z-2.35
1 Z-2.35
Z-2.35
Z-2.35 3
2 4
LIVING
ENTRY
W.C. BATHROOM

MURPHY BED
DECK
26' - 4" 5' - 0"
15' - 4" 4' - 2"
18' - 1"
3' - 0"
CLOSET
Z-2.35
1 Z-2.35
Z-2.35
Z-2.35 3
2 4
LIVING
W.C. BATHROOM
BED
DECK
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
Z-2.35
1 Z-2.35
Z-2.35
Z-2.35 3
2 4
22/07/01
PLANS_BUILDING- 9

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.37 PLANS_BUILDING- 9
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 9 - LEVEL 1 2 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 9 - LEVEL 2 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 9 - ROOF LEVEL
NET SF: 416 SF
GROSS SF: 461 SF
NET SF: 447 SF
GROSS SF: 492 SF
BUILDING NET SF: 863 SF
BUILDING GROSS SF: 953 SF

BUILDING SF
312 236 311
UP UP
Z-2.36
1 Z-2.36
Z-2.36
Z-2.36
4 3
2 27' - 0"
58' - 4"
Z-2.36
1 Z-2.36
Z-2.36
Z-2.36
4 3
2 27' - 0"
58' - 4"
Z-2.36
1 Z-2.36
Z-2.36
Z-2.36
4 3
2 1' - 8"
1' - 8"
1' - 4"
1' - 8"
22/07/01
PLANS_BUILDING- STORAGE

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-1.38 PLANS_BUILDING- STORAGE
1 3/16" = 1'-0"
STORAGE BUILDING - LEVEL 1 2 3/16" = 1'-0"STORAGE BUILDING - LEVEL 2 NET SF: 1461 SF
GROSS SF: 1547 SF
NET SF: 1461 SF
GROSS SF: 1547 SF
BUILDING NET SF: 2922 SF
BUILDING GROSS SF: 3094 SF

BUILDING SF
3 3/16" = 1'-0"

STORAGE BUILDING - ROOF
313 237 312
D D D
B
B
A
A
5" / 12"
C
C
5" / 12"
17' - 2"
27' - 7"

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
Non-reflective Slate/Dark Grey
Grey

TREATED WOOD LUMBER
Grey

ALUMIMUM CYLINDER DOWN LIGHT
Black Finish
22/07/01
ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 1, 2, 3

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-2.30 ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 1, 2, 3
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 1, 2, 3 - ELEVATION A 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 1, 2, 3 - ELEVATION B 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 1, 2, 3 - ELEVATION C 4 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 1, 2, 3 - ELEVATION D 314 238 313
E
5" / 12"
18' - 2"
9' - 10"
5" / 12"
D D D
B
A

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
Non-reflective Slate/Dark Grey
Grey

TREATED WOOD LUMBER
Grey

ALUMIMUM CYLINDER DOWN LIGHT
Black Finish
22/07/01
ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 4

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-2.31 ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 4
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 4- ELEVATION D
2 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 4- ELEVATION B
3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 4- ELEVATION A
4 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 4- ELEVATION C
315 239 314
5" / 12"
D D D
A
A
B
B
C
C
5" / 12"
18' - 10"
27' - 1"

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
Non-reflective Slate/Dark Grey
Grey

TREATED WOOD LUMBER
Grey

ALUMIMUM CYLINDER DOWN LIGHT
Black Finish
22/07/01
ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 5

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-2.32 ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 5
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 5 - ELEVATION A 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 5 - ELEVATION B 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 5 - ELEVATION C 4 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 5 - ELEVATION D
316 240 315
A
D
A
D D
5" / 12"
C
C
18' - 10"
27' - 1"
D D D
B
B
A
A
5" / 12"

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
Non-reflective Slate/Dark Grey
Grey

TREATED WOOD LUMBER
Grey

ALUMIMUM CYLINDER DOWN LIGHT
Black Finish
22/07/01
ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 6

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-2.33 ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 6
3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 6 - ELEVATION C 1 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 6 - ELEVATION D 4 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 6 - ELEVATION A 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 6 - ELEVATION B 317 241 316
D D D
B
F B
A
A
C
C
5" / 12"
5" / 12"
18' - 0"
27' - 1"

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
Non-reflective Slate/Dark Grey
Grey

TREATED WOOD LUMBER
Grey

ALUMIMUM CYLINDER DOWN LIGHT
Black Finish
22/07/01
ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 7, 8

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-2.34 ELEVATIONS_BUILDINGS- 7, 8
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDINGS 7, 8 - ELEVATION A 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDINGS 7, 8 - ELEVATION B 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDINGS 7, 8 - ELEVATION C
4 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDINGS 7, 8 - ELEVATION D
318 242 317
E E E
5" / 12"
D D D
A
A
B
B
F
5" / 12"
C
C
18' - 0"
27' - 1"

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
Non-reflective Slate/Dark Grey
Grey

TREATED WOOD LUMBER
Grey

ALUMIMUM CYLINDER DOWN LIGHT
Black Finish
22/07/01
ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 9

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-2.35 ELEVATIONS_BUILDING- 9
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 9 - ELEVATION A 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 9 - ELEVATION B 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 9 - ELEVATION C 4 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 9 - ELEVATION D 319 243 318
5" / 12"
5" / 12"

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
Non-reflective Slate/Dark Grey
Grey

TREATED WOOD LUMBER
Grey

ALUMIMUM CYLINDER DOWN LIGHT
Black Finish
22/07/01
ELEVATION_BUILDING- STORAGE

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-2.36 ELEVATION_BUILDING- STORAGE
1 3/16" = 1'-0"
STORAGE BUILDING- ELEVATION A 2 3/16" = 1'-0"

STORAGE BUILDING- ELEVATION B
3 3/16" = 1'-0"
STORAGE BUILDING- ELEVATION C 4 3/16" = 1'-0"STORAGE BUILDING- ELEVATION D 320 244 319

NATURAL GRADE

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
6,234

MAX BLDG HEIGHT FROM TOPO
28' - 1"
27' - 9"
6"
2"
4"

PROPOSED GRADE

NATURAL GRADE

MAX BLDG HEIGHT FROM TOPO
28' - 1"

PROPOSED GRADE
6,234

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
28' - 1"
6"
6"
16' - 8"
6,234

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6"
18' - 8"
1' - 0"
6" 6"
17' - 4"
17' - 8"

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6"
2" 4"
6,234
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 1, 2

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-4.10 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 1, 2
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 01- HEIGHT_A
2 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 02- HEIGHT_A
4 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 01- HEIGHT_C
5 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 02- HEIGHT_C
321 245 320
11' - 4"
10' - 4"

PROPOSED GRADE

NATURAL GRADE
6,234

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
6"
1' - 6"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE

MAX BLDG HEIGHT FROM TOPO
28' - 2"
28' - 2"

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
6,234
7"
7"
17' - 9"
17' - 8"
6,234

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
7"
6"
16' - 9"

MAX BLDG HEIGHT FROM TOPO
18' - 2"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6,234
6"
6"
1' - 4"
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 3, 4

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-4.11 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 3, 4
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 04- HEIGHT C
2 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 03- HEIGHT A 3 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 03- HEIGHT C 4 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 04- HEIGHT A

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
322 246 321

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
19' - 11"
6,236
1' - 1"
19' - 11"

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
1' - 1"
27' - 7"
M
AX
B
L
D
G
H
E
GI H
T
F
R
O
M
T
O
P
O
2 7' - 8"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6,236

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
8"
6"
2 0' - 6"
1' - 7"
6,236
6"
19' - 4"

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
M
AX
B
L
D
G
H
E
GI H
T
F
R
O
M
T
O
P
O
2 8' - 11"
2 7' - 5"

NATURAL GRADE
1' - 10"

PROPOSED GRADE
6,236

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
3" 4"
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 5, 6

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-4.12 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 5, 6
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 05- HEIGHT_A
2 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 05- HEIGHT_C
3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 06- HEIGHT_C 4 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 06- HEIGHT_A 323 247 322

NATURAL GRADE
18' - 6"
6"
6,236

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION

PROPOSED GRADE
18' - 11"
11"
2 7' - 6"
M
AX
B
L
D
G
H
E
GI H
T
F
R
O
M
T
O
P
O
2 7' - 8"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6,236
6"
5"

FINISHED FLOOR

ELEVATION

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
18' - 11"
19' - 0"
11"
1' - 0"
6,237

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
M
AX
B
L
D
G
H
E
GI H
T
T
O
T
O
P
O
2 8' - 5"
2 7' - 7"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6"
1' - 4"
6,237

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 7, 8

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-4.13 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATIONS- 7, 8
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 07- HEIGHT_C 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 07- HEIGHT_A 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 08- HEIGHT_C 4 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 08- HEIGHT_A 324 248 323

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
18' - 0"
18' - 6"
6"
6,237

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
6" 1"
M
AX
B
L
D
G
H
E
GI H
T
T
O
T
O
P
O
2 8' - 1"
2 7' - 3"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
1' - 0"
2" 4"
6,237

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATION- 9

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-4.14 BLDG HEIGHT ELEVATION- 9
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 09- HEIGHT_C 2 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING 09- HEIGHT_A 325 249 324
3 0' - 10"
M
AX
B
L
D
G
H
E
GI H
T
F
R
O
M
T
O
P
O
31' - 0"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6"
6,238

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
2" 6"
31' 18' - 1" - 0"
30' - 10" 18' - 1"
30' - 0"
5:12
roof slope
18' - 1"
18' - 1"

NATURAL GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE
6,238

FINISH FLOOR

ELEVATION
4" 2"
4" 3"
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT CALC_ STORAGE

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-5.10 BLDG HEIGHT CALC_ STORAGE
2 1/4" = 1'-0"
STORAGE BUILDING- HEIGHT_C
1 3/16" = 1'-0"

STORAGE BUILDING -HEIGHT CALC
3 1/4" = 1'-0"
STORAGE BUILDING- HEIGHT_A
STORAGE (6234-6233) / 30' - 0" = .033 31'
BUILDING CROSS SLOPE CALC. MAX ALLOWED
HEIGHT
31' - 0"

MAX DESIGN
HEIGHT
326 250 325
27' - 9"
16' - 8"
28' - 1"
18' - 8 "
5:12
30' - 6"
roof slope
28' - 1"
17' - 4"
28' - 1"
17' - 8"
30' - 6"
5:12
roof slope
28' - 2"
17' - 9"
28' - 2"
17' - 8"
30' - 6"
5:12
roof slope
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 1, 2, 3

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-5.11 BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 1, 2, 3
1 3/16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 01-HEIGHT CALC 2 3/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING 02-HEIGHT CALC 3 3/16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 03-HEIGHT CALC
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
(6234-6233) / 30' - 6" = .033 31'
(6234-6233) / 30' - 6" = .033 31'
(6234-6233) / 30' - 6" = .033 31'
BUILDING CROSS SLOPE CALC.
28' - 1"
28' - 1"
28' - 2"

MAX ALLOWED
HEIGHT

MAX DESIGN
HEIGHT
327 251 326
11' - 4" 16' - 9"
18' - 2"
10' - 4"
30' - 6"
5:12
roof slope
19' - 11"
27' - 8"
19' - 11"
27' - 7"
30' - 6"
5:1
2 ro
of slo
p
e
19" - 4"
27' - 5"
30' - 6"
20' - 6"
28' - 11"
5:12
roof slope
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 4, 5, 6

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-5.12 BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 4, 5, 6
4 3/16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 04- HEIGHT CALC 5 3/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING 05- HEIGHT CALC 6 3/16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 06- HEIGHT CALC
BUILDING 4
BUILDING 5
BUILDING 6
(6234-6233) / 15' - 6" = .06 31' - 6"
(6235-6234) / 30' - 6" = .033 31'
(6235-6234) / 30' - 6" = .033 31'
BUILDING CROSS SLOPE CALC.
19' - 8"
27' - 7"
28' - 11"

MAX ALLOWED
HEIGHT

MAX DESIGN
HEIGHT
328 252 327
18' - 11" 18' - 6"
27' - 8" 27' - 6"
26' - 4"
5:1
2 ro
of slo
p
e
18' - 11"
19' - 0"
27' - 7"
28' - 5"
32' - 9
5:12 "
roof slope
18' - 0" 18' - 6"
27' - 3" 28' - 1"
32' - 9"
5:1
2 ro
of slo
p
e
22/07/01
BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 7, 8, 9

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-5.13 BLDG HEIGHT CALC- 7, 8, 9
7 3/16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 07- HEIGHT CALC 8 3/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING 08- HEIGHT CALC 9 3/16" = 1'-0"
BUILDING 09- HEIGHT CALC
BUILDING 7
BUILDING 8
BUILDING 9
(6235-6234) / 26' - 4" = .038 31'
(6235-6235) / 32' - 9" = 0 30'
(6236-6235) / 32' - 9" = .031 31'
BUILDING CROSS SLOPE CALC.

MAX ALLOWED
HEIGHT
27' - 8"

MAX DESIGN
HEIGHT
28' - 5"
28' - 1"
329 253 328
CLASS 1B Ev CLASS 7 EfB
10' SEZ SETBACK

TRPA LAND CAPABILITY DIVISION
6237.54
6236.5
6235.2
6237.64
6237.54
6237.43
6235.32
6237.54
6236.5
6236.5 CLASS 1B Ev CLASS 7 EfB
10' SEZ SETBACK

TRPA LAND CAPABILITY DIVISION
C
# DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN:
1 REVISIONS
6025
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D

E THE LANDING RESORT CABINS

DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET
F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 8:45am F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L0-1 Coverage Plan.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
04/06/2022

COVERAGE PLAN
L0-1

CATEGORY

BUILDINGS

AC PAVING/ COMPACTED DIRT

CONCRETE PAVERS
1b 7
24,806 5,035
12,367 16,361
13,085 4,047
SUBTOTALS 50,878 28,272
APN 029-602-13 TOTAL: 79,150

COMBINED PARCEL (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
POOL DECK 620 2,829

CATEGORY

BUILDINGS

AC PAVING/CONCRETE

CONCRETE
1b 7
26,585 5,200
0 17,428
3,114 1,911
SUBTOTALS 46,816 29,340
APN 029-602-13 TOTAL: 75,970

COMBINED PARCEL (PROPOSED COVERAGE)
POOL DECK 231 3304

CATEGORY

LAND AREA
1b (1%) 7 (30%)
62,868 42,333

COMBINED PARCEL
ALLOWABLE COVERAGE 628 SF 12,670
APN 029-602-13 TOTAL ALLOWABLE COVERAGE 13,328

PROPOSED BANKED

COVERAGE
2,994
(BASE ALLOWABLE COVERAGE)
PARCEL SIZE 2.42 acres PARCEL SIZE 2.42 acres PARCEL SIZE 2.42 acres

CATEGORY

BUILDING

CONCRETE POOL

AC PAVING/ COMPACTED DIRT
1b 7
10,253 3,780
1,988
40,184 3,754
SUBTOTALS 53,402 23,272
APN 029-602-13 TOTAL: 78,914

COMBINED PARCEL (VERIFIED COVERAGE)
CONCRETE/ PAVERS 623
WOOD DECK/STEPS 15

VERFIED BANKED

COVERAGE
2,240
PARCEL SIZE 2.42 acres

EXISTING BANKED

COVERAGE
2,240
VBOC 2008-0288 VERIFICATION 339 15,738
BANKED 7
2,240
2,240
CONCRETE PAVERS 16,886 483
CABIN DECK 0 1014

COVERAGE SYMBL COVERAGE TYP

COVERAGE LEGEND

AC PAVING/CONCRETE

BUILDINGS

CABIN DECK

CONCRETE PAVERS

POOL DECK

ASPHALT
330 254 329
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 51 50 49 48
56 53 52
57 58 59 60 61
70 69 68
74 73 72 71
75 80 81 82 83
18 17 16 15 13 12 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
6025 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 10:31am F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L0-2 Site Plan.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
04/06/2022

OVERALL
L0-2

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING POOL DECK

BUILDING B

BUILDING A
EVERGREEN TREE TYP.

DECIDUOUS TREE TYP.

PATH CONNECTION TO BEACH

LAKESHORE BLVD

STATELINE AVE

BUILDING B

POOLSIDE CABINS

GARDEN CABINS

LAKE FRONT CABINS

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

VALET PARKING AREA

ENTRY SIGN
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN TYP.

PARCEL BOUNDARY

SITE PLAN
AZURE AVE.

ADA ACCESSIBLE
PATH TYP.

ADA ACCESSIBLE
PATH TYP. TOTAL PROPOSED
PARKING SPACES: 87

STORAGE BUILDING
331 255 330
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 505152 4849
5657 53
58 59 60 61
7071 6869
7475 7273
80 81 82 83
18 17
16 15
13 12
111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
6025 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 10:33am F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L0-2 Site Plan.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
04/06/2022

SITE PLAN
L0-3

KEY MAP
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
5 10 20
1"=10'-00"
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L0-4

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

BUILDING B

BUILDING A

LAKESHORE BLVD

STATELINE AVE

CONCRETE PATH
TYP.

DECK
TYP.

OUTDOOR PAVER PATIO
TYP.

CONCRETE

SITE WALL
TYP.

PAVERS
TYP.

EXISTING PARKING AREA
PAVERS

DECOMPOSED GRANITE

PATH CONNECTION
12" CONC. BAND
TYP.

L0-4 1 23

SYMBL MATERIAL

MATERIAL LEGEND

SITE WALLS/CURBS

ASPHALT PAVING
DECK

UNIT PAVERS

CONCRETE PAVING

ACCESSIBLE PATH
332 256 331
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 50 49 48
53 52 51 57 56
58 59 60 61
71 70 69 68 75 74 73 72
80 81 82 83
55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 505152 4849
5657 53
58 59 60 61
7071 6869
7475 7273
80 81 82 83
18 17
16 15
13 12
111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
6025 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 10:34am F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L0-2 Site Plan.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
04/06/2022

SITE PLAN
L0-4

KEY MAP
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
5 10 20
1"=10'-00"
L0-3
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L0-3

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

PROPOSED

BACK OF HOUSE

BUILDING

STATELINE AVE

CONCRETE PATH
TYP.

PRIVATE DECK
TYP.

CONCRETE SITE WALL
TYP.

PAVERS
TYP. 4 5 6 789
CONCRETE RAMP TYP.

EXPANDED

POOL DECK

ASPHALT PARKING
TYP.

AZURE AVE.

PRIVATE DECK
TYP.

SYMBL MATERIAL

MATERIAL LEGEND

SITE WALLS/CURBS

ASPHALT PAVING
DECK

UNIT PAVERS

CONCRETE PAVING

ACCESSIBLE PATH

EXISTING

RESTROOM
6' FENCE TYP.
333 257 332
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
6025 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 10:36am F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L2 Planting Plan.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
04/06/2022

PLANTING PLAN
L2-1

KEY MAP
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
10 20 40
1"=20'-00"
SYMBOL PLANTING TYPE QTY.

PLANTING HATCH LEGEND

PROPOSED SHRUB

PROPOSED NATIVE

REVEGETATION

AND PERENNIAL PLANTING
13,166 SQ. FT.
4,103 SQ. FT.

Festuca brevilipa - 2.0 PLS lbs./ac
Festuca ovina, `Covar` - 2.0 PLS lbs./ac
Poa ampla, `Sherman` - 1.0 PLS lbs./ac
Achillea millefolium - 0.10 PLS lbs./ac
Eriogonum umbellatum - 2.0 PLS lbs./ac
Linum lewisii - 1.0 PLS lbs./ac
Lupinus argenteus - 2.0 PLS
PROPOSED TURF 2,268 SQ. FT.

PROPOSED

EVERGREEN TREE

PROPOSED

DECIDUOUS TREE
81 29
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2-2

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES

PERENNIALS
SHRUBS
ABBR. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE

PLANT LIST
CI-5 Caryopteris incana 'Sunshine Blue' Sunshine Blue Bluebeard 5 gal.

CS-5 Cornus Sericea Red Twig Dogwood 5 gal.

RG-5 Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low' Dwarf Fragrant Sumac 5 gal.

CF-5 Cornus Sericea 'Flaviramea' Yellow Twig Dogwood 5 gal.

VO-5 Viburnum opulus 'nanum' Dwarf Viburnum 5 gal.

QTY.

LS-1 Ligularia stenosephala 'Rocket' Rocket Ligularia 1 gal.

AM-1 Achillea millefolium Moonshine Yarrow 1 gal.

PJ Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine 10' Tall

EVERGREEN TREES X
SB-5 Salix purpurea 'Nana' Dwarf Artic Willow 5 gal.

SA-5 Symporicarpos albus Common Snowberry 5 gal.

SB-5 Spiraea X 'bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' Anthony Waterer Spirea 5 gal.

GO Galium ordoratum Sweet Woodruff 4" pot
LP-1 Lupinus Polyphyllus Lupine 1 gal.

NF-1 Nepeta X faassenii 'Walker's Low' Catmint 'Walker's Low' 1 gal.

PS-1 Penstemon strictus Rocky Mountain Penstemon 4" pot SN-1 Salvia nemorosa 'Caradonna' Salvia 4" pot
CD
X Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar 10' Tall
PT Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 2" cal.

DECIDUOUS TREES X
RN-5 Ribes Nevadense Mountain Pink Currant 5 gal.

PO-5 Physocarpus opulifolius 'Coppertina' Coppertina Ninebark 5 gal.

FG-1 Festuca glauca Blue Fescue 1 gal.

HS-1 Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass 1 gal.

L2-2

BUILDING B

BUILDING A
DECIDUOUS TREE TYP.

PATH CONNECTION TO BEACH

LAKESHORE BLVD

STATELINE AVE
REVEG AREA TYP.

TURF AREA
TYP.

EXISTING TREE TYP.

EVERGREEN TREE TYP.
334 258 333
C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
6025 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr 07, 2022 - 10:37am F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L2 Planting Plan.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
04/06/2022

PLANTING PLAN
L2-2
SYMBOL PLANTING TYPE QTY.

PLANTING HATCH LEGEND

PROPOSED SHRUB

PROPOSED NATIVE

REVEGETATION

AND PERENNIAL PLANTING
13,166 SQ. FT.
4,103 SQ. FT.

PROPOSED

EVERGREEN TREE

PROPOSED

DECIDUOUS TREE
81 29

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES

PERENNIALS
SHRUBS
ABBR. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE

PLANT LIST
CI-5 Caryopteris incana 'Sunshine Blue' Sunshine Blue Bluebeard 5 gal.

CS-5 Cornus Sericea Red Twig Dogwood 5 gal.

RG-5 Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low' Dwarf Fragrant Sumac 5 gal.

CF-5 Cornus Sericea 'Flaviramea' Yellow Twig Dogwood 5 gal.

VO-5 Viburnum opulus 'nanum' Dwarf Viburnum 5 gal.

QTY.

LS-1 Ligularia stenosephala 'Rocket' Rocket Ligularia 1 gal.

AM-1 Achillea millefolium Moonshine Yarrow 1 gal.

PJ Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine 10' Tall

EVERGREEN TREES X
SB-5 Salix purpurea 'Nana' Dwarf Artic Willow 5 gal.

SA-5 Symporicarpos albus Common Snowberry 5 gal.

SB-5 Spiraea X 'bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' Anthony Waterer Spirea 5 gal.

GO Galium ordoratum Sweet Woodruff 4" pot
LP-1 Lupinus Polyphyllus Lupine 1 gal.

NF-1 Nepeta X faassenii 'Walker's Low' Catmint 'Walker's Low' 1 gal.

PS-1 Penstemon strictus Rocky Mountain Penstemon 4" pot SN-1 Salvia nemorosa 'Caradonna' Salvia 4" pot
CD
X Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar 10' Tall
PT Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 2" cal.

DECIDUOUS TREES X
RN-5 Ribes Nevadense Mountain Pink Currant 5 gal.

PO-5 Physocarpus opulifolius 'Coppertina' Coppertina Ninebark 5 gal.

FG-1 Festuca glauca Blue Fescue 1 gal.

HS-1 Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass 1 gal.

L2-1
TURF AREA TYP.

EVERGREEN TREE
PLANTING TYP.

DECIDUOUS TREE
PLANTING TYP.

EXISTING TREE TYP.

REVEG AREA TYP.

SHRUB/PERENNIAL
PLANTING AREA TYP.

MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2-1

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

KEY MAP
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
10 20 40
1"=20'-00"
335 259 334
Resolution 2022-XX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
August 18, 2022

APPROVING A MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE FOR 4104 LAKESHORE BOULEVARD, FILE #20-114, APN 029-602-013

B. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, received public comments, considered the evidence in the record and deliberated.

C. A public notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on August 5, 2022. A notice of the August 18, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting was also published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on August 5, 2022.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission:
a. Find the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction; and Section 15332, Class 32, which consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section including: (a) the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant 336 260 335
Resolution 2022-XX August 18, 2022 Page 2 of 2
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. b. Approve findings contained in the staff report and grant a use permit to reduce the parking space requirement to 88 onsite parking spaces. c. Approve findings contained in the staff report and grant a variance to allow encroachment into the Azure Avenue and Lakeshore Boulevard side street setbacks and rear interior setback.
d. Approve Design Review Permit #20-114.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission on August 18, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Kili Rahbeck, Chair
Attest:
________________________
Joanne McDonough, Deputy City Clerk
337 261 336

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION

NOTICE OF OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION
Proof of Service by Mail
SUBJECT: Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance, The Landings at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104
Lakeshore Boulevard, File #20-114
ADDRESS: 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard
APN: 029-602-013
DATE OF HEARING: August 18, 2022

TIME AND LOCATION OF
HEARING:
3:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
2:00 p.m. at 11414 Dawn Street, Anchorage, AK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF EL DORADO

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

On August 4, 2022, I served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

John Hitchcock

Signature
Executed on 08/04/2022 , by John Hitchcock
Development Service Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
338 262 337

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on August 18, 2022, at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way (formerly Airport Road), South Lake Tahoe. Beginning at 2:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time, Commissioner Feiger will be participating via teleconference from11414 Dawn Street, Anchorage, AK, to consider the following agenda item:

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on the projects or may write their comments to the City Planning Division. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the application in court, you may be limited to raising only those items you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Planning Division at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. Any written correspondences should be directed to the South Lake Tahoe Development Services Department, 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Staff reports will be available three days prior to the hearing and can be downloaded from the City of South Lake Tahoe website (https://www.cityofslt.us/84/Watch-CityCouncilCommission-Meetings). For any questions, please contact the Planning Division at (530) 542-7472 or the staff planner listed above. 339 263 338
340 264 339
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 1/5
© 2015 ParcelQuest www.parcelquest.com (888) 217-8999
3 6
2 1 4
4041 42
181 43 9
10 44 51 16151714131211 45 19 47 46 7 20 27 35 37 49 48 8 28 36 21 29 30 38 50 22 32 25 39 23 52 24 33 31 34 26
100 m Map data ©2022 Google
341 265 340
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/5
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 029-602-013-
000
4104 LAKESHORE
BLVD

DIAMONDROCK TAHOE OWNER LLC &
DE LLC
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
6915

342 266 341
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/5
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 029-010-
009-000
803 STATELINE AVE DARCIE KENT VINEYARDS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
2 EDX 029-010-
011-000
833 STATELINE AVE SECOND MANASSAS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
3 EDX 029-010-
012-000
837 STATELINE AVE SECOND MANASSAS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
4 EDX 029-010-
015-000
821 STATELINE AVE DARCIE KENT VINEYARDS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
6 EDX 029-010-
025-000

EDGEWOOD COMPANIES SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
7 EDX 029-601-
001-000
4041 LAKESHORE
BLVD

LAKESIDE PARK ASSN INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6917
8 EDX 029-601-
002-000

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
9 EDX 029-602-
003-000
4121 AZURE AVE MERRIKH RAMIAR TR & PATRICIA L SUDA TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8953
10 EDX 029-602-
004-000
4117 AZURE AVE REZAMAND MOHAMMAD TR & M LIV TRUST
04/06/13

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8953
11 EDX 029-602-
005-000
875 HILL RD LEWIS DAVID R TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
12 EDX 029-602-
006-000
871 HILL RD PUSATERI RONALD F TR & TRUST OF 4/15/91 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7070
13 EDX 029-602-
007-000
867 HILL RD BOE BARBARA L SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
14 EDX 029-602-
008-000
861 HILL RD SECOND MANASSAS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
15 EDX 029-602-
009-000
851 HILL RD PARNELL JACOB R & MOLLY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6949
16 EDX 029-602-
010-000
847 HILL RD PARNELL JACOB R & MOLLY A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6949
17 EDX 029-602-
012-000
859 HILL RD CARROLL RICHARD G SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
18 EDX 029-602-
013-000
4104 LAKESHORE
BLVD

DIAMONDROCK TAHOE OWNER LLC & DE LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6915
19 EDX 029-603-
001-000
4087 SUNRISE LN QUEIROLO SILVIO J TR & QUEIROLO SILVIO J TR & LIND

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947

343 267 342
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 4/5
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
20 EDX 029-603-
002-000
4083 SUNRISE LN HALL JAMES R TR & CAROL F TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
21 EDX 029-603-
003-000
4079 SUNRISE LN TOMS INVESTMENT INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
22 EDX 029-603-
004-000
4073 SUNRISE LN PARNELL LUCAS C & ERIN E & JACOB R &

MOLLY A

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
23 EDX 029-603-
011-000
4069 SUNRISE LN TURNER KENNETH M TR & JULIE ANN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
24 EDX 029-603-
012-000
4067 SUNRISE LN TAYLOR BRETT H & KAREN E TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
25 EDX 029-604-
001-000
4085

GREENWOOD RD
HARRISON KAREN E TR & KE LIV REV TR 3/2/18 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6946
26 EDX 029-604-
002-000
4081

GREENWOOD RD

MAND KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
27 EDX 029-604-
010-000
846 HILL RD MCLAUGHLIN JACK W JR TR & SHERYL LEE TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6948
28 EDX 029-604-
011-000
4084 SUNRISE LN HALL JAMES R TR & CAROL F TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
29 EDX 029-604-
012-000
4080 SUNRISE LN TOMS INVESTMENT INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6916
30 EDX 029-604-
017-000
4087

GREENWOOD RD

SUDERMAN TALCO STEPHEN SUC TR & TALCO

LIV REV TR O

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
31 EDX 029-604-
019-000
4083

GREENWOOD RD

FRUGOLI JULIE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
32 EDX 029-604-
023-000
4074 SUNRISE LN PARNELL LUCAS C & ERIN E & JACOB R &

MOLLY A

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
33 EDX 029-604-
024-000
4070 SUNRISE LN TURNER KENNETH M TR & JULIE ANN TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
34 EDX 029-604-
025-000
4068 SUNRISE LN TAYLOR BRETT H & KAREN E TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
35 EDX 029-604-
026-000
862 HILL RD CAMPOS RAFAEL JR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6948
36 EDX 029-604-
027-000
4091
GREENWOOD RD 3

HALL JAMES R TR & CAROL F TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
37 EDX 029-605-
001-000
4105 AZURE AVE MATTILA ASHLEY JOHNSON TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8953
38 EDX 029-605-
002-000
4101 AZURE AVE MATTILA ASHLEY JOHNSON TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8953

344 268 343
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 5/5
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
39 EDX 029-605-
009-000
4091 AZURE AVE HAYES SVENNUNGSEN NANCY TR & HAYES

WALLACE A TR

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7170
40 EDX 029-610-
001-000
850 STATELINE AVE HALLORAN ALICIA SCHINDEL TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6912
41 EDX 029-610-
002-000
856 STATELINE AVE COTHAM CALVIN LEON SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6912
42 EDX 029-610-
003-000
864 STATELINE AVE MAND KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-7136
43 EDX 029-610-
004-000
4116 AZURE AVE AZURE ENTERPRISES SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
44 EDX 029-610-
005-000
4112 AZURE AVE BALDASANO LAWRENCE J & SHERYL A SMALL SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6945
45 EDX 029-610-
006-000
4108 AZURE AVE CAREY MARK E TR & MARGARET R TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6945
46 EDX 029-610-
007-000
4123 PINE BLVD MAND KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6957
47 EDX 029-610-
008-000
4106 AZURE AVE STILLMAN ELLEN SUCC TR & FAM REV TR
6/08/89

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
48 EDX 029-610-
009-000
4117 PINE BLVD MCALISTER WILLIAM ROY CO TR & LISA CO TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6942
49 EDX 029-610-
010-000
4104 AZURE AVE WILLIAMS KIRK W TR & K W REV TRUST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6945
50 EDX 029-610-
011-000
4100 AZURE AVE SALAZAR JACK J & LARA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6945
51 EDX 029-610-
021-000
4127 PINE BLVD MAND KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6942
52 EDX 029-610-
025-000
4107 PINE BLVD HCLT PROPERTY II LLC DE LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6942

345 269 344
.

EXISTING BLDG C

EXISTING BLDG B
STATELINE AVE.

LAKESHORE
BLVD

EXISTING BLDG A
AZURE
AVE. AZURE
AVE.
4 5 6
8 9

EXISTING RESTROOMS

STORAGE
BLDG

ACCESSIBLE

FIRST LEVEL
SINGLE
LEVEL
2 3
1 7

EXISTING POOL

PROPOSED EGRESS STAIR

ALLOWS DIRECT EGRESS FROM

ROOFTOP AMENITY TO STREET

AND FITS WITHIN EXISTING
PATIO BOUNDARIES.

EXISTING
PATIO
PROPOSED 5'-0" SIDEWALK WITH CURB AND
GUTTER. FINAL DESIGN & ENGINEERING TO

BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC WORKS
5' - 0
EXISTING BIKE STORAGE TO REMAIN. "

ADDITIONAL

ARCHITECTURAL

ARTICULATION ON

BUILDING FACADE
FACING AZURE AVE.

BUILDINGS 8 & 9 HAVE BEEN

REPOSITIONED TO NOT

ENCROACH ON SETBACK
BUILDINGS 1, 2 & 3 HAVE

BEEN REPOSITIONED TO NOT

ENCROACH ON SETBACK

STORAGE BUILDING HAS

BEEN ADJUSTED TO

NOT ENCROACH ON

SETBACKS

PARKING SPACES ENCROACHING
15' REAR, INTERIOR SETBACK ARE

REQUESTED TO BE CONSIDERED

FOR VARIANCE

PROPOSED RELOCATED
TRASH ENCLOSURE.
8/29/2022

PROPOSED REVISIONS

THE LANDING AT TAHOE
Z-6.5 PROPOSED REVISIONS
1 3/64" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
270 345
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 52 51 50 49
57 56 53
58 59 60 61 68
71 70 69
75 74 73 72
80 81 82 83
18 17 16 15 13 12 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 52 51 50 49
57 56 53
58 59 60 61 68
71 70 69
75 74 73 72
80 81 82 83
18 17 16 15 13 12 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
6025 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aug 29, 2022 - 1:42pm F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L0-2 Site Plan Permit.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
08/04/2022

OVERALL
L0-2

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING POOL DECK

BUILDING B

BUILDING A

PATH CONNECTION TO BEACH

LAKESHORE BLVD

STATELINE AVE

BUILDING C

POOLSIDE CABINS

GARDEN CABINS

LAKE FRONT CABINS

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

VALET PARKING

ENTRY SIGN

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

PARCEL BOUNDARY

SITE PLAN
AZURE AVE.

ADA ACCESSIBLE
PATH TYP.

TOTAL PROPOSED VALET
PARKING SPACES: 96

STORAGE BUILDING
30'-0"
30'-0"

VALET PARKING

VALET PARKING
20'-0"

SNOW STORAGE

PARKING SPACES TO HAVE WHEEL

STOPS ALONG THIS EDGE

LOADING SPACE

EXISTING BIKE STORAGE TO REMAIN

PEDESTRIAN PATH

SNOW STORAGE ALONG STATELINE AVE

TO BE CONFIRMED BY CITY

PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE

LOCATION
271 346

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION

NOTICE OF OF A PUBLIC HEARING

TIME AND LOCATION OF
HEARING:
3:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF EL DORADO

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

On September 2, 2022, I served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

John Hitchcock

Signature
Executed on 09/02/2022 , by John Hitchcock
Development Service Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
272 347

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on September 15, 2022, at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way (formerly Airport Road), South Lake Tahoe, to consider the following agenda item:

Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance, The Landings at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard, File #20-114 Summary: Diamond Rock Hospitality Company submitted a development application to the City of South Lake Tahoe to construct nine (9) cabins with 14 hotel units at The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa. The new buildings will add a total of 7,149 square feet of gross floor area and increase the number of hotel units from 82 to 96. The additional hotel units will be constructed with TRPA verified tourist accommodation units banked on the property. (John Hitchcock, [email protected]).

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on the projects or submit written comments. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the application in court, you may be limited to raising only those items you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence.

Written public comments may be sent to [email protected]. When emailing comments, identify the item listed above in the subject line to which your comments relate.

Any such comment that is a public record and is emailed to [email protected] or otherwise provided to a majority of the Planning Commission before the meeting will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe [Government Code Section 54957.5(b)]. Written comments will not be read out loud during the meeting.

Written comments received by 3 p.m. the day before the meeting will be distributed to Planning Commission prior to the meeting.

Staff reports will be available three days prior to the hearing and can be downloaded from the City of South Lake Tahoe website (https://www.cityofslt.us/84/Watch-CityCouncilPlanning-Commission-Me For any questions, please contact the staff planner listed above at (530) 542-7472. 273 348
274 349
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 1/5
© 2015 ParcelQuest www.parcelquest.com (888) 217-8999
3 6
2 1 4
4041 42
181 43 9
10 44 51 16151714131211 45 19 47 46 7 20 27 35 37 49 48 8 28 36 21 29 30 38 50 22 32 25 39 23 52 24 33 31 34 26
100 m Map data ©2022 Google
275 350
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/5
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 029-602-013-
000
4104 LAKESHORE
BLVD

DIAMONDROCK TAHOE OWNER LLC &
DE LLC
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
6915

276 351
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/5
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 029-010-
009-000
803 STATELINE AVE DARCIE KENT VINEYARDS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
2 EDX 029-010-
011-000
833 STATELINE AVE SECOND MANASSAS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
3 EDX 029-010-
012-000
837 STATELINE AVE SECOND MANASSAS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
4 EDX 029-010-
015-000
821 STATELINE AVE DARCIE KENT VINEYARDS CA LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6911
6 EDX 029-010-
025-000

EDGEWOOD COMPANIES SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
7 EDX 029-601-
001-000
4041 LAKESHORE
BLVD

LAKESIDE PARK ASSN INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6917
8 EDX 029-601-
002-000

DIAMONDROCK TAHOE OWNER LLC & DE LLC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6915
19 EDX 029-603-
001-000
4087 SUNRISE LN QUEIROLO SILVIO J TR & QUEIROLO SILVIO J TR & LIND

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947

277 352
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 4/5
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
20 EDX 029-603-
002-000
4083 SUNRISE LN HALL JAMES R TR & CAROL F TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
21 EDX 029-603-
003-000
4079 SUNRISE LN TOMS INVESTMENT INC SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6947
22 EDX 029-603-
004-000
4073 SUNRISE LN PARNELL LUCAS C & ERIN E & JACOB R &

MOLLY A

GREENWOOD RD
HARRISON KAREN E TR & KE LIV REV TR 3/2/18 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-6946
26 EDX 029-604-
002-000
4081

GREENWOOD RD

SUDERMAN TALCO STEPHEN SUC TR & TALCO

LIV REV TR O

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
31 EDX 029-604-
019-000
4083

GREENWOOD RD

FRUGOLI JULIE A SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
32 EDX 029-604-
023-000
4074 SUNRISE LN PARNELL LUCAS C & ERIN E & JACOB R &

MOLLY A

HALL JAMES R TR & CAROL F TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
37 EDX 029-605-
001-000
4105 AZURE AVE MATTILA ASHLEY JOHNSON TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8953
38 EDX 029-605-
002-000
4101 AZURE AVE MATTILA ASHLEY JOHNSON TR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-8953

278 353
7/29/22, 2:58 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 5/5
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
39 EDX 029-605-
009-000
4091 AZURE AVE HAYES SVENNUNGSEN NANCY TR & HAYES

WALLACE A TR

DARCIE KENT VINEYARDS CA
LLC
7639 CEDAR MOUNTAIN RD
LIVERMORE CA 94550-7349

SECOND MANASSAS CA LLC
PO BOX 337
MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90267-

DARCIE KENT VINEYARDS CA
LLC
7639 CEDAR MOUNTAIN RD
LIVERMORE CA 94550-7349

EDGEWOOD COMPANIES
PO BOX 2249
STATELINE NV 89449

LAKESIDE PARK ASSN INC
4077 PINE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
T OLIVER 1900 LAKE TAHOE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RAMIAR & PATRICIA L SUDA

MERRIKH
PO BOX 1827
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

REZAMAND MOHAMMAD TR &
M LIV TRUST 04/06/13
PO BOX 19423
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

DAVID R LEWIS
380 SAINT ANDREWS LN
HALF MOON BAY CA 94019

PUSATERI RONALD F TR &
TRUST OF 4/15/91
1257 CAMINO RAMON
SAN JOSE CA 95125-3714

BARBARA L BOE
1470 ONTARIO LN #B
CAMPBELL CA 95008-1637

SECOND MANASSAS CA LLC
PO BOX 337
MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90267-

JACOB R & MOLLY A PARNELL
PO BOX 709
AUBURN CA 95604

JACOB R & MOLLY A PARNELL
3025 HUNTINGTON RD
SACRAMENTO CA 95864-5641

RICHARD G CARROLL
PO BOX 17147
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151-

DIAMONDROCK TAHOE OWNER

LLC & DE LLC
2 BETHESDA METRO CENTER #
BETHESDA MD 20814

SILVIO J & SILVIO J QUEIROLO
PO BOX 802
HOPLAND CA 95449

JAMES R & CAROL F HALL
99 HIGHLAND DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93405-1017

TOMS INVESTMENT INC
740 JACKSON ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94133

LUCAS C & ERIN E PARNELL
PO BOX 709
AUBURN CA 95604

KENNETH M & JULIE ANN
TURNER
1348 MILLBRAE AVE
MILLBRAE CA 94030-2829

BRETT H & KAREN E TAYLOR
7392 WAGON WHEEL LN
VACAVILLE CA 95688
KAREN E & KE LIV REV 3/2 / 18

HARRISON
2001 VISTA MAR DR
EL DORADO HILLS CA 95762-3715

KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK
MAND
4217 PINE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JACK W & SHERYL LEE

MCLAUGHLIN
611 W ROBINSON ST
CARSON CITY NV 89703-3864

JAMES R & CAROL F HALL
99 HIGHLAND DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93405-1017

TOMS INVESTMENT INC
740 JACKSON ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94133

TALCO STEPHEN SUC & TALCO

LIV REV O SUDERMAN
2916 SANTA CLARA AVE
ALAMEDA CA 94501-3016

JULIE A FRUGOLI
PO BOX 134
APTOS CA 95001
280 355

LUCAS C & ERIN E PARNELL
PO BOX 709
AUBURN CA 95604

KENNETH M & JULIE ANN
TURNER
1348 MILLBRAE AVE
MILLBRAE CA 94030-2829

BRETT H & KAREN E TAYLOR
7392 WAGON WHEEL LN
VACAVILLE CA 95688

RAFAEL CAMPOS
862 HILL RD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

JAMES R & CAROL F HALL
99 HIGHLAND DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93405

ASHLEY JOHNSON MATTILA
4105 AZURE AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

SVENNUNGSEN NANCY &

WALLACE A HAYES
6366 MOJAVE DR
SAN JOSE CA 95120-5310

ALICIA SCHINDEL HALLORAN
73 LOMITA DR
MILL VALLEY CA 94941-1472

CALVIN LEON COTHAM
856 STATELINE AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK
MAND
4127 PINE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

AZURE ENTERPRISES

LAWRENCE J & SHERYL A

SMALL BALDASANO
1185 WESTWOOD DRIVE
SAN JOSE CA 95124

MARK E & MARGARET R CAREY
14730 WYRICK AVE
SAN JOSE CA 95124-2930

KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK
MAND
4127 PINE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
ELLEN SUCC & FAM REV 6/08 / 89

STILLMAN
1905 GREEN HILL RD
SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9381

MCALISTER WILLIAM ROY CO

TR & LISA CO TR
PO BOX 6204
STATELINE NV 89449

WILLIAMS KIRK W TR & K W

REV TRUST
32504 RIVER RD
SOLEDAD CA 93960-9552

JACK J & LARA SALAZAR
11 LA FOND LANE
ORINDA CA 94563

KULDEEP SINGH & DEEPAK
MAND
4127 PINE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

HCLT PROPERTY II LLC DE LLC
6124 TARAWOOD DR
ORLANDO FL 32819
281 356

Page 1 of 3 ends

MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Project Name: The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa
File: 20-114
Location: 4104 Lakeshore Blvd.

Project APN: 029-602-013
Owner(s): Diamond Rock Hospitality Company
Applicant: Kara Thiel, Feldman Thiel LLP
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
General:
1) This major design review, special use permit and variance is for the addition of nine (9) new cabins with 14 tourist units, one (1) storage building, reconfiguration and striping of the parking lot, and installation of landscaping at an existing tourist accommodation use located in the Lakeside Park Plan Area.
2) This special use permit grants a reduction in parking for a total of 94 off-street parking spaces and two loading spaces.
3) The permit grants a variance for the parking lot to encroach 9.5 feet into the Azure Avenue side street setback.
4) This permit grants a variance to allow the proposed staircase to encroach 8.5 feet into the Lakeshore Boulevard side street setback.
5) The City will file a Notice of Exemption, pursuant to Section 15062 of the CEQA Guidelines, with the County Clerk's Office for posting, within five days of project approval, as required by CEQA. The filing of a Notice of Exemption and the posting on the list of notices start a 35- day statute of limitations period on legal challenges to the City's decision that the project is exempt from CEQA. If a Notice of Exemption is not filed, a 180-day statute of limitations will apply.
6) This approval is based on the permittee's representation that all plans and information contained in the subject application are true and correct. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with the project application be incorrect or untrue, the City may rescind this approval or take other appropriate action. Approval of this permit is only for what is described in this permit based on the plan submittals. 7) The permittee shall obtain all necessary City of South Lake Tahoe building or other City improvement permits prior to commencement of any construction if applicable for this project. An encroachment permit is required for any work in the City right-of-way. 282 357

Page 2 of 3 ends

8) The permittee shall add additional architectural articulation to the façade of the storage building facing Azure Avenue.
9) The permitee shall revise the site plan as follows:
a) Add wheel stops to the parking spaces located along the southern property line 10) The permittee shall submit a $5,000 security deposit. The security deposit is refundable upon completion of a final inspection.
11) The permitee shall submit a landscape/irrigation documentation package that is consistent with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The documentation package shall be submitted with the Building Permit application.
12) The permittee shall revise the BMP plan to include access to the infiltration gallery for maintenance and pre-treatment.
13) The permittee shall submit a BMP calculator worksheet with the Building Permit Application.

Page 3 of 3 ends

20) The owner or authorized representative shall acknowledge this permit and the conditions contained within by satisfying all conditions of approval and signing below.

Signature of owner or authorized representative Date
CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The permittee has complied with all conditions of approval.

City Acknowledgment Signature Date

APPROVING A MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE FOR 4104 LAKESHORE BOULEVARD, FILE #20-114, APN 029-602-013

C. On September 15, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the Design Review Application, Special Use Application, and a Variance Application (File #20-114) D. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, received public comments, considered the evidence in the record, and deliberated.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission:
285 360
Resolution 2022-XX September 15, 2022 Page 2 of 2
a. Find the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction; and Section 15332, Class 32, which consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section including: (a) the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. b. Approve findings contained in the staff report and grant a use permit to reduce the parking space requirement to 94 onsite parking spaces and two loading spaces.
c. Approve findings contained in the staff report and grant a variance to allow encroachment into the Azure Avenue and Lakeshore Boulevard side street setbacks and rear interior setbacks.
d. Approve Design Review Permit #20-114.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission on September 15, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Kili Rahbeck, Chair
Attest:
________________________
Joanne McDonough, Deputy City Clerk
286 361

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION

NOTICE OF OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL
Proof of Service by Mail
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance, The Landings at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard, File #20-114
ADDRESS: 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard
APN: 029-602-013
DATE OF HEARING: November 1, 2022

TIME AND LOCATION OF
HEARING:
9:00 a.m. at City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF EL DORADO

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

On October 14, 2022, I served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

John Hitchcock

Signature
Executed on 10//14/2022 , by John Hitchcock
Development Service Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
362

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council will conduct a public hearing on November 1, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way (formerly Airport Road), South Lake Tahoe, to consider the following agenda item:

Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance, The Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa Cabins Addition, 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard, File #20-114
Summary: On September 15, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission approved a Design Review, Special Use Permit, and a Variance for the addition of tourist accommodation units at the Landing at Tahoe Resort and Spa, located at 4101 Lakeshore Boulevard, File #20-114. On September 29, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe City Clerk received an appeal of that decision from Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Merrikh, (John Hitchcock, [email protected]).

Written public comments may be sent to [email protected]. When emailing comments, identify the item listed above in the subject line to which your comments relate.

Any such comment that is a public record and is emailed to [email protected] or otherwise provided to a majority of the City Council before the meeting will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe [Government Code Section 54957.5(b)]. Written comments will not be read out loud during the meeting. Written comments received by 3 p.m. the day before the meeting will be distributed to City Council members prior to the meeting.

Staff reports will be available three days prior to the hearing and can be downloaded from the City of South Lake Tahoe website (https://www.cityofslt.us/84/Watch-CityCouncilPlanning-Commission-Me For any questions, please contact the staff planner listed above at (530) 542-7472. 363
364
10/14/22, 10:52 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/5
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 029-602-013-
000
4104 LAKESHORE
BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
6915

365
10/14/22, 10:52 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 3/5
LIST 0
DETAIL
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
1 EDX 029-010-
009-000
803 STATELINE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6911
2 EDX 029-010-
011-000
833 STATELINE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6911
3 EDX 029-010-
012-000
837 STATELINE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6911
4 EDX 029-010-
015-000
821 STATELINE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6911
6 EDX 029-010-
025-000

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
7 EDX 029-601-
001-000
4041 LAKESHORE
BLVD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6917
8 EDX 029-601-
002-000

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150
9 EDX 029-602-
003-000
4121 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8953
10 EDX 029-602-
004-000
4117 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8953
11 EDX 029-602-
005-000
875 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
12 EDX 029-602-
006-000
871 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7070
13 EDX 029-602-
007-000
867 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
14 EDX 029-602-
008-000
861 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
15 EDX 029-602-
009-000
851 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
16 EDX 029-602-
010-000
847 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
17 EDX 029-602-
012-000
859 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6949
18 EDX 029-602-
013-000
4104 LAKESHORE
BLVD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6915
19 EDX 029-603-
001-000
4087 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947

366
10/14/22, 10:52 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 4/5
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
20 EDX 029-603-
002-000
4083 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
21 EDX 029-603-
003-000
4079 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
22 EDX 029-603-
004-000
4073 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
23 EDX 029-603-
011-000
4069 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
24 EDX 029-603-
012-000
4067 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
25 EDX 029-604-
001-000
4085

GREENWOOD RD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
26 EDX 029-604-
002-000
4081

GREENWOOD RD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
27 EDX 029-604-
010-000
846 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6948
28 EDX 029-604-
011-000
4084 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
29 EDX 029-604-
012-000
4080 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6916
30 EDX 029-604-
017-000
4087

GREENWOOD RD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
31 EDX 029-604-
019-000
4083

GREENWOOD RD

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
32 EDX 029-604-
023-000
4074 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
33 EDX 029-604-
024-000
4070 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
34 EDX 029-604-
025-000
4068 SUNRISE LN SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6947
35 EDX 029-604-
026-000
862 HILL RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6948
36 EDX 029-604-
027-000
4091
GREENWOOD RD 3

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6946
37 EDX 029-605-
001-000
4105 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8953
38 EDX 029-605-
002-000
4101 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-8953

367
10/14/22, 10:52 AM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 5/5
Co APN S Street Address Owner S City State Zip
39 EDX 029-605-
009-000
4091 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7170
40 EDX 029-610-
001-000
850 STATELINE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6912
41 EDX 029-610-
002-000
856 STATELINE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6912
42 EDX 029-610-
003-000
864 STATELINE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-7136
43 EDX 029-610-
004-000
4116 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
44 EDX 029-610-
005-000
4112 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
45 EDX 029-610-
006-000
4108 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
46 EDX 029-610-
007-000
4123 PINE BLVD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6957
47 EDX 029-610-
008-000
4106 AZURE AVE
/

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
48 EDX 029-610-
009-000
4117 PINE BLVD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6942
49 EDX 029-610-
010-000
4104 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
50 EDX 029-610-
011-000
4100 AZURE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6945
51 EDX 029-610-
021-000
4127 PINE BLVD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA
96150-6942

368
8CD06 11/01/22 City Council Meeting Appeal - Page 2 of 2 369
Resolution 2022-XX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
November 1, 2022

DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY PATRICIA SUDA MERRIKH AND RAMIAR

MERRIKH

BACKGROUND
A. On August 18, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Design Review Application, Special Use Application, and a Variance Application (Project File #20-114) for the construction of 14 tourist accommodation units, construction of a storage building and reconfiguration of parking areas at 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard.

C. On September 15, 2022, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to continue considering the Design Review Application, Special Use Application, and a Variance Application (Project File #20-114)
D. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, received public comments, considered the evidence in the record, deliberated, and voted in the affirmative (3-2) to approve the Design Review, Special Use Permit and the Variance.

E. On September 29, 2022, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval from Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Merrikh. 370
Resolution 2022-XX November 1, 2022 Page 2 of 2
F. On November 1, 2022, the City of South Lake City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council:
a. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to grant a Design Review, Special Use Permit and a Variance for Project File #20-114.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on November 1, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission. 371
PO Box 1309
625 U.S. Hwy 50, Suite 209
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
Tel: 775.580.7431
Fax: 775.580.7436
Website: fmttahoe.com
Email: [email protected]
Lewis S. Feldman
Kara L Thiel
Of Counsel
Catherine L DiCamillo
October 24, 2022
Council Members
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Re: Appeal from Decision of Planning Commission
The Landing Tahoe Resort and Spa, 4104 Lakeshore Blvd, APN 029-602-013 Tourist Accommodation Modification Project, City File No. 20-114 Honorable City Council Members:

This office represents DiamondRock Tahoe Owner, LLC (“DiamondRock”), owner of The Landing Tahoe Resort and Spa (“The Landing”) located at 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard (the “Property”). On behalf of DiamondRock, we submit this letter in response to Patricia and Ramiar Merrikh’s (“Appellants”) appeal of the Planning Commission’s September 15, 2022, approval of the above-referenced project (the “PC Approval”). Appellants own the adjacent property located at 4121 Azure Avenue (“Appellants’ Property”).

The approved project will remove impediments to and, in fact, improve pedestrian circulation and public safety and advance the City’s implementation of multi-modal transportation in this area. Notably, Appellants fail to demonstrate how they will be harmed by removing nonconforming parking from the City right-of-way, constructing a pedestrian sidewalk along Stateline Avenue, maintaining additional open space areas for snow removal, hauling excess snow offsite and installing wheel stops in front of the parking spaces closest to their property.

We feel it is important to advise that Appellants have approached DiamondRock on multiple occasions to purchase Appellants’ Property, stating that acquiring their property is the only way DiamondRock’s proposed “addition” of 14 tourist accommodation units (“TAUs”) at The Landing would be approved. DiamondRock declined to purchase Appellants’ Property.

Background
DiamondRock applied to the City in July 2020 to redevelop 14 existing TAUs banked on the Property in nine new cabin buildings for a total of 96 hotel rooms compliant with the density standard of 40 units per acre for the 2.4-acre site (the “Project”). The Project also involves the 372
City Council Members
October 24, 2022
Page No. 2
addition of exterior stairs to an existing rooftop deck fronting Lakeshore Boulevard, a new storage building, landscaping, water quality improvements and a reconfigured parking lot.

The Project was agendized for the August 18, 2022, Planning Commission (“PC”) meeting.

Notice of the August 18, 2022, PC hearing to consider the Project was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Property (the “Neighbors”) and published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on August 5, 2022. On August 18, 2022, after taking public comment and hearing from DiamondRock, the PC made a motion to continue the Project to the October 13, 2022, PC meeting with recommendations to revise the plans to show adequate snow storage and add a trash enclosure, bicycle parking and more parking spaces.

DiamondRock promptly revised the Project plans to address the PC’s recommendations and submitted them to City staff. Specifically, (1) onsite parking was increased from the traffic engineer’s recommended 87 spaces to 961
all-valet spaces two of which will also be used for
loading; (2) an existing trash enclosure located within the front yard setback was relocated outside the setback; (3) existing bicycle parking was identified on the plans; and (4) designated onsite snow storage was increased significantly. In addition, DiamondRock agreed to conditions of approval to provide designated parking for eight bicycles and contract for snow removal services to haul snow offsite.

Since DiamondRock promptly incorporated the PC’s recommendations, staff agreed to agendize the Project for the September 2022 PC meeting rather than wait until October.

Notice of the September 15, 2022, PC hearing to consider the Project was mailed to the Neighbors and published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on September 2, 2022.2 The PC received public comment, including from Appellants, heard from DiamondRock and approved the Project on September 15, 2022. Appellants timely filed their appeal on September 29, 2022.

Appeal
Appellants appeal the PC Approval on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, Appellants claim the City used an incorrect mailing address for them and they did not receive notice of the September 15, 2022, PC hearing on the Project. Substantively, Appellants object to the encroachment into the rear setback, reduction in number and size of parking spaces and snow removal.
1 The PC recommended 96 parking spaces – one for each hotel room consistent with the City’s parking demand ratio for hotel use.
2 Additional public notice would not have been required if the Project were continued to the October 13, 2022, PC meeting per the PC’s motion on August 18, 2022. 373
City Council Members
October 24, 2022
Page No. 3
DiamondRock’s Response
Notice
Appellants claim the City used a post office box that has been closed for a decade or more and the notices were returned “undelivered” to the City. The City obtains mailing address information for Neighbors through Parcel Quest, a company that maintains “primary owner names and addresses for every property in the state of California (13 million, give or take), updated and in sync with county tax records.” (https://www.parcelquest.com/features/propertyowners/) (This is consistent with City Code Section 6.55.640 which requires the City to provide notice “using the ownerships’ names and addresses from the last equalized assessment roll of the county.”)
The 2022-2023 Property Tax Bill issued by El Dorado County for Appellants’ property located at 4121 Azure Avenue (APN 029-602-003) is addressed to P. O. Box 1827, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156 (copy enclosed) – the same address the City used to notice Appellants of the upcoming PC hearings on the Project. Appellants’ failure to update their mailing address in the County records does not give rise to a due process claim of lack of notice. Moreover, Appellants appeared at the September 15, 2022, hearing and testified in opposition to the Project.

Variance to Setback Standards
Appellants claim DiamondRock requested a variance to reduce the 15-foot rear setback from Appellants’ and DiamondRock’s common property line (the “Common Line”) to seven feet so it could increase the number of parking spaces on the Property.3 Appellants incorrectly argue they
are entitled to the 15-foot setback and that the City’s granting the variance constitutes a taking.

Appellants claim is misleading: The Landing’s existing parking lot already encroaches eight feet into the rear setback from the Common Line and into the side street setback from Azure Avenue. (“The property is an existing developed site with… a parking lot that currently does not meet the required setback standards.” (September 15, 2022, Staff Report.))4 By approving the variance, the PC simply recognized the existing and historic condition and permitted its continuation, having found that the encroachment will enable DiamondRock to improve other non-conforming conditions at the Property.

To wit, the Property has existing non-conforming parking spaces in the City right-of-way along Stateline Avenue and Azure Avenue and within the street corner clear zone. These 90-degree parking spaces require drivers leaving the Property to back out into the travel lanes, thereby creating a traffic and pedestrian safety hazard. Similarly, the Property does not have an onsite loading space which results in supply deliveries to be offloaded in the City right-of-way, also a 3 The Property’s front setback is from Stateline Avenue, side street setbacks are from Lakeshore Boulevard and Azure Avenue, and rear yard setback is from Appellants’ Property. 4 This condition predated redevelopment of The Landing and has existed for decades. 374
City Council Members
October 24, 2022
Page No. 4
traffic hazard. Allowing the parking lot’s existing setback encroachments to remain, DiamondRock will designate two onsite loading spaces and relocate the parking spaces from the right-of-way to the onsite parking lot. These measures will reduce the traffic/pedestrian safety hazard, improve circulation and make space available for DiamondRock to construct a pedestrian sidewalk along Stateline Avenue.

As originally proposed, the Project included a driveway at Azure that would allow unrestricted vehicular access to and from the Property. In response to Neighbor concern expressed in writing and during public comment at the September 15 hearing, DiamondRock agreed to post appropriate signs and otherwise limit access via Azure Avenue. This Neighbor also testified The Landing is a good neighbor and explained that, when requested by neighboring homeowners, hotel management directed its shuttle drivers to use Stateline and Pine for access to and from the Property rather than Azure. The Neighbor acknowledged the hotel’s shuttle reduces traffic in the neighborhood.

An existing six-foot fence that runs the length of the Common Line prevents impacts to Appellants’ and other adjacent residences from vehicle headlights. In addition, DiamondRock will install wheel stops to the parking spaces adjacent to the Common Line to prevent vehicles from “busting through the wooden fence.” Wheel stops are a condition of the PC Approval and, therefore, enforceable by the City. For example, the City can refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy or return the security until the wheel stops are installed.

Based on substantial evidence – namely, existing grandfathered development, site constraints, opportunity to improve other non-conforming conditions at the Property and no injury to neighboring properties, the PC properly granted a variance for the existing setback encroachments as authorized by City Code Section 6.55.630.

Reduced Parking Space Size
Appellants argue the approved reduction in parking space size will cause parking chaos, damaged vehicles and potential injury to persons and property. First, all of the parking spaces adjacent to the Common Line (Nos. 19-58) meet the City’s standards for length and width. (Please refer to the Overall Site Plan, Sheet L0-2, enclosed.) The approved exception to size is for only the 26 spaces located internally to Buildings B and C (Nos. 1-18 and 89-96). (See Overall Site Plan.) DiamondRock requested an exception to the size standard for these spaces because site constraints and turning movements render compliance infeasible. Notably, all 96 spaces will be valet. How are Appellants harmed by reduced stall dimensions for valet-only spaces?
Pursuant to Section 6.10.350.A of the City Code, the City may grant exceptions to the driveway and parking standards prescribed in Chapter 6.10, Article VII provided it finds:

1. The environmental impact will be lessened by the lesser improvement; 375
City Council Members
October 24, 2022
Page No. 5

2. Traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrians will be enhanced by the lesser improvement; and

3. The lesser improvement will substantially meet the intent of the requirement.

The reduced size allows DiamondRock to satisfy parking demand onsite so existing parking within the City right-of-way can be removed and a sidewalk can be installed. This will lessen the environmental impact of the Project because parking on unpaved areas will be eliminated.

Vehicle and pedestrian safety will be enhanced with the removal of 90-degree parking within the City right-of-way on Azure and Stateline Avenues and construction of a sidewalk along Stateline Avenue. Claims of potential “chaos, damaged vehicles” or “injury to persons and property” resulting from the reduced parking space size are imaginary. Management of the all-valet parking by trained staff belie Appellants’ fears.

Having made the findings prescribed in Section 6.10.350.A based upon substantial evidence, the PC’s approval of the exception to the parking space size standard was a proper exercise of discretion.5
Reduction in Number of Parking Spaces
Appellants claim the PC’s approval of fewer parking spaces than required in City Code Section

6.10.410 did not account for “parking problems in Lakeside beach area” or that The Landing and Lakeside Park Association “have wedding, parties and other events for non-guests which also require additional parking.” Appellants also question whether a study was done to determine what additional parking may be required for the restaurant at The Landing.

The Landing’s event tent which previously hosted sizeable events has been permanently decommissioned. DiamondRock has no control over events held by the Lakeside Park Association at the nearby beach and any related parking issues are irrelevant to the Project.

Parking issues do exist in this neighborhood and DiamondRock is doing its part by removing parking from the City rights-of-way and meeting the Project’s parking demand onsite.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (“LSC”) prepared a detailed parking study for the Project which appropriately used a parking rate for the Project which accounts for the restaurant, bar and meeting facilities. That rate is the same one prescribed in Section 6.10.410 of the City Code which, applied to the Project, requires 102 parking spaces for both the hotel rooms and The Landing employees. Accounting for demonstrated non-auto travel by The Landing guests and employees and The Landing’s existing shuttle service, LSC determined the Project’s parking demand required only 87 spaces. As a result, DiamondRock originally requested the City approve the Project with 88 parking spaces. However, based on the PC recommendations at the August 18, 2022, hearing, DiamondRock revised the parking lot plan to provide 96 onsite spaces. 5 The City has routinely granted exceptions to parking space width for valet-only operations. 376
City Council Members
October 24, 2022
Page No. 6
After making the findings required for modification to the parking demand ratios (City Code Section 6.10.350.B.2)6 based on substantial evidence, including LSC’s parking study, it approved the special use permit for the Project’s 96 parking spaces.7 Snow Removal
Appellants claim there is insufficient space on the Property to store snow and the condition of Project approval requiring DiamondRock to contract for snow removal is not enforceable. In response to the PC’s August 18, 2022, recommendation, DiamondRock revised the site plan to identify snow storage areas on the Property totaling more than one-fourth of an acre. In the event those areas are insufficient, DiamondRock is required to contract to haul additional snow offsite. To ensure the condition is enforceable, the PC required a deed restriction to be recorded against the Property evidencing the requirements to maintain the onsite snow storage areas and enter into and maintain a contract for snow removal services. The deed restriction will name the City of South Lake Tahoe as a beneficiary with power of enforcement. Again, the City can refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy or release the security deposit required for the Project until DiamondRock submits an executed contract for snow removal. As a successful and wellmanaged 5-star hotel, it strains credulity to suggest The Landing will mismanage snow storage and snow removal. Nevertheless, should DiamondRock cease to comply with the snow removal requirement, the City has broad enforcement authority, including filing an action in court, as described in Section 6.55.070 and elsewhere in the City Code. DiamondRock has a vested interest in maintaining the Property as a quality resort, including snow removal, and respectfully submits its management will comply with all conditions of approval.

Based on the foregoing, Appellants appeal is without merit as to each issue raised and should be denied. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

FELDMAN THIEL LLP
By:

Kara L. Thiel
KLT/ld
Enclosures
cc: DiamondRock
6 The findings required for reduced parking demand ratios are substantially the same as those for reduced parking space size and, therefore, not repeated here. 7 It is likely the Property will be overparked with the advent of micro-transit on the South Shore which started this summer with great ridership.
377

1.2.005

PROPERTY INFORMATION IMPORTANT MESSAGES
ASMT NUMBER:

ORIG ASMT:

FEE NUMBER:

TAX RATE AREA:

LOCATION:

ASMT NUMBER: TAX YEAR: MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO:

ORIG ASMT:

FEE NUMBER:

LOCATION:
2 ND
ASMT NUMBER: TAX YEAR: MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO:

ORIG ASMT:

FEE NUMBER:

LOCATION:
1 ST

VOTER APPROVED TAXES / TAXING AGENCY DIRECT CHARGES & SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS / FEES 1st INSTALLMENT 2nd INSTALLMENT TOTAL TAXES
PHONE # CODE DESCRIPTION ASSESSED VALUE X TAX RATE / 100 = TAX AMOUNT

COUNTY VALUES, EXEMPTIONS, AND TAXES
PHONE # DESCRIPTION PRIOR CURRENT BILLED
AGENCY TAXES + DIRECT CHARGES + FEES + PENALTY + COST + DELINQUENT PENALTIES TAX RATES 530-621-5470 408275 2022 2022 Cortac Number: 5688 (800) 676-7516 (530) 621-6505 (530) 621-5300 (530) 621-5300 (530) 621-5300 AGENCY TAXES -7000 (530) 542-6079 029-602-003-000 029-602-003-000 029-602-003-000 002002 0 VALUES X TAX RATE PER $100 1.000000 2022 2022 2022 $0.00 DELINQUENT AFTER 04/10/2023 $247.36 $161.36 VALUE BOAT/PLANE 530-621-5726 $125.52 ADDRESS CHANGES 530-621-5719 VALUE PLACERVILLE 530-621-5719 35800 VALUE BUS PROP 530-621-5716 VALUE LAKE TAHOE 530-573-3422 $9,262.34 DELINQUENT AFTER 12/12/2022 (INCLUDES 10% PENALTY OF $463.11 AND $0.00 COST) $5094.28 0 10/15/2022 Service Chrg: CSA#3 Ambulance EL DORADO COUNTY SECURED PROPERTY TAXES - 2ND INSTALLMENT PAYMENT STUB FEES NET TAXABLE VALUE 0 (530) 621-5470 $29.50 Service Chrg: CSA#10 HouseHaza 029-602-003-000 029-602-003-000 029-602-003-000 Service Chrg: CSA#3 Snow City 35701 0 $24.04 $7,562.46 ACRES: 0
029602003000720222000004631172100000509428920222 SECURED TAX ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2022 - JUNE 30, 2023 2023 2023 2023 $4,631.17 PO BOX 1827 PO BOX 1827 PO BOX 1827 $6.00 029602003000720222000004631172200000510428620222
4121 AZURE AVE 4121 AZURE AVE 4121 AZURE AVE EL DORADO COUNTY 2022 - 2023 PROPERTY TAX BILL 0 TO PAY TOTAL TAXES, RETURN BOTH STUBS BY 12/12/2022 $9262.34 Voter Debt: Lake Tahoe Unified Schl Elctn1999 Delq Bill: City of South Lake 354972 408275 0 -7000 Service Chrg: CSA#10 Solid Was Placerville CA 95667-8002 Placerville CA 95667-8002 EL DORADO COUNTY SECURED PROPERTY TAXES - 1ST INSTALLMENT PAYMENT STUB PENALTY & COST $6.00 IF PAID BY 04/10/2023 $4,631.17 IF PAID BY 12/12/2022 $4,631.17 029-602-003-000 029-602-003-000 029-602-003-000 0

0.29 DELINQUENT AFTER 12/12/2022 (530) 621-5300 TBUN2WEB Voter Debt: Lake Tahoe Unified Schl Elctn2008 Spcl Tax: CSA#10 Library Zone Original bill date 08/18/2022 K. E. Coleman, MBA K. E. Coleman, MBA (530) 621-5154 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CUT HERE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0
Voter Debt: Lake Tahoe College Election 2014 $1,020.10 STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS DIRECT CHARGES 12:01:16PM 0.021338 $534.24 Service Chrg: CSA#3 Mosquito A 35702 DELINQUENT AFTER 04/10/2023 (INCLUDES 10% PENALTY OF $463.11 AND $10.00 COST) $5104.28 756247 -
-
-
$4,631.17 0
354972 (530) 621-5470 $54.00 756247 HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION $1,165.64 PAYMENTS 530-621-5800 0.016598 0 0 0
756247 P.O. Box 678002 P.O. Box 678002 0
LAND $1,699.88 (530) 621-5470 756247 0.032709 $20.00 0
EXEMPTIONS 530-621-5719 El Dorado County Treasurer-Tax Collector, 360 Fair Lane, Placerville CA 95667-4197 $6.00 Mello-Roos Spcl Tax: SLT Recre PHONE # DESCRIPTION DIR CHRG PHONE # DESCRIPTION DIR CHRG PHONE # DESCRIPTION DIR CHRG 0 $0.00 K. E. Coleman, MBA SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156 378
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 52 51 50 49
57 56 53
58 59 60 61 68
71 70 69
75 74 73 72
80 81 82 83
18 17 16 15 13 12 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 52 51 50 49
57 56 53
58 59 60 61 68
71 70 69
75 74 73 72
80 81 82 83
18 17 16 15 13 12 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 55 54
62 63 64 65 66 67
77 76
84 85 86 87
78 79
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 C # DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUE DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWN: 1

REVISIONS
6025 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABCDE THE LANDING RESORT CABINS DIAMOND ROCK RESORTS SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.

PERMIT SET F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aug 29, 2022 - 1:42pm F:\PROJECTS_A-L\6025-Landing Resort Cabins\D-CAD\02. Sheets\DW-6025-L0-2 Site Plan Permit.dwg W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M

DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
PO Box 5666
Suite 3E
Stateline, Nevada 89449
128 Market Street
(775) 588-5929
08/04/2022

OVERALL
L0-2

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING POOL DECK

BUILDING B

BUILDING A

PATH CONNECTION TO BEACH

LAKESHORE BLVD

STATELINE AVE

BUILDING C

POOLSIDE CABINS

GARDEN CABINS

LAKE FRONT CABINS

LIMIT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS

VALET PARKING

ENTRY SIGN

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

PARCEL BOUNDARY

SITE PLAN
AZURE AVE.

ADA ACCESSIBLE
PATH TYP.

TOTAL PROPOSED VALET
PARKING SPACES: 96

STORAGE BUILDING
30'-0"
30'-0"

VALET PARKING

VALET PARKING
20'-0"

SNOW STORAGE

PARKING SPACES TO HAVE WHEEL

STOPS ALONG THIS EDGE

LOADING SPACE

EXISTING BIKE STORAGE TO REMAIN

PEDESTRIAN PATH

SNOW STORAGE ALONG STATELINE AVE

TO BE CONFIRMED BY CITY

PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE

LOCATION
379
Appeal Procedures (from City Council Protocols Section V.) a. The City Council Will Consider the Appeal by Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Marrikh of Planning Commission Decision Approving a Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance for 4104 Lakeshore Boulevard, File #20-114, APN 029-602-013 Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune October 14, 2022 b. Council will hear evidence and testimony in the following order:
i. Any opening statement or remarks by the appellant (Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Marrikh) and/or appellant's attorney and evidence or testimony from the appellant (requested time limit - 10 minutes)
Followed by any questions by Councilmembers or others (including staff) who wish to ask questions (suggested time - 3 minutes per Councilmember). ii. Any evidence or testimony from staff members (John Hitchcock) concerning any issues raised surrounding this matter (time scheduled - 10 minutes) Followed by comments from by the applicant (Diamond Rock Hospitality Company) comments (requested time limit – 10 minutes)
Followed by any questions by the appellant (Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Marrikh) and Councilmembers (suggested time - 3 minutes per speaker). iii. Any evidence or testimony from the appellant and/or appellants attorney (Patricia Suda Merrikh and Ramiar Marrikh) in rebuttal to or in clarification of any other evidence or testimony presented, and any closing statement or remarks that the appellant wishes to make (requested time limit - 5 minutes). iv. Public Comment (time limit – 3 minutes per speaker) c. The Mayor shall conduct the appeal in such a manner as to afford due process to the parties.
d. Following the presentation of testimony, the Council deliberates on the evidence and testimony presented, and votes on whether to grant the appeal, provided they have all the necessary information. If issues are raised during the appeal hearing that cannot be immediately responded to by Staff, the Hearing should be continued to have such information available for the appealprocess.
e. The City Clerk announces the final decision of the Council. 380
381
382
383
384
385
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Agenda Item #: 13
Agenda Item: Formation of the Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District Executive Summary: Procedures for undergrounding overhead utilities requires the formation of an underground utility district (UUD) in accordance with City Code, Chapter 7.10 and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) administrated Rule 20A. Chapter 7.10 lists out the various steps required for the formation of a UUD. Step One, defining the boundary of the proposed Johnson Blvd UUD was approved by City Council at the September 6, 2022, City Council meeting. The resolution approving Johnson Blvd UUD boundary also set the date and location of this required public hearing to allow public comment before City Council considers Step 2, passing and adopting a resolution approving the formation of the Johnson Blvd UUD. Following the formation of the Johnson Blvd UUD, Liberty Utilities will notify the CPUC to acquire approval to use Rule 20A funds to complete the undergrounding of overhead utilities located within the UUD defined area. Upon CPUC approval of the use of Rule 20A funds, Liberty Utilities will coordinate with all other affected utility companies and oversee the design, bid, and construction necessary to underground the overhead utilities located within the Johnson Blvd UUD.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution approving the formation of the Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District.

Responsible Staff Members: Stan Hill, Engineering Manager/City Engineer and Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works
Responsible Staff Member: Stan Hill, Engineering Manager/City Engineer (530) 542-6039 Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works (530) 542-6031
Reviewed and Approved By:

Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District Formation.docx 02-UUD Boundary Map.pdf
03-Resolution - Formation of Johnson Blvd UUD.docx
04-Reso. No. 2022-116 Johnson Blvd. District Boundary.pdf 05-Presentation
06-Notice of Public Hearing - Underground Utility District.pdf 07-Proof of Mailing
386
Council Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 1 of 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Title: Formation of Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District Location: Johnson Blvd between Lake Tahoe Blvd and Happy Homestead Ave (Northerly Driveway Entry into Police Station and County Courthouse).

Responsible Staff Members: Stan Hill, Engineering Manager/City Engineer Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works
Background: The Johnson Blvd Complete Streets Project is on the 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Plan, approved and adopted at the August 23, 2022, City Council meeting. Undergrounding of overhead utility lines and removal of utility poles along the Johnson Blvd public right-of-way is the first step in the preparation for the future Johnson Blvd Complete Streets Project. Formation of an underground utility district will allow initiation of engineering and design work to relocate overhead utilities underground.

Liberty Utilities will take the lead to coordinate the overhead utility undergrounding effort with affected communications companies now sharing utility poles within the proposed Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District (UUD).

Issue and Discussion: The Johnson Blvd UUD boundary was defined via adopted Resolution 2022-116 at the September 6, 2022, City Council meeting. In accordance with City Council Code, Chapter

7.10, Resolution 2022-116 set the date and location at the City Council Chambers for a Public Hearing.

The purpose of the Public Hearing is to provide the opportunity for public input and provide a forum for the City Council to determine if the public necessity, health, or safety requires removal of the overhead electric or communication facilities within all or part of the proposed Johnson Blvd UUD.

Financial Implications: Expenses associated with completing the undergrounding of overhead utilities are funded through monthly invoiced utility rate-payer fees collected by utility companies in accordance with California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) administrated, Electric Rule 20. Liberty Utilities will acquire the approval to use Rule 20A funds from the CPUC before initiating engineering and design work for overhead utility undergrounding.

The City’s contribution to the UUD is limited to staff time associated with formation of the UUD. Rule 20A will cover electrical and communications companies engineering, design, bidding, and construction costs. The City is not required to monetarily contribute to the overhead utility undergrounding design effort, construction costs, or any costs associated with the UUD in the future. Formation of the UUD is a procedural process required to initiate the utility undergrounding effort but has no administrative costs, maintenance costs, or reporting requirements assigned to the City.

Environmental Considerations: Liberty Utilities is responsible for completing any environmental permitting necessary to complete the UUD work.

Policy Implications: Undergrounding of overhead utilities precedes the future Johnson Blvd Complete Streets Project. The complete streets project fits well within the City’s strategic priorities to improve the built environment, increase recreation and equitable access, increase public safety, and encourages visitors and residents to use alternative modes of transportation other than fossil fuel powered vehicles.
387
027-090-006 027-090-023
027-180-022
027-180-019
027-180-023
027-180-017
027-241-016
027-241-015
027-241-007
027-241-008
027-241-024 027-241-031
027-241-030
027-241-023
027-241-025
027-241-022 027-241-026
027-241-027
027-251-002 027-251-005
027-251-006
027-251-001 027-251-020
027-251-021
027-251-017
027-251-024 027-251-011
027-251-014 027-251-012
027-251-023
027-251-016
027-251-022
025-010-040
025-373-010
025-371-001
025-371-002
025-371-003
025-371-004
025-371-005
025-371-006
025-371-007
025-371-008
025-371-009
025-371-010
025-010-056
025-371-011
025-371-012
025-371-013
025-371-014
025-372-001
025-010-041
025-010-019
025-010-050 025-010-021
025-010-049
027-251-015
027-251-013
027-180-021
027-251-018
100
100
300
275
Long
Valley
Ave
Trout Creek Ave
Fairway Ave
O
a
k
Ave
Cape Horn Rd
Pickett Ave Marlette Cir
Treehaven Ct Fremont Ave
Takela Dr
Junip
er Ave
Ferndale Av
Treehaven Dr
Lake Tahoe Blvd
Deer Ln
Glenwood Way
Rufus Allen Blvd
Dot St
Pickett Ave
Deer Park Ave
Pinecrest Ave
Johnson Blvd
Lyons Ave
Fawn Way
Ra
nchoCir
Cra
gi Ave
Al Tahoe Blvd
Ash Ave
Fir Ave
Mt Rose Rd
Sandy Way
Mono Ln
Fairway Dr
Freel St Bijou St
Jobs Peak Dr
Marlette Cir
Heavenly Valley Rd
Johnson Blvd
Cloverdale Av
Blackwood
Marlette Cir
Happy Homestead
Cemetery Rd
Proposed Johnson Blvd
Underground Utility District
Draft Boundary
0 200 400 600
Feet
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\PublicWorks\JohnsonBlvdUndergroundDistrict\JohnsonBlvdUndergroundDistrict.aprx | Draft Boundary Map | 8/26/2022 Johnson Underground Utility District boundary is defined as 50 feet on both sides of the following sections of the centerlines of Johnson Blvd and Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd:

Johnson Blvd: Northern boundary is 275 feet north of the Johnson Blvd and Fairway Dr intersection and southern boundary is 50 feet south of Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd intersection.

Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd: Western boundary is 300
feet west of the intersection of Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd and Johnson Blvd and eastern boundary is 50 feet east from the same intersection.
388
Resolution 2022-XXX November 1, 2022 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
November 1, 2022
Formation of Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District (UUD)

BACKGROUND
A. Johnson Blvd Complete Streets Project is included within the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) Fiscal Year 2022-2027 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan.

B. Johnson Blvd is identified within the South Tahoe Middle School Connectivity Plan as a high priority Complete Streets Project.

C. Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will remove utility poles and dense overhead utility lines, freeing up above ground surface space within the Johnson Blvd public right-ofway to construct a complete streets project with a Class 1 mixed use recreational trail.

D. By Resolution 2022-116, a public hearing was called by City Council to occur at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California to review, discuss, receive public comment, and consider adoption of the proposed establishment of the Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District.

E. City Council will ascertain whether the public necessity, safety, or health requires the removal and underground relocation of overhead wires and associated overhead structures located within the area defined as the proposed Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District (Attachment 02).

F. City Council, in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 7.10 of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code, shall determine if the public necessity, health or safety requires the removal of overhead electric and communications facilities within all or part of such proposed district.

Findings:
 Public Necessity: Development of a complete streets project will require undergrounding of overhead utilities, thereby providing additional needed surface area space within the public right-of-way for a proposed Class 1 mixed use recreational trail.
 Public Safety: Relocating overhead electrical lines underground reduces risk of fire danger inherent to overhead electrical power distribution lines and protects electrical and communications lines and services from damages and destruction caused by a wildfire event.
 Health: Greater reliability of underground delivery assures fewer communications disruptions which corresponds to more effective noticing to the public, especially 389
Resolution 2022-XXX November 1, 2022 Page 2 of 2
during emergency operations. Dependable electrical power to life support systems reduces frequency of required emergency response and life-threatening consequences of a power outage;
 Undergrounding overhead utilities will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead distribution facilities;
 Streets, roads, or rights-of-way within the proposed Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District are extensively used by the general public and carry a heavy volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

G. Rule 20A utility undergrounding funds will pay for the undergrounding of overhead mainline utilities, including utility trenching, conduit, conductors, trench patch paving and removal of existing overhead utility service lines being replaced within the Johnson Blvd UUD.

H. Rule 20A funds will pay for the first 100 linear feet of undergrounding costs for private utility service line construction between the public right-of-way and a building structure electrical panel and provide up to $1,500 per electric panel reconnection cost occurring as a part of the electrical service line undergrounding.

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

1. Approves the formation of the Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District in accordance with the California Public Utility Commission administered Electric Rule 20 and City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code, Chapter 7.10.

2. Advises affected property owners to be ready for construction work associated with undergrounding their overhead electrical and communications service lines to underground services delivery between May 2024 to October 2025.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on November 1, 2022, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

BACKGROUND
A. Johnson Blvd Complete Streets Project is included within the City of South Lake Tahoe ( City) Fiscal Year 2022-2027 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan.

B. Johnson Blvd is identified within the South Tahoe Middle School Connectivity Plan as a high priority Complete Streets Project.

C. Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will remove utility poles and dense overhead utility lines and free up space within the Johnson Blvd public right-of-way to construct a complete streets project with a Class 1 mixed use recreational trail.

D. City Council, in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 7.10 of South Lake Tahoe City Code, shall by resolution determine the area to be included in a proposed underground utility district and set a date for a public hearing to determine if the public necessity, health or safety requires the removal of overhead electric and communications facilities within all or part of such proposed district.

E. Rule 20A utility undergrounding funds will pay for the undergrounding of main-line overhead utilities.

F. Rule 20A funds will pay for the first 100 linear feet of undergrounding costs for private utility service line construction and pay up to $1,500 per electric panel upgrade.

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

1. Hereby declares its intention to establish Johnson Blvd Underground District ( UUD) as shown on the proposed underground utility district map (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

2. In accordance with requirements set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 7.10, the City Council hereby sets the time and place for a public hearing concerning the proposed Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District as follows:

Time: November 1, 2022 at 9:00 AM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

Location: City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way (SLT Airport), South Lake Tahoe, CA 391
Resolution 2022-116 September 6, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on September 6, 2022, by the following vote:

Yes: Creegan, Middlebrook and Wallace
Recused ( absent): Friedrich and Bass
Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:

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

Sue Blankenship ( Sep 8, 2022 09: 39 PDT)
Devin Middlebrook ( Sep 8, 2022 09: 45 PDT) Sep 8, 2022 392
006027- 07-090- 090- 023
027- 180- 022
027-180- 019
027-180-023
027- 180- 017
027-241-016
027- 241- 015
027- 241- 007
027-241- 008
027- 241- 024 027-241-031
030027- 027-241- 241-023
027-241-025
027- 241-022
027027- 241- 027-241- 026
027- 251-002 027-251-005
027-251-006
027- 251- 001 027-251-020
027-251-021
027-251-017 027-251-024
027-251-011
027- 251- 014 027-251-012
023027- 251- 016 027-251-
027-251-022
025-010-040
025- 373-010
025- 371- 001
025- 371- 002
025-371-003
025- 371-004
025- 371- 005
025- 371- 006
025-371- 007
025- 371- 008
025-371- 009
025-371- 010
025-010-056
025- 371- 011
025- 371- 012
025-371- 013
025- 371- 014
025-372- 001
025- 010- 041
025- 010- 019
025- 010- 050
025- 010- 021
025-010-049
027- 251- 015
027- 251- 013
027-180-021
Proposed Johnson Blvd
Underground Utility District
Draft Boundary
0 200 400 600
Feet
Path: \\ 1052tata2\ GIS\ Projects\ PublicWorks\ JohnsonBlvdUndergroundDistrict\ JohnsonBlvdUndergroundDistrict. aprx | Draft Boundary Map | 5/13/2022 393
Res 2022-116 Johnson Blvd. District Boundary
Final Audit Report 2022- 09-08
Created: 2022- 09-07
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAYBTqeO- CmDWJM- zfWHc27uxyDSdH1_ Jt Res 2022-116 Johnson Blvd. District Boundary" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2022- 09- 07 - 8:30:24 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 09- 08 - 4:35:34 PM GMT
Email viewed by Sue Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2022- 09- 08 - 4:39:23 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 09-08 - 4:39:34 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2022- 09- 08 - 4:39:36 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2022- 09- 08 - 4:45:27 PM GMT- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Devin Middlebrook 2022- 09- 08 - 4:45:47 PM GMT- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Document e-signed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 09-08 - 4:45:49 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Agreement completed.
2022- 09- 08 - 4:45:49 PM GMT
394

JO HNS O N BO UL E VARD

UNDE RG RO UND UT I L I TY

DI S T RI CT

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
FORMATION OF THE JOHNSON BLVD.

UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
395
Boundary of
Proposed Johnson
Boulevard Utility
District
Boundary: Extending 50-
feet from each side of
Johnson Blvd public
right-of-way centerline
and running from U.S.

Highway 50 to Happy
Homestead Cemetery
Road; then,300-feet west
of Johnson Blvd
centerline.
396

JOHNSON BOULEVARD

EXISTING CONDITIONS
397

SIERRA BOULEVARD

COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT

P R E - P R O J E C T C O N D I T I O N P O S T- P R O J E C T C O N D I T I O N 398
Overview of Procedure
City Code Chapter 17.10 Underground Utility
Districts
Required Procedure Action
Determination of Proposed District Area - Notice of Public Hearing (7.10.030)
September 6, 2022, City Council Meeting – Adopted
Resolution 2022-116 defining the area of the proposed
underground utility district and setting the date and time for a Public Hearing.

Notification of Public Hearing for City Council to determine and find that the public necessity, health or safety requires the removal of overhead electric or communication facilities within all or part of the proposed district.
1) Posted Resolution 2022-116 on Johnson Blvd;
2) Mailed copies of Resolution to property owner located within the proposed district boundary;
3) Posted notice in the Tahoe Daily Tribune.

Adoption of resolution establishing underground utility district (7.10.040)
November 1, 2022, City Council meeting set for Public
Hearing to determine and find that the public necessity, health or safety requires the removal of overhead electric or
communication facilities within all or part of the proposed district.

Notice of formation of district (7.10.050) Within 30 days after passage of resolution, City Clerk notifies all affected utilities and all persons owning real property within described district.
399
Underground Utility District Funding & Expenses
Funding: Electric Rule 20A - Rate payer fees collected on utility bills that are available to public agencies to pay for cost of undergrounding overhead utilities. Electric Rule 20 is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Liberty Utilities initiates CPUC approval to use Rule 20A funding.

Expenses: City facilitates undergrounding of overhead utilities by forming underground utility districts.

Expense to the City is limited to staff time required to form the district. • Engineering design of underground facilities borne by utility companies. • Construction costs, including removal of existing overhead utilities borne by utility companies. • Rule 20A provides to each property owner: $1,500 to cover expenses of connecting undergrounded services to building structures and covers the cost of up to 100 feet of the underground utility service trenching, conduit, wire, backfill, and pavement patching (where applicable) between the public right-of-way and the building structure.
400
Formation of Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District
Findings:
 Public Necessity: Development of a complete streets project will require undergrounding of overhead utilities, thereby providing additional needed surface area space within the public right-of-way for a proposed Class 1 mixed use recreational trail.
 Public Safety: Relocating overhead electrical lines underground reduces risk of fire danger inherent to overhead electrical power distribution lines and protects electrical and communications lines and services from damages and destruction caused by a wildfire event.  Health: Greater reliability of underground delivery assures fewer communications disruptions which corresponds to more effective noticing to the public, especially during emergency operations.

Dependable electrical power to life support systems reduces frequency of required emergency response and life-threatening consequences of a power outage;  Undergrounding overhead utilities will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead distribution facilities;
 Streets, roads, or rights-of-way within the proposed Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District are extensively used by the general public and carry a heavy volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 401
Notice of Public Hearing
City of South Lake Tahoe City Council
Considering the Proposed Establishment of the
Johnson Boulevard Underground Utility District
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council
will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on Tuesday,
November 1, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter
as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa
Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California.

The purpose of the public hearing will be to receive
public input on the proposed establishment of the
Johnson Boulevard Underground Utility District
. Council will review, discuss, receive public
comment, and will consider adoption of the proposed
establishment of the Johnson Boulevard Underground
Utility District at this meeting.

Any interested person may appear at the public
hearing and speak in favor or against this item.

Written testimony may be delivered at, or prior to, the Public Hearing addressed to the City Council in care
of the City Clerk [email protected] or at
the address listed below.

A copy of the proposed establishment of the Johnson
Boulevard Underground Utility District will be available for public review by no later than Thursday, October
27, 2022. A public agenda packet will be available
for review at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, on the
City’s Website at www.cityofslt.us, or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office, (530) 542-6005 or sblankenship@
cityofslt.us
For questions regarding this item contact Stan Hill,
Engineering Manager at (530) 542-6039 or shill@
cityofslt.us
Susan Blankenship
Elected City Clerk
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(530) 542-6005
Published: September 23, 2022
402

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WORKS

NOTICE OF OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL
Proof of Service by Mail
SUBJECT: Formation of Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District - Notice of Public Hearing
ADDRESS: Johnson Blvd - See Johnson Blvd Underground Utility District Map APN: All affected properties located withing proposed district boundary DATE OF HEARING: November 1, 2022

TIME AND LOCATION OF
HEARING:
9:00 a.m. at City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF EL DORADO

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
I am an employee of the City of South Lake Tahoe, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division. On September 26, 2022, I served the attached notice pursuant to Section 7.10.030 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 7.10 (Underground Utility Districts) on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Stan Hill
Signature
Executed on 10/25/2022 , by Stan Hill
Department of Public Works,
Engineering Division
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
403
Notice of Public Hearing
City of South Lake Tahoe City Council
Considering the Proposed Establishment of the
Johnson Boulevard Underground Utility District
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on Tuesday, November 1, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California.

The purpose of the public hearing will be to receive public input on the proposed establishment of the Johnson Boulevard Underground Utility District.

Council will review, discuss, receive public comment, and will consider adoption of the proposed establishment of the Johnson Boulevard Underground Utility District at this meeting.

Any interested person may appear at the public hearing and speak in favor or against this item. Written testimony may be delivered at, or prior to, the Public Hearing addressed to the City Council in care of the City Clerk [email protected] or at the address listed below.

A copy of the proposed establishment of the Johnson Boulevard Underground Utility District will be available for public review by no later than Thursday, October 27, 2022. A public agenda packet will be available for review at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, on the City’s Website at www.cityofslt.us, or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office, (530) 542-6005 or
[email protected]
For questions regarding this item contact Stan Hill, Engineering Manager at (530) 542-6039 or [email protected]
The City has scheduled a Public Meeting
before the Hearing:

PUBLIC MEETING
6:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Thursday, October 20, 2022
City Council Chambers
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Interested persons are invited to attend the public meeting and public hearing. 404
405
406
027-090-006 027-090-023
027-180-022
027-180-019
027-180-023
027-180-017
027-241-016
027-241-015
027-241-007
027-241-008
027-241-024 027-241-031
027-241-030
027-241-023
027-241-025
027-241-022 027-241-026
027-241-027
027-251-002 027-251-005
027-251-006
027-251-001 027-251-020
027-251-021
027-251-017
027-251-024 027-251-011
027-251-014 027-251-012
027-251-023
027-251-016
027-251-022
025-010-040
025-373-010
025-371-001
025-371-002
025-371-003
025-371-004
025-371-005
025-371-006
025-371-007
025-371-008
025-371-009
025-371-010
025-010-056
025-371-011
025-371-012
025-371-013
025-371-014
025-372-001
025-010-041
025-010-019
025-010-050 025-010-021
025-010-049
027-251-015
027-251-013
027-180-021
027-251-018
100
100
300
275
Long
Valley
Ave
Trout Creek Ave
Fairway Ave
O
a
k
Ave
Cape Horn Rd
Pickett Ave Marlette Cir
Treehaven Ct Fremont Ave
Takela Dr
Junip
er Ave
Ferndale Av
Treehaven Dr
Lake Tahoe Blvd
Deer Ln
Glenwood Way
Rufus Allen Blvd
Dot St
Pickett Ave
Deer Park Ave
Pinecrest Ave
Johnson Blvd
Lyons Ave
Fawn Way
Ra
nchoCir
Cra
gi Ave
Al Tahoe Blvd
Ash Ave
Fir Ave
Mt Rose Rd
Sandy Way
Mono Ln
Fairway Dr
Freel St Bijou St
Jobs Peak Dr
Marlette Cir
Heavenly Valley Rd
Johnson Blvd
Cloverdale Av
Blackwood
Marlette Cir
Happy Homestead
Cemetery Rd
Proposed Johnson Blvd
Underground Utility District
Draft Boundary
0 200 400 600
Feet
Path: \\gis\share\Projects\PublicWorks\JohnsonBlvdUndergroundDistrict\JohnsonBlvdUndergroundDistrict.aprx | Draft Boundary Map | 8/26/2022 Johnson Underground Utility District boundary is defined as 50 feet on both sides of the following sections of the centerlines of Johnson Blvd and Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd:

Johnson Blvd: Northern boundary is 275 feet north of the Johnson Blvd and Fairway Dr intersection and southern boundary is 50 feet south of Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd intersection.

Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd: Western boundary is 300
feet west of the intersection of Happy Homestead Cemetery Rd and Johnson Blvd and eastern boundary is 50 feet east from the same intersection.
407
P.O. BOX 800729
DALLAS TX 75380-0729
P.O. BOX 800729
DALLAS TX 75380-0729
P.O. BOX 800729
DALLAS TX 75380-0729
1275 MEADOW CREST DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...

P.O. BOX 800729
DALLAS TX 75380-0729
...
5608 MEMORY WAY
FAIR OAKS CA 95628-2937
160 HILLSIDE PL
JACKSON CA 95642
...
6173 SPRING VALLEY DRIVE
ATWATER CA 95301
611 GLEN OAK DR
LODI CA 95242-4644
21781 VIRDELLE DR
LOS GATOS CA 95033-8952
857 CASTLEWOOD PLACE
PLEASANTON CA 94566
...

PO BOX 10938
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158
...

PO BOX 10938
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158
P O BOX 7534
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158
1051 STAGECOACH LN
CARSON CITY NV 89703-2365
PO BOX 745
NOVATO CA 94948-0745

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
9 RYDER RD
KEENE NH 03431
311 LYON ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117-210...
1964 VISTA CAUDAL
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-39...

PO BOX 189
HANALEI HI 96714
311 LYON STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117
PO BOX 11082
ZEPHYR COVE NV 89448-3082
...
3455 COSMOS AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95864-5605
1051 STAGECOACH LN
CARSON CITY NV 89703-2365
1051 STAGECOACH LN
CARSON CITY NV 89703-2365
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CTYOF 1/3
PO BOX 1210
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156
PO BOX 19177
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
760 ELOISE AVE UNIT B
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
...

PO BOX 18044
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
408
...

PO BOX 17716
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
PO BOX 342
ZEPHYR COVE NV 89448
PO BOX 17716
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA &...
35 COLLEGE DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
...
6971 N PERSHING AVE
STOCKTON CA 95207-2526

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
...
2196 LAKE TAHOE BLVD STE 1
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
...
1179 JOBS PEAK DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
...
11074 CARAMEL CREST CT
LAS VEGAS NV 89135-7805
...

PO BOX 13486
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
P O BOX 19985
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151
3020 SAMARIA PLACE
SAN JOSE CA 95111
310 WEST ST APT 12
CROCKETT CA 94525
1207 JOBS PEAK DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
...
1211 JOBS PEAK DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
1188 KASKI LN
CONCORD CA 94518-1841
424 E AVE
CORONADO CA 92118-1716
HAPPY HOMESTEAD CEMETER...

PO BOX 8728
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158
1227 JOBS PEAK DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...

PO BOX 550253
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96155
26 VICTORIA RD
BURLINGAME CA 94010-2957
...
26 VICTORIA RD
BURLINGAME CA 94010-2957
3221 MARLETTE CIR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
1051 STAGECOACH LN
CARSON CITY NV 89703-2365

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
1051 STAGECOACH LN
CARSON CITY NV 89703-2365

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY OF
1052 TATA LN
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-...
1051 STAGECOACH LN
CARSON CITY NV 89703-2365
409
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Agenda Item #: 14
Agenda Item: Adoption of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Amendment to General Plan Health and Safety Element
Executive Summary: A Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) assesses vulnerabilities and identifies and prioritizes mitigation projects to reduce risk and increase resiliency. The 2022 LHMP update, pending approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), makes the City eligible for FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs. FEMA requires the LHMP to be updated every five years to maintain eligibility for grants. The proposed LHMP has been developed with participation from stakeholders and the general public.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution adopting the 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update and amending the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Health and Safety Element Policy HS-1.9 to incorporate the LHMP by reference.

Responsible Staff Member: Jim Drennan, Fire Chief and Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services
Responsible Staff Member: Jim Drennan, Fire Chief
Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report
02-Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
03- PC Resolution 2022-018 LHPM
04-Council Resolution
05-Powerpoint Presentation
06-Public Hearing -Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.pdf
410
Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 1 of 6
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Title: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update adoption and City General Plan Health and Safety Element amendment
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Jim Drennan, Fire Chief
Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services
Description/Analysis
Background:

The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) requires local governments to develop and adopt pre-disaster mitigation plans in order to minimize property damage and the risk to public health and safety that might result from the effects of a natural or man-made disasters. A LHMP assesses risk and vulnerabilities and identifies and prioritizes mitigation projects. The 2022 LHMP update, pending approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), makes the City eligible for FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs. FEMA requires the LHMP to be updated every five years to maintain eligibility for grants.

This single-jurisdiction LHMP update is a customized plan tailored for the City of South Lake Tahoe and an update to the previous Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan adopted in 2008, which expired in 2012.The related General Plan amendment adopts the 2022 LHMP update into the General Plan by reference. California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 2140 (Hancock) in 2006, which added provisions specifying what is to be included in a LHMP and requiring a linkage between local jurisdiction’s LHMP and the Safety Element of their General Plan. AB 2140 requires a jurisdiction to adopt the LHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan in order to be eligible for an increased share of disaster relief funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act.

The increasing cost of disaster recovery in the nation and the State of California over the past decades, and specifically from the recent wildfires in 2021 and 2022 that occurred near the Tahoe Basin (Tamarack Fire, Mosquito Fire) and in the Tahoe Basin (Caldor Fire), has prompted a renewed interest in determining effective and holistic approaches to minimize natural hazards. Hazard mitigation planning plays an important role in building community resilience through the identification of hazards, assessment of vulnerabilities, and the development of mitigation actions.

The City recognized the importance of developing a customized and updated LHMP and was responsible for initiating its development in 2021 after receiving a FEMA Hazard Mitigation 411
Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 2 of 6
Grant Program (HMGP) planning grant award in 2019. The goal of the LHMP update is to develop practical, attainable, and cost-effective mitigation actions to reduce vulnerability to the identified hazards and reduce human, property, and economic losses from hazard events. The City contracted with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. and now WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. to facilitate and develop the updated LHMP. Subsequently, the plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the DMA of 2000, so that the City would become eligible for FEMA HMA, Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant programs.

Goal Alignment:

This LHMP update identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards. Mitigation strategies in the plan were collaboratively developed to best meet the needs of the City’s planning partners, stakeholders, and their citizens. One of the benefits of hazard mitigation planning and specifically convening a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities.

This LHMP update builds on successful mitigation actions developed in adjacent planning areas, such as the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LVFPD) service area based on their 2020 LHMP and the 2018 County of El Dorado LHMP. This plan will also help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the City’s Planning Area, as defined by the South Lake Tahoe city limits. The 2022 LHMP update was developed to meet the following objectives:
 Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA of 2000.
 Enable the City to use federal HMA and BRIC grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation.
 Create a risk assessment that focuses on the City’s hazards of concern.  Maintain and implement the LHMP to identify natural hazards, minimize or eliminate their effects and reduce prospective costs of reparations before any natural hazard takes place consistent with Policy HS-1.9 in the City of South Lake Tahoe’s General Plan Health and Safety Element.
 Create a single planning document that integrates all planning partner and stakeholder input into a framework that supports partnerships and coordination within the City and the Tahoe Basin.
 Meet the planning requirements of FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) if the City chooses to participate in this program in the future.
 Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high-priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented.

Discussion:

To begin the LHMP update process, in October 2020, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) (#2020-11-02) seeking a qualified consultant to help prepare an update to the City’s LHMP. In December 2020, the City selected Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (now WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc.) as its consultant.

City staff and WSP Environment & Infrastructure Inc. began the LHMP update process with an evaluation of the existing Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, a compilation of background 412
Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 3 of 6
information, the development of a Community Engagement Strategy, and the establishment of a HMPC comprised of both City staff and external agency and organization partners. City staff was comprised of the representatives from the Fire Department, City’s Manager’s Office, Development Services Department (including the Planning and Building Divisions), and Public Works Department. Planning partners and stakeholders included the California Tahoe Conservancy, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, LVFPD, South Tahoe Public Utility District, Tahoe Prosperity Center, and Tahoe Chamber of Commerce. Public participation was an important part of the LHMP update process. The public outreach for the LHMP update included deliberate engagement with planning partners, stakeholders, and community groups with an acute interest and/or experience in hazard mitigation issues as well as opportunities for the general public to participate and inform the LHMP update.

The planning process began with a kick-off meeting with the HMPC on May 20, 2021. The meeting covered the scope of work for the LHMP update and an introduction to the DMA requirements. During the planning process, the HMPC communicated through virtual planning work sessions, email, and monthly virtual meetings, and added information to the City’s LHMP webpage. WSP Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. distributed draft planning documents via email to the City (Fire Department’s Fire Chief and Development Services Department Director) and then distributed materials to the HMPC. The HMPC met three times during the planning period (May 20, 2021, November 3, 2021, and February 4, 2022).The risk assessment focused on potential impacts from earthquakes, energy shortages, dam incidents, drought, climate change, flooding, landslides, severe winter weather and heavy snow storms, and wildfire. Mitigation actions addressed prevention, property protection, public education and awareness, natural resource protection, emergency services, and improved management practices for structural projects. The actions were then prioritized using the STAPLEE criteria (social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental).

Public Outreach:

Public involvement for hazard mitigation plans according to the DMA of 2000 (CFR § 201.6(b)) requires the planning process to include an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval and opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities to be involved in the planning process. The City developed a Community Engagement Strategy for the LHMP update to provide a meaningful process through which the City and their citizens, public officials, and stakeholder groups could effectively participate in the LHMP planning process. It outlines a range of engagement platforms the City used to notify and engage stakeholders and the public. The City notified the project stakeholders and public about the LHMP update via email, the circulation of press releases, newspaper notices, and social media postings. The City formally engaged El Dorado County, Alpine County, and Douglas County, as neighboring jurisdictions during the planning process, and to comment on the Administrative Draft LHMP.

The City also circulated a public survey for the LHMP update for a two-month period and facilitated two public workshops advertised as “Community Conversations.” The first Community Workshop was on October 13, 2021 and the second Community Workshop was on May 26, 2022. The second Community Workshop received news coverage on Fox 40 News.

The Public Review Draft LHMP was available for public comments for 30 days between April 25, 2022 through May 27, 2022. The City compiled public comments on the planning process, hazard profiles, risk assessment, and the Draft LHMP during public review. During this time formal comments on the draft plan circulated during public review were compiled and organized. These comments were submitted by email and through an online form; some public 413
Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 4 of 6
comments were also recorded during the second Community Workshop. The City incorporated public input by reviewing the comments and revising the LHMP prior to submittal to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX.

The LHMP and General Plan amendment were presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 13, 2022. No public comments were received and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2022-018 recommending that the City Council adopt the LHMP update and amendment to the General Plan incorporating the LHMP into the General Plan. The LHMP is included as attachment 02 and appendices are available on the City website at: https://www.cityofslt.us/1210/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.

Environmental Review:

Development and adoption of the South Lake Tahoe LHMP update is a planning exercise to prepare the City for foreseeable emergencies and other risks. As the plan indicates, implementation of any of the mitigations identified will be a post-adoption actions subject to staff review on a case-by-case basis and City Council action. Accordingly, the plan is not a project subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) given the plan itself is a continuing administrative or maintenance activity, such as general policy and procedure making (i.e., Health and Safety Element Policy HS-1.9), or governmental administrative activity, and will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment in accordance with Section 15378(b).

The plan is also categorically exempt based on the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the current activity may affect the environment, in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3). It is also exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15183 as a project that is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Community Plans, and Zoning Ordinance; and/or categorically exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15162 as a feasibility and planning study that informs the City of vulnerabilities to natural hazards and develops potential future actions to mitigation risks.

Policy Implications:

The purpose of the Stafford Act, as amended by the DMA of 2000, is to “reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters.” Section 322 of the Stafford Act specifically addresses mitigation planning and requires state and local governments to prepare LHMPs as a precondition to receiving FEMA HMA and BRIC grant funding. The requirements of Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 201.6 includes regulations that must be met before FEMA will approve a LHMP. LHMPs must also be updated every 5 years in order for jurisdictions to remain eligible for FEMA HMA and BRIC funding.

This action is consistent with the following City Council Strategic Plan priorities and actions associated with the Built Environment, Community for All, and Continuous Improvement, and specifically the Public Safety priorities and actions:

Priority 3.2 Inclusion and Diversity
As City leaders our goal is to execute the commitment to support diversity, equity, and inclusion in all hiring practices. Additionally, the City should conduct an external baseline 414
Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 5 of 6
analysis of the City to understand where action can be taken to be more equitable and inclusive.

The LHMP Community Engagement Strategy laid out a framework for ensuring the hazard mitigation planning process engaged key community-based organizations, where possible and integrated new mitigation actions that focused on addressing the needs of those most vulnerable to natural hazards.

Priority 5.1 Public Safety
Ensure substantial investment in public safety by investing in police, fire and snow removal operations and equipment needs and develop engagement opportunities for residents to participate in meaningful dialogue with first responders to improve community trust.

The LHMP update integrated key wildfire preparedness and emergency evacuation planning actions into the mitigation strategy; this involved ongoing coordination with neighboring jurisdictions, as well as the HMPC and public. The LHMP update also included two “Community Conversations” with the public to discuss hazard mitigation, the Caldor Wildfire response and recovery process, the Defensible Space Inspection Program, and other public safety issues and concerns.

Priority 5.3 Infrastructure and Maintenance
Ensure our city has sustainable funding sources to properly maintain infrastructure including roads, snow removal, facilities, recreation sites and trails. Actively seek funds to develop sustainable infrastructure projects based on a prioritized capital improvement project list.

During the development and comprehensive update of the City’s LHMP Mitigation Strategy, the HMPC reviewed the status of existing mitigation actions and provided updates. The HMPC also worked with City staff to ensure the mitigation actions aligned with the City’s Sustainable Capital Improvement Infrastructure Projects. The City’s Public Works Department representative provided this review. The HMPC also incorporated snow removal projects and key fuel reduction projects into the mitigation strategy.

Priority 5.5 Fiscal Sustainability and Resiliency
Ensure wise stewardship/oversight of public resources to maintain long-term financial viability.

This priority focuses on the importance of adaptability as the key to resiliency and ensuring resistance to external shocks and challenges from outside forces, such as natural disasters and economic downturns. The comprehensive development of the LHMP update is the City’s main roadmap to building a safer South Lake Tahoe and promoting resiliency throughout every department at the City. The City can achieve this through ongoing implementation and maintenance of the mitigation strategy, annual review and evaluation review, and regular LHMP updates.

This action is also consistent with the following City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Health and Safety Element Policy:

Policy HS-1.9 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
415
Agenda Report- November 1, 2022 Page 6 of 6
Maintain and implement the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to identify natural hazards, minimize or eliminate their effects and reduce prospective costs of reparations before any natural hazard takes place.

City staff conducted a General Plan consistency analysis and determined that the LHMP goals, objectives, and mitigation actions are consistent and complementary of the goals, policies, and implementation programs included in the Health and Safety Element.

Financial Impacts:

Adoption of the LHMP does not have any direct financial implications. Indirectly, adoption of the LHMP update may have financial implications in order to provide necessary resources to implement programs and remain in compliance with DMA of 2000 (44 CFR § 201.6) requirements and annual plan maintenance and implementation protocols.

The FEMA HMGP grant was awarded for $ $93,750, with a required $31,250 City match of staff time. Formal adoption of the LHMP will allow the State to release the retention amount withheld throughout the grant duration. Once the plan is adopted locally, the City will become eligible to apply for future HMA, FMA, and BRIC funds through FEMA. 416
Prepared for:

City of South Lake Tahoe
2101 Lake Tahoe Boulevard
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
October 2022
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update
417
Executive Summary
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page i Executive Summary
The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards. The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) developed this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update to make the City and its residents less vulnerable and more resilient to future hazard events. This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that South Lake Tahoe would be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs.

The City followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA, which began with the formation of a hazard mitigation planning committee (HMPC) comprised of key City representatives, and other regional stakeholders. The HMPC conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to the City of South Lake Tahoe, assessed the City’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The City is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Floods, wildfires, severe weather, earthquake, climate change, and energy shortage hazards are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the City.

Based on the risk assessment review and goal setting process, the HMPC identified the following five goals, which provide the direction for reducing future hazard-related losses within the City’s Planning Area:
• Goal 1 – Save lives and protect property and the safety of City residents, workers, and visitors. • Goal 2 – Reduce impact of future disaster events and the disruption of critical facilities and essential community services by building adaptive capacity to a changing climate. • Goal 3 – Enable and leverage post-disaster and Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities funding. • Goal 4 – Hasten timely recovery from disasters and build valuable partnerships. • Goal 5 – Demonstrate a dedication to improving the City’s safety and well-being and increasing public awareness of hazards and their mitigation.

To meet identified goals, the plan recommends 30 mitigation actions, which are summarized in the table that follows. Once formally approved by the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and FEMA Region IX and adopted by the City, this plan will be updated every five years.

Table ES-0-1 Mitigation Action Summary Table
Action
ID
Action Title New
Action/2008
Action
Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Priority Goals &
Lifelines
DI-1 Regularly coordinate with dam
owners and operators on dam
evaluations and inspections, dam
rehabilitation activities, emergency
action planning and EAP updates,
and early warning and notification
messaging related to the
implementation of the City of South
Lake Tahoe EOP procedures.

New Action Dam Incidents Low Goals 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5
D-1 Incentivize drought-tolerant
landscaping that is also fire-resistant
New Action Drought,
Wildfire
Medium Goals 1, 2,
and 5
E-1 Develop a homeowner's guide to
earthquake preparedness techniques.
2008 Action Earthquake Medium Goal 5
418
Executive Summary
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page ii Action
ID
Action Title New
Action/2008
Action
Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Priority Goals &
Lifelines
E-2 Inspect all City buildings and, where
applicable, upgrade structures to
withstand earthquake events
2008 Action Earthquake Medium Goals 2 and
5 ES-1 South Tahoe Zero Energy District
(STZED) Connected Community
Partnership
New Action Energy
Shortages,
Severe
Weather:

Winter Storms
and Heavy
Snow, Severe
Weather: High
Wind
High Goals 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5
F-1 Within new permit applications
applicable to existing parcels remove
existing development from
recognized flood-prone areas or
require appropriate construction and
methods to minimize impacts from
flooding
2008 Action Flood High Goals 1, 2,
4, and 5
F-2 Floodplain management ordinance
update
New Action Flood Medium Goals 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5
F-3 Master storm drainage project New Action Flood High Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
F-4 Maintenance of storm drainage
system
New Action Flood High Goals 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5
F-5 Inspect all bridges within the City to
ensure they are structurally safe from
failure during peak flow scenario
2008 Action Flood Medium Goals 1, 2,
4, and 5
L-1 Inspect road cuts and fills for signs of
failure and erosion and stabilize
slopes
2008 Action Landslide High Goals 1, 2,
and 5
L-2 Within City zoning ordinance, review
and adapt measures that limit
construction on steep slopes where
extensive cut and fill would be
necessary
2008 Action Landslide High Goals 1, 2,
4, and 5
SW-1 Continue to coordinate with El
Dorado County and Caltrans to
conduct snow removal and maintain
roadway operations to promote
winter public safety
New Action Severe
Weather:

Heavy Snow
and Winter
Storms
High Goals 1, 2,
4, 5
SW-2 Designate accessible public warming
shelters during severe storm and
flood events that result in power
outages and ensure the shelters have
adequate capacity; heat, food, and
water supplies; and on-site
permanent back-up power
generation that can serve vulnerable
populations, residents, and visitors
New Action Severe
Weather:

Heavy Snow
and Winter
Storms; Energy
Shortages
High Goals 1, 2,
4, 5
419
Executive Summary
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page iii Action
ID
Action Title New
Action/2008
Action
Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Priority Goals &
Lifelines
SW-3 Develop a Winter Response Plan for
vulnerable populations in the City
New Action Severe
Weather:

Heavy Snow
and Winter
Storms; Energy
Shortages
High Goals 1, 2,
4, 5
SW-4 Build community awareness about
severe winter snow storm
preparedness
New Action Severe
Weather:

Heavy Snow
and Winter
Storms;
Energy
Shortages
High Goals 1, 2,
4, 5
W-1 Enforce City ordinance relating to
road construction to facilitate
emergency vehicle ingress and egress
2008 Action Wildfire High Goals 2, 4,
and 5
W-2 Forest Fuel Reduction and Defensible
Space Program
New Action Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,
and 5
W-3 Promote forest health within the
National Forests and State lands of
the City to reduce fuel loading
2008 Action Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,
and 5
W-4 Hazardous fuel treatment and
reduction at Airport and Recreation
Center
New Action Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,

3. 4 and 5
W-5 Develop a homeowner guide for
reducing the threat of wildland fire to
private homes
2008 Action Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,
4 and 5
W-6 Develop partnerships with concerned
citizen groups to identify and
implement neighborhood-specific
fire safety programs
2008
Action/New
Action
Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,
4, and 5
W-7 Fire hazard defense – Home
Hardening Program
New Action Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5
W-8 Enhance reliability and availability of
water distribution system for fire flow
and ensure appropriate water
pressure
New Action Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,

3. 4 and 5
W-9 Routine updates to City Evacuation
Plan including the development of
procedures that identify and address
the needs of socially vulnerable
populations in the City
New Action Wildfire High Goals 1, 2,

3. 4 and 5
PH-1 Pandemic Response Plan New Action Public Health
Hazards
High Goals 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5
MH-1 Reverse 911 System New Action Multi-Hazard High Goals 1, 2, 3, and 5
420
Executive Summary
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page iv Action
ID
Action Title New
Action/2008
Action
Hazard(s)
Mitigated
Priority Goals &
Lifelines
MH-2 Routine LHMP Update New Action Multi-Hazard High Goal 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
MH-3 Local EOP Review New Action Multi-Hazard High Goal 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
MH-4 Disaster Preparedness Plan New Action Multi-Hazard High Goal 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
MH-5 Examine Retrofitting Utilities to Below
Ground Level and Analyzing Options
with Local Utility Providers
New Action Multi-Hazard High Goal, 1, 2,
and 4
421
Table of Contents
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page i Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Plan........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Background .......................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Federal Regulatory Framework..................................................................................................................1-2

1.4 State and Local Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................1-3

1.5 What’s New in the LHMP Update.............................................................................................................1-3

1.6 Plan Organization ...........................................................................................................................................1-6 2 City Profile and Capability Assessment...................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Location and Geography..............................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Land Use Distribution....................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 History .................................................................................................................................................................2-3

2.4 Demographics ..................................................................................................................................................2-4

2.4.1 Population and Growth Projections........................................................................................2-4

2.4.2 Age.......................................................................................................................................................2-5

2.5 Housing...............................................................................................................................................................2-6

2.6 Race and Ethnicity...........................................................................................................................................2-7

2.7 Income and Poverty .......................................................................................................................................2-7

2.8 Social Vulnerability .........................................................................................................................................2-8

2.8.1 CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) ...............................................................................................................................2-9

2.8.2 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................ 2-11

2.8.3 Disadvantaged Communities.................................................................................................. 2-13

2.8.4 Economy and Employment ..................................................................................................... 2-14

2.9 Commuter Population................................................................................................................................ 2-15

2.10 Growth and Development Trends ......................................................................................................... 2-15

2.11 Mitigation Capability Assessment......................................................................................................... 2-16

2.11.1 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities................................ 2-17

2.11.2 City of South Lake Tahoe Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities....... 2-24

2.11.3 City of South Lake Tahoe Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities .............................................. 2-27

2.11.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnership Capabilities......................................................... 2-28

2.11.5 Opportunities for Enhancement............................................................................................ 2-33 3 Planning Process ..............................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in the City of South Lake Tahoe ......................................3-1

3.2 Local Government Participation................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 The 10-Step Planning Process ...................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources.....................................................................................................3-4

3.3.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks.................................................................................................................. 3-22

3.3.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan................................................................................. 3-22

3.3.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress..................................................... 3-26 4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment...........................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural and Human-Caused Hazards ........................................................4-2

4.1.1 Methodology and Results...........................................................................................................4-2

4.1.2 Overall Hazard Significance Summary...................................................................................4-6

4.1.3 Disaster Declaration History.......................................................................................................4-8 422
Table of Contents
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page ii

4.1.4 Climate Change Considerations Summary........................................................................ 4-10

4.2 Asset Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4-13

4.2.1 Total Assets at Risk ..................................................................................................................... 4-14

4.3 Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessment................................................................................................... 4-22

4.3.1 Avalanches ..................................................................................................................................... 4-24

4.3.2 Dam Incidents............................................................................................................................... 4-32

4.3.3 Drought........................................................................................................................................... 4-40

4.3.4 Earthquakes ................................................................................................................................... 4-57

4.3.5 Flood................................................................................................................................................. 4-84

4.3.6 Landslide and Debris Flows...................................................................................................4-102

4.3.7 Severe Weather: General........................................................................................................4-112

4.3.8 Severe Weather: Winter Storms/Heavy Snow................................................................4-113

4.3.9 Severe Weather: Thunderstorms/Hail/Lightning/High Winds and Tornado.....4-122

4.3.10 Wildfire ..........................................................................................................................................4-134

4.4 Human-Caused, Human-Health, and Climate-Related Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessment....................................................................................................................................................................4-155

4.4.1 Public Health Hazards: Epidemic/Pandemic...................................................................4-155

4.4.2 Energy Shortages and Energy Resiliency .........................................................................4-161 5 Mitigation Strategy .........................................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Goals Development Process ......................................................................................................5-2

5.1.2 Objectives Development Process.............................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms............................................................5-3

5.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions ..............................................................................5-3

5.2.1 Progress on 2008 Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan .........................................................5-7

5.2.2 Continued Compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)............... 5-13

5.2.3 Mitigation Action Plan............................................................................................................... 5-13 6 Plan Implementation and Maintenance .................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Adoption..............................................................................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Implementation ...............................................................................................................................................6-1

6.2.1 Role of the HMPC in Implementation and Maintenance ...............................................6-2

6.3 Maintenance and Monitoring ....................................................................................................................6-2

6.3.1 Maintenance Schedule.................................................................................................................6-2

6.3.2 Maintenance and Evaluation Process.....................................................................................6-3

6.3.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms............................................................6-4

6.3.4 Continued Public Involvement..................................................................................................6-5 7 Plan Adoption ...................................................................................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Element E.1 Formal Adoption Documentation....................................................................................7-1 8 References ..........................................................................................................................................................................8-1 List of Tables
Table ES-0-1 Mitigation Action Summary Table................................................................................................................. i Table 1-1 City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Highlights.......................... 1-4 Table 2-1 City of South Lake Tahoe Populations Changes (counts), 2010-2020...................................... 2-4 Table 2-2 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Demographic and Social Characteristics, 2015-2019............... 2-5 Table 2-3 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2013-2017.................................................................................................... 2-6 423
Table of Contents
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page iii Table 2-4 City of South Lake Tahoe Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2014 vs. 2013-2017................................ 2-7 Table 2-5 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Comparative Economic Characteristics, 2012, 2015, and 20192- 8 Table 2-6 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Employment by Industry, 2015-2019............................................2-14 Table 2-7 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Major Employers ...................................................................................2-14 Table 2-8 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities.................................................2-17 Table 2-9 City of South Lake Tahoe Public Facilities, Services, Fire Protection and Snow Removal Goals 2-21
Table 2-10 City of South Lake Tahoe Flood and Stormwater Conveyance Goals and Policies ...........2-22 Table 2-11 City of South Lake Tahoe Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness Goals..........2-22 Table 2-12 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities ............2-24 Table 2-13 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities............................................................2-27 Table 2-14 City of South Lake Tahoe Dams of Concern Owner/Operator & Emergency Information .2- 32 Table 2-15 Cost Savings by Policy and by Community for each CRS Class.................................................2-33 Table 3-1 Planning Processes Used to Develop the City of South Lake Tahoe’s LHMP Update........ 3-3 Table 3-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Schedule of Planning Activities..................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3 Schedule of Planning Meetings................................................................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-4 Public Workshops ........................................................................................................................................3-12 Table 3-5 Incorporated Planning Mechanisms.....................................................................................................3-18 Table 3-6 Summary of Comments Received during Public Review .............................................................3-22 Table 4-1 Crosswalk with Other Hazard Mitigation Plans.................................................................................. 4-3 Table 4-2 City of South Lake Tahoe Hazard Significance Summary .............................................................. 4-6 Table 4-3 City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County State and Federal Disaster Declarations, 1950-2021 4-8
Table 4-4 Total Improved Parcel Exposure by Property Type ........................................................................4-14 Table 4-5 Summary of South Lake Tahoe Critical Facilities by Lifeline.......................................................4-16 Table 4-6 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within or near the City of South Lake Tahoe.4- 19 Table 4-7 Threatened and Endangered Species in El Dorado County and City of South Lake Tahoe 4- 20 Table 4-8 Avalanche Danger Scale............................................................................................................................4-27 Table 4-9 Characteristics of the Dams of Concern Upstream of the City of South Lake Tahoe .......4-34 Table 4-10 Summary of Dam Inundation by Dam.................................................................................................4-38 Table 4-11 Facilities within the Dam Inundation Hazard by FEMA Lifeline .................................................4-39 Table 4-12 STPUD’s Current Water Supply and Projected Future Supply....................................................4-42 Table 4-13 Disaster Declarations and Proclamations Related to Drought in El Dorado County ........4-48 Table 4-14 Magnitude and Mercalli Intensity Scale Measurements and Associated Characteristics4-64 Table 4-15 Moment Magnitude Scale (Mw) Ratings ............................................................................................4-65 Table 4-16 Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Building Design Levels)...........................4-70 Table 4-17 Casualty and Injury Estimates from Hazus Results .........................................................................4-72 Table 4-18 Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of dollars)...............................................4-74 Table 4-19 Transportation System Economic Losses (Millions of Dollars)...................................................4-75 Table 4-20 Utility System Economic Losses (Millions of Dollars).....................................................................4-76 Table 4-21 Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems .........................................................................4-77 Table 4-22 Expected Utility System Facility Damage............................................................................................4-78 Table 4-23 Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific).............................................................4-78 424
Table of Contents
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page iv Table 4-24 Deterministic M7.2 Earthquake Scenario Loss Estimations for South Lake Tahoe’s Census Tracts 4-80
Table 4-25 Expected M7.2 Earthquake Scenario Building Damages by Occupancy Type.....................4-81 Table 4-26 Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific).............................................................4-83 Table 4-27 Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance ..........................................4-83 Table 4-28 FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone Descriptions ..................................................4-94 Table 4-29 City of South Lake Tahoe Repetitive Loss Payouts .........................................................................4-97 Table 4-30 City of South Lake Tahoe Parcels in Floodplains by Parcel Type and Flood Event............4-98 Table 4-31 Critical Facilities in the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplains in the City................... 4-101 Table 4-32 South Lake Tahoe Improved Properties at Risk to Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility..4- 109
Table 4-33 Critical Facilities Exposed to Landslide Hazard by FEMA Lifeline & Landslide Class ..... 4-111 Table 4-34 NCEI Hazard Event Reports for the El Dorado County* 1950-2021...................................... 4-113 Table 4-35 Atmospheric River (AR) Categories.................................................................................................... 4-115 Table 4-36 Lightning Activity Level Scale............................................................................................................... 4-125 Table 4-37 Hail Measurements................................................................................................................................... 4-125 Table 4-38 Beaufort Wind Scale................................................................................................................................. 4-126 Table 4-39 Projected 2020 to 2099 Annual Area Burned Statistics for a Medium GHG Emissions Scenario for South Lake Tahoe ............................................................................................................................................. 4-146 Table 4-40 Modeled Projections of Annual Area Burned (2020 to 2099) for the City of South Lake Tahoe under a High GHG Emissions (RCP 8.5) Scenario............................................................................................. 4-147 Table 4-41 Projected 2020 to 2099 Annual Area Burned Statistics under a High GHG Emissions Scenario for South Lake Tahoe ............................................................................................................................................. 4-147 Table 4-42 Vulnerable Population Statistics for the City of South Lake Tahoe ...................................... 4-149 Table 4-43 Property Values for Very High FHSZs within LRAs in the City of South Lake Tahoe...... 4-149 Table 4-44 FEMA Community Lifelines and Facility Types Relative to Wildfire Threat Zones .......... 4-153 Table 5-1 Mitigation Action Progress Summary.................................................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-2 Completed and Deleted Mitigation Actions ....................................................................................... 5-8 Table 5-3 Mitigation Action Summary.....................................................................................................................5-14 List of Figures
Figure 2-1 City of South Lake Tahoe Land Use Diagram ..................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 City of South Lake Tahoe* vs. El Dorado County vs. State of California Age Distribution by Career Stage, 2019.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-3 City of South Lake Tahoe* vs. El Dorado County vs. State of California Age Distribution, 2019 2-6
Figure 2-4 Disadvantaged Communities based on CDC ATSDR SVI Tool...................................................2-10 Figure 2-5 Overall Social Vulnerability in El Dorado County based on SVI Data......................................2-11 Figure 2-6 Disadvantaged Communities Census Tracts based on California DWR DAC Mapping Tool 2-13
Figure 2-7 Recent and Current Planning Projects in the City of South Lake Tahoe................................2-16 Figure 2-8 Liberty Utilities Outage Central Map....................................................................................................2-31 Figure 3-1 HMPC Meeting #2......................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-2 HMPC Meeting #3......................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3 City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Website .............................................. 3-9 Figure 3-4 Example of Public Survey Response.....................................................................................................3-10 425
Table of Contents
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page v Figure 3-5 1
st Public Workshop ....................................................................................................................................3-12 Figure 3-6 Example on Announcement of Public Workshop #1 on City’s Facebook Page..................3-14 Figure 3-7 Advertisement of the Public Review Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan .............................3-15 Figure 3-8 Press Release published after the 1st Public Workshop...............................................................3-16 Figure 4-1 Community Lifeline Categories ..............................................................................................................4-15 Figure 4-2 Critical and City Facilities in South Lake Tahoe by Overall Category ......................................4-17 Figure 4-3 Avalanche Zone within El Dorado County .........................................................................................4-26 Figure 4-4 Recent occurrences of avalanches near South Lake Tahoe.........................................................4-30 Figure 4-5 Dams Upstream of South Lake Tahoe and Best Available Inundation Mapping................4-36 Figure 4-6 U.S. Drought Monitor Conditions for California, July 2021.........................................................4-45 Figure 4-7 U.S. Drought Monitor Conditions for California, November 27, 2018....................................4-46 Figure 4-8 U.S. Drought Monitor for California: August 4, 2015.....................................................................4-47 Figure 4-9 Drought Conditions in California – 2000 – 2021.............................................................................4-48 Figure 4-10 Drought Impact Reporter Summarizing Impacts at the County Level in El Dorado County, 1950-2021 4-50
Figure 4-11 Drought-Related Tree Mortality in the South Lake Tahoe Region...........................................4-55 Figure 4-12 South Lake Tahoe Probabilistic Seismic Hazard: 2% in 50 Years ..............................................4-58 Figure 4-13 Earthquake Faults near the Planning Area.........................................................................................4-60 Figure 4-14 Historic Earthquake Epicenters within the Vicinity of City of South Lake Tahoe................4-63 Figure 4-15 Estimated Building Damage by General Occupancy Type and Damage Category ...........4-69 Figure 4-16 Displaced Households and Persons Seeking Shelter Estimates ................................................4-71 Figure 4-17 Economic Loss Estimates by Loss Type and Occupancy Type ...................................................4-73 Figure 4-18 USGS Generated ShakeMap Earthquake Scenario for the West Tahoe Fault......................4-79 Figure 4-19 Local Watersheds in the Vicinity of the City of South Lake Tahoe...........................................4-87 Figure 4-20 FEMA SFHAs for the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Events in the City .......................4-91 Figure 4-21 Stream Environment Zones (SEZ) within and around the City of South Lake Tahoe........4-93 Figure 4-22 Parcels within the City’s 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplains.........................................4-99 Figure 4-23 South Lake Tahoe Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility......................................................... 4-106 Figure 4-24 Recent landslide events near South Lake Tahoe .......................................................................... 4-108 Figure 4-25 Total Parcel Counts by Landslide Class ............................................................................................ 4-110 Figure 4-26 Atmospheric River (AR) Strength and Land Distribution, February 2018 vs. February 2019 4-116
Figure 4-27 Average Monthly Rainfall in South Lake Tahoe............................................................................ 4-117 Figure 4-28 Average Monthly Snowfall at South Lake Tahoe.......................................................................... 4-118 Figure 4-29 Average Monthly Snowfall Days at South Lake Tahoe .............................................................. 4-118 Figure 4-30 Predicted Future Snow Water Equivalence under Low-emission and High-emission Scenarios for South Lake Tahoe ........................................................................................................................................... 4-120 Figure 4-31 Hail Events in South Lake Tahoe......................................................................................................... 4-124 Figure 4-32 High Wind Events in South Lake Tahoe........................................................................................... 4-128 Figure 4-33 Tornado Event in South Lake Tahoe.................................................................................................. 4-129 Figure 4-34 Predicted Future Changes in Intensity of Extreme Precipitation Events – under Cal-Adapt’s low-emissions and high-emissions scenarios for South Lake Tahoe .................................................................... 4-131 Figure 4-35 Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Zones within and surrounding South Lake Tahoe...... 4-136 Figure 4-36 Federal, State, and Local Responsibility Areas in the City of South Lake Tahoe.............. 4-137 Figure 4-37 Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in SRAs and LRAs in the City of South Lake Tahoe 4-138 Figure 4-38 Wildfire Threat in the City of South Lake Tahoe........................................................................... 4-141 Figure 4-39 Historical Wildfire Perimeters near the City of South Lake Tahoe ........................................ 4-143 Figure 4-40 Annual Probability of Wildfire Occurrence in the City of South Lake Tahoe .................... 4-144 426
Table of Contents
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page vi Figure 4-41 Modeled Projections of Annual Area Burned (2020 to 2099) for the City of South Lake Tahoe under a Medium GHG Emissions (RCP 4.5) Scenario ..................................................................................... 4-146 Figure 4-42 Wildfire Risk to Potential Structures in the City of South Lake Tahoe................................. 4-150 Figure 4-43 FEMA Community Lifelines in South Lake Tahoe in relation to Wildfire Threat.............. 4-152 Figure 4-44 High Wildfire Threat Zones within Liberty Utilities Service Area ........................................... 4-163 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Planning Team
Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation
Appendix C: Mitigation Categories and Alternatives
Appendix D: Approval and Adoption Documentation
Appendix E: Annual Progress Meeting and Report Template Appendix F: Community Engagement Strategy
427
List of Acronyms
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page i List of Acronyms
AAGR Average annual growth rate
ABP Annual burn probability
ACS American Community Survey
AIS Aquatic invasive species
APA Approved Pending Adoption
AR Atmospheric river
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BFE Base flood elevation
BMP Best management practices
BRIC Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAS Climate Adaptation Strategy
CBC California Building Code
CBO Community-based organizations
CDAA California Disaster Assistance Act
CDBG Community Development Block Grants
CDC Center for Disease Control
CDCP Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDDA California Disaster Assistance Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFA Commercial Floor Area
CGS California Geological Survey
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CIS Community Information System
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CRS Community Rating System
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan
DAC Disadvantaged Community
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DER Distributed energy resources
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
DMA Disaster Mitigation Act
DOE Department of Energy
DOF Department of Finance
DSOD Division of Safety of Dams
DWR Department of Water Resources
428
List of Acronyms
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page ii EAP Emergency Action Plan
EDCAQMD El Dorado County Air Quality Management District EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EID El Dorado Irrigation District
EIP Environmental Improvement Program
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EJ Environmental justice
EOC Emergency Operations Centers
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Floodplain Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance
FRA Federal Responsibility Area
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GMP Groundwater Management Plan
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
HIFLD Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data
HIRA Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan
HMPC Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
HUD Housing and Urban Development
IBC International Building Code
ICS Incident Command System
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO Insurance Services Office
IVT Integrated Water Vapor Transport
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LAL Lightning Activity Level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOMA Letter of Map Amendment
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LPA Lakeside Park Association
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LTBMU Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
LTCC Lake Tahoe Community College
LVFPD Lake Valley Fire Protection District
MCL Maximum contaminate level
MHI Median household income
MJHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSR Municipal Services Review
429
List of Acronyms
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page iii MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether
NCEI National Center for Environmental Information
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWS National Weather Service
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OES Office of Emergency Services
PA Public Assistance
PAS Plan area statements
PIF Pandemic Intervals Framework
PIO Public Information Officer
PPA Power purchase agreements
PPE Personal protective equipment
PRC Public Resources Code
PSPS Public Safety Power Shutoffs
RDR Residential Development Rights
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ROW Rights-of-way
RUU Residential Units of Use
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAC Sierra Avalanche Center
SARS Severe acute respiratory syndrome
SBA Small Business Administration
SCENIC Southwest Climate and Environmental Information Collaborative SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SEZ Stream Environment Zone
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SHMP State Hazard Mitigation Plan
SNMPLA Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
SNPLMA Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
SOI Sphere of Influence
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SRA State Responsibility Areas
STPUD South Tahoe Public Utility District
STR South Tahoe Refuse
STZED South Tahoe Zero Energy District
SVI Social Vulnerability Index
SWAT Special Weapons and Tactics Team
TAU Tourist Accommodation Units
TFFT Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team
TKPOA Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association
TKWC Tahoe Keys Water Company
430
List of Acronyms
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page iv TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPC Tahoe Prosperity Center
TRCD Tahoe Resource Conservation District
TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
URM Unreinforced Masonry
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very high fire hazard severity zones
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
WHO World Health Organization
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
WUI Wildland urban interface
431
Chapter 1
Introduction
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 1-1 1 Introduction
The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) prepared their original Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (herein referred to as an HMP) in 2008 to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of hazard events. This previous 2008 HMP expired in 2012. The City completed a comprehensive Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update in 2021-2022. The LHMP update covers both natural and human-health hazards. Several factors underscore the need for this planning effort:
• South Lake Tahoe is exposed to both natural and human-health hazards that have caused past damage and impacts on the local emergency response and health systems in the City. • Limited local resources make it difficult to be pre-emptive in reducing risk. • Eligibility for federal financial assistance is paramount to promote successful hazard mitigation in the Planning Area.
• South Lake Tahoe and the stakeholders participating in this plan want to be proactive in preparing for the probable impacts of natural hazards.

The LHMP update demonstrates the City’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources.

1.1 Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of this LHMP is to identify goals, objectives, mitigation actions, and strategies that will help reduce risk and prevent future losses in the City. Hazard mitigation is best realized when community leaders, businesses, citizens, and other stakeholders join together to undertake a process of learning about hazards that can affect their area and use this knowledge to prioritize needs and develop a strategy for reducing damage. Hazard mitigation is most effective when it is based on a comprehensive long-term plan that is developed prior to a disaster occurring.

This plan was also developed to make the City eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. The LHMP update will also make the City safer and more resilient to future disasters.

1.2 Background
Each year in the United States, disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more.

Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated.

FEMA defines hazard mitigation as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of 432
Chapter 1
Introduction
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 1-2 $6 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report).

Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified; likely impacts are determined, prioritized and implemented. This plan continues the hazard mitigation planning process for the City of South Lake Tahoe. The plan identifies natural, human-health, and human-caused hazards and risks within the City and identifies the hazard mitigation strategy to reduce vulnerability and make the community more disaster resistant and sustainable. Information in this plan can be used to help guide mitigation activities and local land use decisions. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to the community and its property owners by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption. The City’s Planning Area has been affected by hazards in the past and is thus committed to reducing future disaster impacts and maintaining eligibility for federal funding.

1.3 Federal Regulatory Framework
The City’s 2008 HMP was originally prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (44 CFR §201.6). Hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act, or DMA 2000. While the act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements that LHMPs must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288).

Because the City is subject to many kinds of hazards, access to these programs is vital. As a result, the City and their participating stakeholders completed the comprehensive plan update process to bring the LHMP into compliance with federal regulations and as well as recent California legislation related to wildfire risk and climate change. The updated 2021-2022 LHMP also addresses additional natural hazards, human-health hazards, and emerging concerns related to energy shortages and energy resiliency.

Information in this plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning also reduces the cost of disaster response and recovery to the community and its property owners by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption. The City has been affected by hazards in the past and is committed to reducing future disaster impacts and maintaining eligibility for federal funding.

This LHMP identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards.

Elements and strategies in the plan were selected because they meet a program requirement and because they best meet the needs of the planning partners and their citizens. One of the benefits of hazard mitigation planning and specifically convening a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. This plan will build on successful mitigation actions developed in adjacent planning areas, such as the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LVFPD) service area based on their LHMP and the County of El Dorado LHMP. This plan will also help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the Planning Area. The LHMP update was developed to meet the following objectives:
• Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA.
• Enable all planning partners to use federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation. • Meet the needs of each planning partner as well as state and federal requirements. • Create a risk assessment that focuses on the City of South Lake Tahoe’s hazards of concern. 433
Chapter 1
Introduction
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 1-3 • Create a single planning document that integrates all planning stakeholders into a framework that supports partnerships within the City.
• Meet the planning requirements of FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) if the City chooses to participate in this program in the future.
• Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high-priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented.

1.4 State and Local Regulatory Framework
The LHMP update was prepared consistent with the Health and Safety Element of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan (adopted in 2011), as the planning effort covers common overlapping natural hazard issues and mutually reinforcing policies and implementation programs. The LHMP and Health and Safety Element are considered complimentary documents that address natural hazards, and both planning documents contain goals, policies, and project actions or implementation programs to enhance the City’s mitigation efforts related to public health and safety.

California Government Code Section 65302.10, also referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 2140 encourages California counties and cities to adopt their current, FEMA-approved LHMPs into the Safety Element of their General Plan. This adoption by reference or incorporation of the LHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan follows plan approval and makes the City eligible to be considered for part or all of its localshare costs on eligible Public Assistance (PA) funding to be provided by the State through the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA). The CDAA allows the State to pay up to 18.75 percent of the non-federal share that would otherwise fall upon the County or City to pay for PA projects. The legislature passed AB 2140 to provide additional funding after a disaster occurs. The local share is 25 percent of the total project cost; therefore, the legislation allows city and counties that comply to be eligible for only the remaining local share (6.25 percent).

AB 2140 is an optional state incentive to help counties and cities become more resilient to natural hazards. Compliance with AB 2140 also expires when the LHMP expires, and the City must re-adopt the plan into the Safety Element during update cycles to ensure continued compliance and funding eligibility.

1.5 What’s New in the LHMP Update
DMA Requirement §201.6(d)(3):

A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval within 5 years in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding.

The updated LHMP complies with FEMA guidance and California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) guidelines for LHMPs. The update followed the requirements noted in the DMA of 2000 and FEMA’s 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Handbook. This LHMP update involved a comprehensive review and update of each hazard profile in the 2008 HMP, the addition of public health hazards and climate-related hazards, the integration of a detailed risk and vulnerability assessment, and thorough status update on the progress in evaluating, monitoring, and implementing the mitigation strategy outlined in the initial plan. The planning process provided an opportunity to review jurisdictional priorities related to hazard significance and mitigation actions, and revisions were made to particular hazard profiles that have a low probability of future occurrence in the City’s Planning Area Another major change in the City’s LHMP update included building a new HMPC consisting of both City department representatives and an equal number of outside agency and organizational stakeholders in 434
Chapter 1
Introduction
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 1-4 the community. HMPC participation from a diverse and local stakeholder group allowed the team to fully integrate other related state, regional, and local planning mechanisms and new hazard information. The 2008 HMP assessed nine natural hazards, including avalanche, dam failure, drought, earthquake, flooding, landslide, severe storms, wildland fire, and seiche hazards. The 2021-2022 LHMP assessed the same nine natural hazards and added hazard profiles public health hazards and climate-related hazards related to energy shortages and energy resiliency. The risk assessment was also slightly reorganized. The flood profile discusses stream environment zones (SEZs) and seiche hazards. The severe storm profile was also split into two separate severe weather hazard sections: one profile focuses on heavy rain, thunderstorms, hail, lightning, and high wind hazards and another profile focuses on heavy snow and winter storms. The risk assessment also integrates a separate section on climate change and how climate change may affect the other natural hazards.

During the 2021-2022 LHMP update, the City and Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (planning consultant) developed a summary of each section in the 2008 NHMP and guided the HMPC through the elements that needed updating during HMPC Meeting #1. This included analyzing each section using FEMA’s local plan update guidance (2013) to ensure that the plan met the latest requirements. The City and Wood team determined that nearly every section of the 2008 NHMP would need revision to align the plan with the latest FEMA planning guidance and requirements and recent California legislation. A detailed summary of the changes in this plan update is highlighted in the table below.

Table 1-1 City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Highlights Section # Section Description Summary of Plan Review, Analysis, and Updates 1 Introduction • Revised to reference updated DMA 2000 regulations and planning guidance and State of California legislation
• Revised to reflect updated 2021-2022 planning process 2 Community Profile and
Capability Assessment
• Updated with recent census data and current economy
description
• Updated land use and development trends
3 Planning Process • Documents the planning process for the 2021-2022 update, including coordination among agencies and stakeholders
• Describes how 2008 NHMP was integrated with/into other planning efforts
• Describes 2021-2022 public participation process
• Summarizes the results of the Public Survey
• Describes the HMPC
• Describes the 10-step process followed for the update 4 Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment
• Added an updated list of disaster declarations
• Added tables that include recent National Center for
Environmental Information data
• Updated past occurrences for each hazard to include recent data
• Integrated a Vulnerability Assessment focused on the
vulnerabilities and impacts to people, property, economy, critical buildings and infrastructure, natural and cultural environment, and future development
• Developed a detailed critical facilities database that includes almost 100 assets organized by Community Lifeline
• Assessed the vulnerabilities of the critical facilities within the City’s Planning Area
• Updated growth and development trends to include recent Census and local data sources
435
Chapter 1
Introduction
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 1-5 Section # Section Description Summary of Plan Review, Analysis, and Updates • Updated historic and cultural resources using
local/state/national sources that are within the City
• Updated property values for vulnerability and exposure analysis, using updated building information based on
assessor’s data
• Updated estimate flood losses using the latest Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) and assessor’s data
• Added National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) data and repetitive loss structure data
• Incorporated new hazard loss estimates
• Applied the Critical Facility GIS inventory data to assess wildfire threat to the City
• Added an updated Hazus-MH Level I earthquake vulnerability analysis data with two scenarios performed (one probabilistic scenario and one ShakeMap scenario) for the City
• Two additional hazards were added to the hazard profiles:

Public Health Hazards: Pandemics/Epidemics and ClimateRelated Hazards associated with Energy Shortages and Energy Resiliency
• Reorganized the Severe Storms profile to include two
separate sections on severe weather: Heavy Rain,
Thunderstorms, Hail, and Lightning, and Wind/Tornado and another section on Heavy Snow and Winter Storms. Both
sections also discuss the different but different secondary impacts from such hazards related to power outages
• Updated information regarding specific vulnerabilities to hazards, including maps and tables of specific assets at risk, specific critical facilities at risk, and specific populations at risk • Revisited and updated hazard significance/priority levels by applying quantitative hazard indexes and ratings levels • Updated all hazard maps in LHMP update
• Added climate change considerations section to each hazard profile and vulnerability assessment
5 Mitigation Strategy • Indicated what previous actions were completed that may reduce previously identified vulnerabilities
• Updated mitigation strategy based on the results of the updated risk assessment, completed mitigation actions, and implementation obstacles and opportunities since the
completion of the 2008 NHMP
• Updated goals and objectives based on HMPC input
• Added additional hazard-specific objectives for new hazard profiles
• Included updated information on how actions are prioritized, or how priorities changed
• Reviewed mitigation actions from the 2008 NHMP and
developed a status report for each action that was
completed, deleted, or carried forward into the 2021-2022 LHMP
• Combined similar mitigation actions from the 2008 NHMP related to landslide and flood mitigation
• Identified new mitigation actions proposed by the HMPC with more detail on implementation than the previous plan 436
Chapter 1
Introduction
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 1-6 Section # Section Description Summary of Plan Review, Analysis, and Updates 6 Plan Implementation and
Maintenance
• Reviewed and updated procedures for monitoring,
evaluating, and updating the plan
• Revised to reflect current methods
• Updated the system for monitoring progress of mitigation activities by identifying additional criteria for plan monitoring and maintenance
• Added a process for incorporation of the LHMP update into existing mechanisms
7 Plan Adoption • Updated to reflect 2022 adoption process Source: Wood 2022

1.6 Plan Organization
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: City Profile and Capability Assessment
• Chapter 3: Planning Process
• Chapter 4: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) • Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategy
• Chapter 6: Plan Implementation and Maintenance
• Chapter 7: Plan Adoption
437
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-1 2 City Profile and Capability Assessment
Carved out of the beautiful Sierra Nevada, the City of South Lake Tahoe was incorporated in 1965 to serve the citizens who live and visit the southern end of the largest alpine lake in North America. South Lake Tahoe is the most populous city in El Dorado County. The 2010 United States Census reported that the City had a population of 21,430. The City’s population was around 23,398 by January 1, 2021, according to California Department of Finance (DOF). The City’s annual population growth rate is currently at 0.8%. (California DOF 2021).

The City extends about 5 miles west-southwest along U.S. Highway 50, also known as Lake Tahoe Boulevard, and is interconnected by numerous unique and distinct neighborhoods. The east end of the City, on the California-Nevada state line next to the community of Stateline, Nevada, consists of visitor destination services and amenities and tourism at Heavenly Village. The western end of the City at the Y intersection in Tahoe Valley consists of mixed-use and community-serving commercial and recreation uses and local housing. The center of the City is Lakeview Commons at El Dorado Beach, which has become the civic and recreational center of the community. Lakeview Commons consists of a consolidation of civic uses including a large beach, boat ramp, and numerous picnic facilities; easy access to Lake Tahoe and water sport concessions, a nearby library, recreation center, and campground; and bike and pedestrian connections to restaurants, retail businesses, transit stops, and parking areas.

The vision for South Lake Tahoe according to the South Lake Tahoe General Plan is “to become a vibrant and sustainable community that is the economic and social heart of the Lake Tahoe Basin.” The City’s Health and Safety vision promotes “coordination with local, regional, state, and federal agencies to create a healthy and fire-safe forest, open spaces, and built environment within the City limits and on surrounding public and private lands.”

2.1 Location and Geography
The City of South Lake Tahoe is located at the eastern end of El Dorado County in a basin surrounded by the mountain peaks of the Sierra Nevada. The City is comprised of 16.6 square miles of land and 6.4 square miles of water. The City's elevation ranges from a low of about 6,200 feet to high elevations at 7,440 feet. Lake Tahoe is located to the north of the City. National forest lands are located to the east, south, and west of the City. Highway 50 connects the City to the western part of El Dorado County and the community of Meyers. The City of Placerville is located approximately 60 miles to the west.

2.2 Land Use Distribution
According to the City’s 2011 General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, “In 2030 the Highway 50 corridor will be 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 will be the heart of the community and contain year‐round sidewalks and bike paths.

The transformation of the corridor will be fueled by the cooperative efforts of local, regional, and state governments, and private investors who share the vision for a prosperous and healthy region.” The City of South Lake Tahoe is located in a unique regulatory and planning environment – the Lake Tahoe Region. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) has land use and environmental regulatory authority for the long‐term preservation of Lake Tahoe and its environment. These land use and environmental regulations are outlined in the TRPA’s Bi-State Compact, Regional Plan, and Code of Ordinances. The City of South Lake Tahoe regulates development under applicable federal, state law, and 438
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-2 local regulations, while acknowledging the role of TRPA to adopt environmental thresholds regulating carrying capacities and a Regional Plan to achieve the goal of the long‐term preservation of Lake Tahoe.

TRPA’s Regional Plan requires land use to be consistent with the regional environmental thresholds. The City works with TRPA to achieve the common goals and objectives of preserving Lake Tahoe and addressing the future needs of South Lake Tahoe residents and visitors.

To meet the future needs of South Lake Tahoe residents and visitors, TRPA allocates sufficient development rights (commodities) within the Tahoe Basin. TRPA's commodities include Commercial Floor Area (CFA), Tourist Accommodation Units (TAU), Residential Development Rights (RDR), Residential Units of Use (RUU), and land coverage. The City encourages ways to develop a connected city, eliminate nonconforming uses, and maximize the City's ability to secure development rights from TRPA, establish specific and local policies and regulations that meet the environmental thresholds of TRPA’s Regional Plan, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by residents and visitors who currently travel long distances to shop for certain products. Creating a more sustainable community is also the overarching vision for the City by the year 2030.

Meanwhile, the City promotes infill development and revitalization, and encourages the revitalization, reuse, and expansion of existing and vacant sites in the City. In terms of commercial uses, the City aims to provide incentives and commodities for new resident‐ and visitor‐serving commercial uses by revitalizing and consolidating existing commercial uses. The City also expects to provide tourist‐serving uses near highways and other highly‐visible locations. The City is also working on maintaining an industrial district that provides for warehousing, research and development, light industrial, and “green” technologies that are attractive, compatible with adjoining non‐industrial uses, and well-designed and maintained. As far as community design, the City continues its work to enhance and unify the visual quality of South Lake Tahoe. The City also desires to become a leader in “green” building technology, energy efficiency, emerging technologies, and sustainable development practices in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Figure 2-1 below is the City’s Land Use Diagram from the City’s 2011 General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. The land use designations shown correspond directly to the TRPA’s proposed Transect Zoning System. There are eight residential and non‐residential land use designations, which are conservation, recreation, low-density residential, high-density residential, neighborhood center, town center, tourist center and special district.
439
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-3 Figure 2-1 City of South Lake Tahoe Land Use Diagram
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2011

2.3 History
The original inhabitants of the Basin, the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (Wašiw people, or Wa She Shu people) have long considered the shores of Lake Tahoe to be a sacred site (Washoe Tribe of 440
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-4 Nevada and California 2021). In 1844, American explorers John C. Fremont and Kit Carson first viewed the lake from Red Lake Peak, located south of the Basin. The lake, now known as Lake Tahoe, went through several name changes. It was officially labeled Lake Tahoe, based upon the Native American name meaning “big water,” in 1945 by journalist Henry Degroot.

By the 1860s, development within the Tahoe Basin began to extend towards the Town of Truckee due to the commerce spurred by the silver mines of Virginia City. An extensive logging industry was established at the lake to supply this boom. The logging industry resulted in hillside scarring due to clear-cutting that would forever change the terrain and appearance of the Basin. As logging and mining dwindled, tourism developed with a rush to build resorts featuring dance halls and gambling in the late 1800s.

The next major boom to affect the Lake Tahoe Region occurred in preparation of the 1960 Winter Olympics, held at Squaw Valley (now Palisades Tahoe Resort) on the northwest side of the lake. Small motels were erected on the south shore to provide the necessary lodging, resulting in a new type of tourism as the sport of skiing became and remains a popular family endeavor. Today, outdoor recreation and gaming continue to be the basis of the local economy. It provides ample options for visitors who travel here from all around the world to take in the awe-inspiring beauty of the Lake Tahoe Basin.

2.4 Demographics

2.4.1 Population and Growth Projections
Comprehensive data on the City of South Lake Tahoe’s demographics was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s database and the California DOF population estimates. Between 2010 and 2019 the population of South Lake Tahoe increased by 1,485 persons (6.9 percent) as shown by Table 2-1 (U.S. Census 2021).

During the same time, the State of California's population increased by 6 percent and El Dorado County’s population increased by 6.4 percent. This growth trend demonstrates that the City has grown slightly faster than the State and the surrounding region (U.S. Census 2021).

Table 2-1 City of South Lake Tahoe Populations Changes (counts), 2010-2020 Year Total Population
2020 22,847
2019 22,915
2018 22,700
2017 22,166
2016 21,637
2015 21,607
2014 21,485
2013 21,368
2012 21,326
2011 21,403
2010 21,430
Sources: California DOF 2019
The City’s annual population growth rate is currently at around 0.8%. (California Demographic Data: State Dept. of Finance), outpacing the State and nation’s current population growth rate (around 0.38% and

0.5% respectively).
441
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-5 Although the City’s population growth trends had relatively stable growth over the past decade, the City still must plan for this residential and commercial growth. According to the City’s General Plan’s Land Use and Community Design Element, the City plans to pursue the maximum amount of available CFA that can be allocated by the TRPA. This can consist of an additional 386,000 square feet above 2009 levels to use as an incentive for revitalization, economic growth, and urban renewal in terms of future residential development. Similarly, the City plans to pursue the maximum amount of available for residential unit allocations from the TRPA to use as an incentive for revitalization, including workforce housing. This can consist of an additional 940 market-rate units and 222 affordable units.

The City is currently in the process of updating their Housing Element. According to the City’s 2022 - 2027 Housing Element Public Review Draft, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocated 289 new housing units to South Lake Tahoe for the planning period (2022 – 2027). Of 289 housing units, 162 units are to be affordable to moderate-income households and below, including 35 extremely low-income units, 35 very low-income units, 50 low-income units, and 42 moderate-income units (City of South Lake Tahoe 2022). Table 2-2 breaks down South Lake Tahoe’s demographics for select characteristics.

Table 2-2 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Demographic and Social Characteristics, 2015-2019 Characteristic
Gender/Age
Median Age 37.1
Male, percentage 53.6%
Female, percentage 46.4%
Under 5 Years, percentage 5.8%
Under 18 Years, percentage 17.0%
65 Years and Over, percentage 14.9%
Race/Ethnicity Percentage
White 58.8%
Hispanic or Latino (Any Race) 30.5%
Asian 7.1%
Two or more races alone, Not Hispanic or Latino 2.2%
Black or African American 1%
American Indian/Alaska Native 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1%
Education** Percentage
High School Graduate or Higher 86.9%
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 24.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2013-2017, www.census.gov/ **California DOF estimates

2.4.2 Age
As noted in Table 2-2 and according to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) (5-year estimates), the median age of South Lake Tahoe residents was 37.1 years old (ACS 2019). The City is also ranked 14th of the County’s 14 incorporated cities and census-designated places in terms of age, with the County’s median age being 45.9, yet older than the median age of California (36.5) (ACS 2019). The City’s labor force is older than the State but younger than the County overall. Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 show the age distribution as of 2019.
442
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-6 Figure 2-2 City of South Lake Tahoe* vs. El Dorado County vs. State of California Age Distribution by Career Stage, 2019
Source: 2019: ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles
* Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA Metro Area data is used as approximation for the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Figure 2-3 City of South Lake Tahoe* vs. El Dorado County vs. State of California Age Distribution, 2019
Source: 2019: ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles
* Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA Metro Area data is used as approximation for the City of South Lake Tahoe.

2.5 Housing
Housing tenure for City shows the majority of residents rent their home. (U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019).

Table 2-3 breaks down the differences in housing tenure.

Table 2-3 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2013-2017
Characteristic Estimates
Occupied Housing Units 8,932
Owner Occupied 3,662
Renter Occupied 5,270
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS, 2013-2017, www.census.gov/ Median home prices in the City of South Lake Tahoe as of 2021 was $740,000, which is $90,500 (or around 14%) higher than the County’s median home sales of $649,500 and $205,000 (or around 27.8%) higher than City of Placerville’s median home sales of $535,000.

According to TRPA’s Regional Plan, past regulations were updated to promote affordable housing opportunities including allowing mixed-use development and allowing 70 percent coverage in town and regional centers, permitting additional height with adoption of an area plan, and allowing transfer 443
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-7 bonuses for residential unit transfers into town or regional centers. These changes support denser development in town and regional centers, including housing development. However, several of the existing regulations that act as constraints to the production of affordable housing remain. Moreover, per ABX1 26, the South Lake Tahoe Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on June 27, 2011. This dissolution action eliminated the funding mechanism by which the redevelopment agency funded affordable housing and infrastructure development. Nevertheless, the City continues to seek creative solutions to provide affordable housing opportunities that work within the framework of TRPA regulations and is part of the current process to provide recommendations on potential changes to TRPA affordable housing policies to address these constraints. (City of South Lake Tahoe 2022) Based on input received from the HMPC, several housing projects were recently implemented, with one larger-scale project underway.

2.6 Race and Ethnicity
Table 2-4 shows the comparative demographic estimates between 2010 and 2019. The City is more diverse in terms of race and ethnicity compared to the County but less diverse compared to the State.

Table 2-4 City of South Lake Tahoe Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2014 vs. 2013-2017 Race/Ethnicity 2010-2014 2015-2019
South Lake
Tahoe
County California South Lake
Tahoe
County California
White 58.3% 79.3% 39.2% 58.8% 77.8% 37.2%
Black 1.4% 0.8% 5.7% 1% 0.8% 5.5%
American Indian and
Alaska Native

0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4%
Asian 4.6% 3.7% 13.3% 7.1% 4.5% 14.3%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific

0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4%
Other 0% 0% 0.2% 0% 0.2% 0.3%
Hispanic 32.2% 12.4% 38.2% 30.5% 12.8% 39.0%
Two Or More Races
Alone, Not Hispanic
or Latino

2.6% 2.9% 2.7% 2.2% 3.1% 3.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS, Comparative Demographic Estimates, 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 estimates, www.census.gov/

2.7 Income and Poverty
Individual households are commonly expected to use private resources and funds to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. This means that households living in poverty are disadvantaged when confronting natural and human-caused hazards. Households living in poverty may also occupy poorly built or inadequately maintained housing. These housing types may be more susceptible to damage in earthquakes or flood events than other types of housing. In urban areas, such as the City, households living in poverty may also live in older houses and multi-family housing that is poorly constructed. Further, residents living below the poverty level are less likely to have insurance to compensate for the losses incurred from natural disasters.

Persons under 18 years old in the City can also be disproportionately affected by poverty. According to the ACS data, 17.1 percent of the City’s total residents under the age of 18 were living in poverty in 2019 while 25.4 percent of the City’s total residents under the age of 18 were living in poverty in 2015 (see Table 2-5 below), compared to the 8.0 and 12.7 percent of all families in the City, respectively. As shown in Table 2-5, the percentage of residents in poverty in the City has decreased since 2012. According to the ACS data, the percentage of households that earn more than $50,000 annually has been increasing. 444
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-8 Table 2-5 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Comparative Economic Characteristics, 2012, 2015, and 2019
City of South Lake Tahoe
Characteristic 2012 2015 2019
Families Below Poverty Level 12% 12.7% 8.0%
All People Below Poverty Level
(under 18 years)

23.4% 25.4% 17.1%
All People below Poverty Level
(18 years and over)

15.8% 9% 8.9%
Median Household Income $41,445 $39,793 $49,390
Per Capita Income 22,829 24,136 $30,441
Population in Labor Force* 72% 68.5% 68.9%
Population Employed* 63.6% 60.0% 63.4%
Unemployment 11.6% 12.4% 7.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS, obtained by California Office of Finance. *Excludes active duty armed forces
The City had the lowest median household income among all the cities and census-designated places in the County, which was $49,390. In addition, 8 percent of families were living below the poverty line.

During 2019, the median household income in El Dorado County was $83,377, while 5.1 percent of families were living below the poverty line. In addition, the median household income for the State in 2019 was 75,235 and 9.6 percent of families were living below the poverty line. Based on this comparison, the City of South Lake Tahoe has a lower median household income than the County and State. The City also has more families that were living below the poverty line, when compared to the County. (DOF 2019; U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019). There are segments of the City’s population that are low-income and disadvantaged, and in turn socially vulnerable and expected to be more susceptible to natural disasters and less likely to recover at the same pace as the rest of the community.

Additional demographic data and information on income, social vulnerability, and disadvantaged communities in City are summarized below in Section 2.8 Social Vulnerability. Information on growth is summarized in Section 2.10 Growth and Development Trends.

2.8 Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability considerations were included in the development of this plan to identify populations across the City that might be more vulnerable to hazard impacts based on a number of factors. Hazard events can have very different impacts for different segments of a community, even if the hazard effects the entire City of South Lake Tahoe. The combination of socioeconomic status, household composition, physical disabilities, age, race and ethnicity, education level, primary language, housing, and transportation barriers can alter the way communities prepare for and respond to hazard events. For example, as stated in the previous section, families with lower household incomes may not be able to renovate their home to be more resilient to flooding, earthquakes, or severe weather, and as a result these households may be disproportionately affected by a flood, earthquake, or severe winter storm event. The elderly population may have limited mobility due to age and physical disabilities, which could lead to less accessibility during hazard events, particularly winter storms and mandatory evacuations. It may also be more time-intensive for this population to receive hazard information and respond in the event of a hazard. Similarly, for those segments of the population where English is not their native language, it may take these individuals and families more time to prepare and respond during a hazard event.

The social vulnerability considerations in this plan cover household income, ethnicity, English proficiency, senior population, disabled population, single-parent households metrics. The considerations in this plan are broad in scope and are based on best available data and mapping information from the following the 445
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-9 Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).

2.8.1 CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)
A SVI was developed by the CDC ATSDR and their Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program, as a way to portray communities’ capacities to prepare for and respond to natural and manmade disasters. The SVI provides information on vulnerable populations to assist emergency response planners and public health officials in the identification of communities more likely to require additional support before, during, and after a hazardous event. The CDC’s SVI includes county- and state-level maps that show relative vulnerability, provide key socially and spatially relevant information on communities’ populations, and the maps compare the SVI based on Census Tracts. This SVI index combines four main themes of vulnerability: socioeconomic status; household composition and disability; minority status and language; and housing and transportation. The information from the SVI data informs the vulnerability of people, as qualitatively discussed in the vulnerability assessment for each hazard in Chapter 5.

An overview of social vulnerability for the City’s Planning Area is shown in Figure 2-4 based on CDC SVI data aggregated to Census Tracts. The SVI map depicts that within the City, there is one census tract in the northeastern portion with population with a high vulnerability to disasters (in dark blue) and a portion of another census tract to the southwest with population with a high vulnerability (also in dark blue).

There is also one census tract in the central-to-north portion with a relatively high vulnerability (in turquoise blue; vulnerability lower than dark blue Census Tracts but still relatively high compared to tracts in green and yellow). The Census Tracts shaded in green and yellow have moderate to low vulnerability to disasters. The overall social vulnerability in the surrounding unincorporated portion of El Dorado County based on the SVI data is shown in Figure 2-5. Additional maps using the four main vulnerability themes of the SVI, including socioeconomic vulnerability, household composition and disability, minority status, language vulnerability, and housing and transportation are provided on the CDC’s SVI online materials and maps at https://svi.cdc.gov/.

The census tracts depicted in the SVI maps correspond to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 mapping tool and census tract datasets. The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are calculated by two groups of indicators: pollution burden and population characteristics that account for sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors. Pollution burden represents potential exposure to pollutants and the adverse environmental conditions caused by pollution. Population characteristics consists of health condition (asthma, cardiovascular disease, etc.), education, housing burden, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment indicators.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 depicts three census tracts (Census Tracts 6017031600 [Population 3,326]; 6017030401 [Population 3,011]; and 6017030402 [Population 4,368]) within the 40 to 50 percentiles compared to other census tracts in the County and relative to the rest of the places in California. This tool also included the Tahoe Valley neighborhood, which the SVI map designated a lower vulnerability. 446
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-10 Figure 2-4 Disadvantaged Communities based on CDC ATSDR SVI Tool Source: CDC ATSDR 2021
447
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-11 Figure 2-5 Overall Social Vulnerability in El Dorado County based on SVI Data

2.8.2 Environmental Justice
Certain low-income residents, communities of color, and immigrant communities in California have disproportionately experienced greater environmental burdens and related health problems than other 448
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-12 communities. The inequity is a result of many factors, including, but not limited to inappropriate zoning, discriminatory housing, limited political and economic power among certain demographics, and development patterns that tend to concentrate pollution in certain communities (CEJA 2018). When combined with a lack of economic resources and unjust policy making, these residents and communities, also known as disadvantaged communities (DACs) or environmental justice (EJ) groups can face significant barriers to their overall health, livelihood, and resiliency to hazard events. With the support of communitybased organizations (CBOs), planners, local governments, and public health advocacy groups, recent legislation in California was developed to create healthier cities and counties and prioritize the needs of DACs.

SB 1000 Requirements §65302(h)(1)
The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:

Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.

Identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement in the public decision making process.

Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

In 2016 California passed Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, which mandates that cities and counties to adopt EJ elements or integrate EJ goals and policies into the elements of their general plans when they are updating two or more elements of their General Plan concurrently on or after January 1, 2018. EJ is defined by State law as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Gov. Code § 65040.12(e)). According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), SB 1000, and pursuant to Section 39711 of the California Health and Safety Code a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.

Cities and counties are individually responsible for identifying EJ communities within their jurisdictions and incorporating the SB 1000 requirements into their planning processes. The City incorporated these requirements into the LHMP, as this plan will be incorporated into their General Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 65302.10 (Assembly Bill [AB] 2140). The City meets these requirements by identifying DACs and socially vulnerable communities based on best available data sources, promoting engagement in the public decision-making process and in socially vulnerable communities through the implementation of an outreach strategy and targeted outreach (tailored public surveys, outreach to appropriate CBO representatives), and addressing EJ considerations to a degree in the vulnerability assessment, and by considering prioritization criteria, such as social equity during the development of mitigation actions. For example, during HMPC meetings, prioritization criteria included social equity (both as part of FEMA’s STAPLE/E criteria and as a stand-alone metric). The HMPC was provided this information to determine whether applying a higher priority to actions that related to social equity that benefited DACs or socially vulnerable communities made sense for the South Lake Tahoe community. The HMPC also broadly addressed vulnerable and sensitive populations, specifically based on those identified as socially vulnerable during the Caldor wildfire evacuation. The following sections summarize additional information on DACs within the City based on various state and local sources, in addition to the tools described in Section 2.8.1.
449
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-13

2.8.3 Disadvantaged Communities
DACs refer to areas in California that suffer the most from a combination of economic, health, and environmental burdens. These burdens include poverty, high unemployment, air and water pollution, the presence of hazardous wastes and the high incidence of asthma and other health diseases. DACs have been identified across the State, region, and the County of El Dorado using various criteria. The social equity considerations in this plan regarding DACs cover household income, ethnicity, English proficiency, senior population, disabled population, and single-parent households metrics. The considerations in this plan are also based on best available data and mapping information from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool. The metrics and methodology applied by this state mapping tool is summarized below, followed by a “snapshot” of the social vulnerability metrics and information available for the population in the City according to the tool.

California DWR Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Mapping Tool California DWR defines DACs as a community with an annual median household income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual MHI (Public Resources Code 7500(g)). Census geographies within an annual MHI less than 60 percent of the statewide annual MHI are considered “severely disadvantaged communities.” Figure 2-6 shows DACs within the City’s Planning Area.

Figure 2-6 Disadvantaged Communities Census Tracts based on California DWR DAC Mapping Tool
Source: California DWR 2028
As shown in Figure 2-6 there is one severely DAC census tract (in light orange) to the west of the center of the City. This severely DAC census tract has 2,519 residents within 1,198 households. The MHI of this census tract is $36,346 in 2018 while the City’s MHI is $49,390 as of 2019. There is another severely DAC census tract in the northeastern portion of the City. In addition, there are also several DAC Census Tracts in the central portion of the City as well as in the east-to-central and southwestern portions (in dark orange). Once DACs are identified the City and HMPC can target outreach and engagement in these communities.
450
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-14

2.8.4 Economy and Employment
The most comprehensive economic data available for the City comes from the U.S. Census Bureau ACS data and the California DOF. Select estimates of economic characteristics for the City are summarized below.

As of 2019, South Lake Tahoe had the lowest unemployment rates of the cities in the County. The ACS 5- year estimates show a 7.3 percent unemployment rate, higher than the County (5.5 percent), and statewide rates (6.1 percent) and even nationwide (5.3 percent). Table 2-5 above summarizes the City’s general economic characteristics. Unemployment rates have fluctuated in the past few years based on the most recent ACS data and California DOF data.

Table 2-6 illustrates the breakdown of employment by industry in the City of South Lake Tahoe from 2015-2019, as well as the number of people employed by each industry, and Table 2-7 lists the City’s major employers and approximate number of employees.

Table 2-6 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Employment by Industry, 2015-2019 Industry # Employed % Employed
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining 222 1.9
Construction 799 6.8
Manufacturing 463 3.9
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities 393 3.3
Information 91 0.8
Wholesale Trade 120 1.0
Retail Trade 1,251 10.6
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 631 5.3 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation, and Food Services
4,196 35.6
Educational Services and Health Care and Social Assistance 1,575 13.3 Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative and Waste Management Services
1,266 10.7
Other Services 391 3.3
Public Administration 402 3.4
Totals 11,800 100
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS, 2015/2019 www.census.gov/ *Civilian population 16 or older
Table 2-7 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Major Employers
Employer # of Employees
Barton Memorial Hospital 875
Lake Tahoe Unified School District 407
El Dorado County 254
Lake Tahoe Community College 232
City of South Lake Tahoe 200
Marriot Corporation 189
Lake Tahoe Resort Hotel 142
South Tahoe Public Utility District 118
Raley’s Supermarket 114
United States Forest Service 112
Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/15596
451
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-15

2.9 Commuter Population
Based on ACS five-year estimates data for 2013-2017, around 9.7 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s workforce traveled to another county for employment while 65.6 percent worked within El Dorado County. Of those traveling outside the County for work, nearly 11.2 percent drove alone while 16.5 percent carpooled. Around 3.6 percent of those traveling outside the County used public transportation compared to 64.7 percent of those who travel within the County for work. These commuter patterns have also likely changed since the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased flexibility for employers to support working from home options. Commuting patterns can increase congestion on U.S. Highway 50 and 89 as well as other local county and city roads. Commute congestion can also affect the City’s transportation infrastructure, as well as how the City responds to hazard events that may limit the commuting population’s ability to travel to work and safely return to South Lake Tahoe after an event.

2.10 Growth and Development Trends
As mentioned previously in 2.2 Land Use Distribution, TRPA has land use and environmental regulatory authority for the long‐term preservation of Lake Tahoe and its environment. One of TRPA’s main tools for protecting the environment is growth control regulations, which limit the amount of development that occurs in the Basin each year. Figure 2-7 below shows the location of mainly commercial and housing projects where the City received development applications, projects are under construction, or there are potential projects under consideration. Most of these projects are near the City’s downtown area or along the Lake Tahoe Boulevard corridor and are within City limits. Growth and development trends show that residential and commercial development has occurred within core areas designated for transit-oriented development consistent with the General Plan. Past, recent, current development projects are sited outside flood-prone areas. Past projects within mapped flood zones were also constructed consistent with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance regulations according to State inspection and audit reports (FEMA 2020). Therefore, past and current development patterns do not change the City’s overall vulnerability to known hazards.
452
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-16 Figure 2-7 Recent and Current Planning Projects in the City of South Lake Tahoe Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2022

2.11 Mitigation Capability Assessment
During the development of this plan the City’s HMPC completed a mitigation capability assessment to understand what loss prevention mechanisms are already in place. When combined with the risk assessment the mitigation capability assessment this results in the City’s “net vulnerability” to disasters, and more accurately focuses the goals and proposed actions of this plan. For this planning effort, a representative from most departments where the City had in-house staff available, participated on the HMPC.

The HMPC used a two-step approach to conduct the capability assessment for the City. First, an inventory of common mitigation activities was made through the use of a matrix. The purpose of this effort was to identify policies and programs that were either in place, needed improvement and could be enhanced, or could be undertaken if deemed appropriate. Second, the HMPC conducted an inventory and review of existing policies, regulations, plans, and programs to determine if they contributed to reducing hazardrelated losses or if they inadvertently contributed to increasing such losses.

Similar to the HMPC’s effort to describe hazards, risks, and vulnerability of the City of South Lake Tahoe, this mitigation capability assessment describes the City’s existing capabilities, programs, and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities.

It also identifies select state and federal departments/agencies that can supplement the City’s mitigation capabilities. This assessment is divided into four sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, and mitigation outreach and partnerships.
453
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-17

2.11.1 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table 2-8 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in the City of South Lake Tahoe. Excerpts from applicable policies, regulations, and plans and program descriptions follow to provide more detail on existing mitigation capabilities.

Table 2-8 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (ordinances,
codes, plans)
Yes/No Comments
General Plan Yes The City’s General Plan was last amended in 2011 and the Housing Element was last amended in 2014 and is currently being updated. The Draft Housing Element was made available for public comment in February 2022. Both planning documents are the City’s most comprehensive land use and development tools. The General Plan establishes the vision for the buildout of the City of South Lake Tahoe through 2030 while the Housing Element covers the planning period from June 2014 through June 2022. The Draft Housing Element (currently under review) is for the 2022-2027 planning period. These planning documents, including the Health and Safety Element include a set of broadbased goals and objectives to guide development in the City.

The City and HMPC also provided updates on the status of the implementation programs outlined in the Health and Safety Element, which informed the development of mitigation projects in the LHMP. Upon adoption of the LHMP, the City should update and amend the health and safety to include the LHMP.

Zoning Ordinance Yes The South Lake Tahoe City Code’s Title 6 – Development Services includes land use development standards, building regulations, community investment and revitalization strategies, and incentives for rehabilitation and upgrading public and private infrastructure.

These regulations also reference specific community plan areas, Area Plans, and Plan Area Statements (PAS). Other regulations are outlined in the floodplain management regulations and residential development design standards.

Subdivision Ordinance Yes Chapter 6.55 under Title 6 Development Services of the City Code summarizes the PASs that provide detailed plans and policies for specific areas of the City, similar to a Subdivision Ordinance. Each PAS contains written text, maps, and specific land use policies and regulations for these areas. Each PAS also corresponds to the TRPA Regional Plan Overlay Maps. There are 26 PASs in the City limits, including the Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan and Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan.

Growth Management Ordinance Yes Development in the Tahoe Basin, including the City of South Lake Tahoe is guided by the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan and the City’s 2011 General Plan. While not referenced as a growth
management ordinance, development in the Tahoe Basin is controlled by established growth caps that regulate development over time through development rights. Development rights are land use units that entities must acquire before a property is developed. They include TAUs, single- and multi-family
residential units, and CFA. These incentives also apply to development in the City’s Planning Area and encourage
removing development from environmental sensitive areas and 454
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-18 Regulatory Tool (ordinances,
codes, plans)
Yes/No Comments
transferring that development to areas for suitable for buildings and infrastructure in town centers.

Floodplain Ordinance Yes The City adopted its Floodplain Management Ordinance in 2001, which is in Chapter 6.65 of the City Code. It provides direction for new and existing development located within Special Flood Hazard Zones (SFHAs). The primary goal of this ordinance is to reduce future flood damage through the implementation of building techniques that minimize the potential loss of life and property due to development in floodplains. It references the floodplain development standards found in the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan and the Lahontan Basin Plan.

It contains six articles that cover methods of reducing flood losses, general provisions, administration related to the floodplain administrator, and standards and provisions for flood hazard reduction. The ordinance also contains elevation and floodproofing requirements regarding residential and
nonresidential construction, and new or substantial
improvements. Requirements related to new or substantial improvements shall have the lowest floor, including basement follow specific building standards if located in an AO zone. This construction must be elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height equal to or exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the Floodplain Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. Whereas, construction in an A zone must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE). Construction in all other zones shall be elevated to or above the BFE. The elevation of the lowest floor shall also be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, verified by the community building inspector, and provided to the floodplain administrator.

Other Special Purpose Ordinance
(e.g., stormwater, steep slope,
wildfire)
Yes City Code Chapter Title 7, Chapter 7.15 discusses Urban Runoff and Storm Water Quality Management. The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to protect and enhance the water quality, beneficial uses, habitats and ecosystems in receiving waters by reducing pollution and pollutant loads discharged in urban runoff from areas within the City’s jurisdiction by the maximum extent practicable, and by
prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to municipal storm drain systems. This chapter is intended to assist in protection and enhancement of watercourses, water bodies (such as Lake Tahoe), and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and both
compliant and consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAG616001 (Tahoe Municipal Stormwater Permit), as such laws and permits are amended and/or renewed.

This City Code Chapter was amended and passed on March 16, 2021.

Building Code Yes The City adopted the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).

Adoption and reference to the 2019 CBC is outlined in Title 6, Chapter 6.15 – Building Regulations.
455
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-19 Regulatory Tool (ordinances,
codes, plans)
Yes/No Comments
Fire department Insurance Services
Office (ISO) Rating
Yes ISO rating of 4 for the City’s Fire Department.

Erosion or Sediment Control
Program
Yes City Code Chapter Title 7, Chapter 7.20 discusses the City’s Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control.

Stormwater Management Program Yes The City’s Stormwater Management Program works to control and reduce the discharge of fine sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants from private lands and City streets and facilities into streams and beaches along the Lake Tahoe shoreline. In addition to the Urban Runoff and Storm Water Quality Management
Ordinance, the City also keeps a Stormwater Management
Program Brochure to encourage civilians to help locate potential threats to the City’s stormwater system.

Stormwater runoff discharges in the City are regulated under state and federal laws through NPDES Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) discharge permits. This permit was issued to the City by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and requires the City to take actions to meet the requirements of the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

Site Plan Review Requirements
Building Permits and
Inspections/Plan Check Permits
Yes The City’s Development Services Department’s Building Division seeks to ensure the safety of structures for the public within the City by providing services such as building code interpretation, Plan Check service, Building Permit issuance and inspection services. The City’s Planning Division and Engineering Division also carry out site plan reviews include reviewing subdivision maps, construction plans, and other plans for various
development projects.

Capital Improvements
Program/Plan
Yes The Engineering Division is responsible for the implementation of the City’s adopted five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which consists of a variety of projects to construct, maintain, repair, and rehabilitate the City's infrastructure, facilities, and specialized equipment. CIP projects are defined as one-time projects that are not maintenance related, having assets of significant value generally over $50,000, with an expected useful life of five or more years. The projects are subject to change based on new or shifting service needs, special financing opportunities, emergency needs, or other directives established by the City Council. As such, the CIP is updated annually.

Economic Development Plan Yes The City’s economic development goals are outlined in the City’s 2021-2026 Strategic Plan. This plan lists strategic priorities and goals for the City’s future economic development, including developing an economic development strategy, working with local tourism partners to support the development of a
regenerative tourism model, and identifying ways to support resident retention and workforce development. The Strategic Plan was developed by the Transformation Change Committee, which was formed on April 1, 2020. The HMPC also consisted of a representative from the Tahoe Prosperity Center.

Local Emergency Operations Plan
Emergency Preparedness Plan
Yes The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was last updated in July 2021.

The EOP describes the roles and operations of the departments and personnel of the City during a major emergency. The EOP 456
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-20 Regulatory Tool (ordinances,
codes, plans)
Yes/No Comments
sets forth standard operating procedures for managing public emergencies resulting from dam incidents, floods, storms, earthquakes, tsunami, hazardous material incidents and other natural or manmade disasters. The EOP also further defines and describes the emergency management organization which shall be used during emergencies.

In addition, members of the City’s Emergency Management Community Council created an Emergency Preparedness Guide to help local residents be prepared for disasters after the Angora Fire occurred in June 2007.

Other Special Plans Yes The City developed their first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2020, which will continue the growth of South Lake Tahoe’s climate leadership. The strategies in the City’s CAP will allow them to achieve emissions reduction goals, improvements to public health and safety, improved equity and justice engagement and policies, better jobs and prosperity, and local environmental quality.

The Lake Tahoe Regional Plan guides development in the Tahoe Basin to achieve balance between the natural and built
environment. The Regional Plan outlines actions to attain these thresholds that restore Lake Tahoe while balancing economic and community vitality. The Regional Plan is meant to be updated every four years, in conjunction with an environmental evaluation report, so that the plan can adapt to changing needs,
circumstances and emerging threats. Within the Regional Plan are specific area plans that allow other regulatory agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin to implement the Regional Plan policies with greater flexibility and at the community scale. Area Plans are intended to reflect the community’s vision for its future and can be developed for varying geographical scales – from a local neighborhood or commercial center to an entire county.

Community plans are similar to PASs but focus on additional specific areas that contain a combination of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses.

Flood Insurance Study or Other
Engineering Study for Streams
Yes The City, in cooperation with FEMA’s National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP), completed a re-study of the 1978 FIRM and the FIRM was revised on April 3, 2012. The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for El Dorado County was completed on September 26, 2008.

Elevation Certificates Yes New or substantial residential construction in the AO zone shall have the lowest floor, including basement elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height equal to or exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM, or elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. Construction in an A zone must be elevated to or above the BFE (according to City Code Chapter 6.65.150(B)) and construction in all other zones shall be elevated to or above the BFE. The elevation of the lowest floor shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor (elevation certificate), verified by the community building inspector, and provided to the floodplain administrator.
457
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-21 Regulatory Tool (ordinances,
codes, plans)
Yes/No Comments
Other Yes South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) Urban Water Management Plan (2020), LVFPD LHMP (2020), County of El Dorado LHMP (2018)
Source: HMPC Data Collection Guide
As indicated in the table above, the City has several plans and programs that guide the City’s development in hazard-prone areas. Starting with the City of South Lake Tahoe’s General Plan, which is the most comprehensive of the City’s plans when it comes to mitigation, these relevant plans and programs are described in more detail below.

City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan 2020 (2011)
The City’s General Plan provides a comprehensive and long-term blueprint for the future by establishing a framework for how South Lake Tahoe should grow and change, using a time frame of 2010-2030. The General Plan contains goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs that empower the City and community to achieve their future vision. The General Plan serves as the community’s constitution for land use and development. It addresses all aspects of development organized in nine chapters or elements, including seven required by State planning law and four elements prepared to meet local needs and concerns. The seven mandatory elements include the Land Use Element, Housing Element, Transportation and Circulation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Natural and Cultural Resources Element, Health and Safety Element, and Noise Element. The two remaining elements include the Economic Development Element and Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Services Element. The following three elements have goals, policies, and implementation programs related to hazards and hazard mitigation, as detailed below:
• Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Services Element
• Natural and Cultural Resources Element
• Health and Safety Element
The summary below tracks the organization of each relevant element, with topically-focused goals.

Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Services Element
This element provides the policy context for the City to achieve its vision for future public/quasi‐public facilities and services. It summarizes broad policies that ensure adequate public facilities and services exist and are maintained to meet the needs of the community. Relevant public facilities and services as well as stormwater drainage and water quality, fire protection and snow removal goals are outlined in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9 City of South Lake Tahoe Public Facilities, Services, Fire Protection and Snow Removal Goals
Goal/Policy Goal Description
Goal PQP-1 To ensure the timely maintenance, expansion, and upgrade of public facilities and services for the entire community.

Goal PQP-4 To protect water quality of streams and Lake Tahoe by reducing pollutant loads associated with urban stormwater runoff.

Goal PQP-6 To protect residents, employees, and visitors in South Lake Tahoe from injury and loss of life, and to protect property and businesses from fires.

Goal PQP-11 To provide efficient snow removal on public streets and sidewalks to promote safe, year-round access to these facilities.
458
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-22 Natural and Cultural Resources Element
The natural and cultural resources element has hydrological resources as a heading, which discusses the goals and policies for protecting the City’s hydrological resources. Relevant flood and stormwater conveyance goals and policies are outlined in Table 2-10.

Table 2-10 City of South Lake Tahoe Flood and Stormwater Conveyance Goals and Policies Goal/Policy Goal/Policy Description
Goal NCR -2 To protect and enhance the clarity of Lake Tahoe and water quality in the area’s rivers, creeks, and groundwater.

Policy NCR-2.1 The City shall require new projects and, working with TRPA, encourage existing developed properties to retain runoff on-site wherever physically possible and economically efficient or, if not possible or efficient, to contribute to the construction and long‐term maintenance of off‐ site water quality measures.

Policy NCR-2.3 The City shall improve stormwater quality management by including, along with other proven options, the use of swales and natural treatment systems and integration of runoff into functional design elements and public art. The City shall also incorporate the latest technologies for water quality treatment facilities into restoration efforts.

Policy NCR-2.9 The City shall require property owners and developers to dedicate land within 100-year floodplains, conservation easements, and SEZ to the City or other City‐designated entity when a development project is approved.

Policy NCR-2.12 The City shall provide incentives to remove public and private development from SEZ and 100- year floodplains in order to reduce drainage problems and damage to public and private property.

Health and Safety Element
Planning for growth and development requires the consideration of a wide range of public safety issues.

Many of the safety risks associated with development, including risks to buildings and infrastructure, can be avoided through siting decisions made at the planning stages of development, while others may be lessened through the use of mitigation measures in the planning and land use review process. The City’s Health and Safety Element aims to minimize risks posed by various hazards, including fire hazards, geologic and seismic hazards, flooding hazards, avalanche hazards, noise, hazardous materials and airport hazards. The element also addresses emergency preparedness. Relevant natural hazard and emergency preparedness goals are outlined in Table 2-11.

Table 2-11 City of South Lake Tahoe Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness Goals Goal Goal Description
Goal HS-1 To plan for, train for, and respond to major incidences and disasters in order to minimize loss of life, major injury, and loss of property.

Goal HS-2 To provide minimize fire hazards and provide fire protection services that maintain a safe and healthy community.

Goal HS-3 To protect lives and property from seismic and geologic hazards and adverse soil conditions.

Goal HS-4 To protect life and property from seasonal flooding and flooding related to large storm events.

Goal HS-5 To protect and maintain the safety of residents, businesses, and visitors by reducing the threat of avalanches.

Goal HS-6 To protect and maintain the safety of residents, businesses, and visitors by reducing, and where possible, eliminating exposure to hazardous materials, waste, and natural substances.

Goal HS-7 To protect and maintain the safety of residents, businesses, and visitors by reducing the threat of aircraft hazards.

Goal HS-8 To protect South Lake Tahoe’s residents, workers, and visitors from the harmful and annoying effects of excessive exposure to noise.
459
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-23 During the development of the LHMP, the HMPC provided input regarding the status of the implementation programs in the Health and Safety Element, and several of these programs that are ongoing were integrated into the LHMP. The programs that informed the development of the LHMP, in particular, include Fire-Safe Landscaping and Forest Fuel Reduction Program for mitigating wildland fire hazards. As such, new mitigation actions were developed based on the HMPC’s input and the programs included in the Health and Safety Element.

City of South Lake Tahoe 2022 – 2027 Housing Element (December 2021 Draft) This Housing Element is a comprehensive update of the 2014 Housing Element; the Draft Housing Element is currently under review and expected to be adopted prior to the completion of this LHMP. The planning period is for June 30, 2022, through June 30, 2027. The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify the community's housing needs, to state the community's goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs, and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.

South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) Urban Water Management Plan (2020) STPUD is the major water supply of the City. STPUD’s Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) meets the requirements of the California Water Code, which requires every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to adopt and submit an UWMP every five years. The core requirements for this UWMP include: 1) a description of the water service area; 2) a description of the existing and planned supply sources; 3) estimates of past, present, and projected water use; 4) 20x2020 analysis and target compliance; 5) a description of the conservation program; and 6) a description of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Several of the objectives and the sustainability principles outlined in the plan will help the City mitigate drought hazards.

Floodplain Management Regulations and NFIP Participation (1978) The City joined the NFIP (regular entry) on July 3, 1978. The City of South Lake Tahoe adopted its Floodplain Management Ordinance in 2001, which is in Chapter 6.65 of the City Municipal Code. It provides direction for new and existing development located within SFHAs. The primary goal of this ordinance is to reduce future flood damage through the implementation of building techniques that minimize the potential loss of life and property due to development in floodplains. It references the more restrictive floodplain development standards found in the Regional Plan for the TRPA and the Lahontan Basin Plan. The ordinance contains six articles that cover a variety of topics, including methods of reducing flood losses, the establishment of development permits, designation as well as duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator, and provisions for flood hazard reduction. Provisions for flood hazard reduction contain standards required for construction, utilities, subdivisions, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles and floodways.

City of South Lake Tahoe Urban Runoff and Storm Water Quality Management Ordinance (2021)
City Code Chapter Title 7, Chapter 7.15 discusses the City’s Urban Runoff and Storm Water Quality Management. The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to protect and enhance the water quality, beneficial uses, habitats and ecosystems in receiving waters by reducing pollution and pollutant loads discharged in urban runoff from areas within the City’s jurisdiction by the maximum extent practicable, and by prohibiting nonstormwater discharges to municipal storm drain systems. The ordinance supports the protection and 460
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-24 enhancement of watercourses, water bodies (such as Lake Tahoe), and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and both compliant and consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and NPDES Permit No. CAG616001 (Tahoe Municipal Stormwater Permit), as such laws and permits are amended and/or renewed.

City of South Lake Tahoe Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (2021) The City’s EOP was updated in July 2021. The EOP describes the roles and operations of the departments and personnel of the City during a major emergency. The EOP sets forth standard operating procedures for managing public emergencies resulting from floods, storms, earthquakes, tsunami, hazardous material incidents and other natural or manmade disasters. The EOP further defines and describes the emergency management organization, which shall be used during emergencies. The EOP addresses integration and coordination with other governmental levels when required utilizing the following mandated organizational structures: Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS). The EOP also consists of a series of threat summaries based upon the City’s operational area hazards analysis, which was conducted in conjunction with El Dorado County, providing a description of the local area, risk factors, and anticipated nature of situations that could threaten or occur in the City. This section ties into the 2021 LHMP update. The following identified threats are discussed:
• Major earthquake
• Lake Tsunami
• Wildland urban/interface fire
• Extreme weather
• Flooding
• Utility failure
• Hazardous material incident
• Landslide/avalanche
• Structure fire/explosion
• Civil unrest or public panic
• Natural security threat
• Terrorism
• Transportation emergencies
• Public health emergency
• School emergency
• Cyber-terrorism
The EOP covered both natural and human-caused hazards, whereas the LHMP update focuses on natural hazards, public health hazards, and climate-related hazards.

2.11.2 City of South Lake Tahoe Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table 2-12 identifies the City personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Table 2-12 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position
Planner/engineer with knowledge of land
development/land management practices
Yes City Planning Division staff
Engineer/professional trained in construction
practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure
Yes City Building/Engineering Division staff
Planner/engineer/scientist with an understanding of
natural hazards
Yes City Engineering Division and City Planning
Division staff
461
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-25 Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position
Personnel Skilled in Geographic Information Systems
(GIS)
Yes GIS Analyst – Public Works Department
Full-time Building Official Yes City Building Division
Floodplain Manager Yes City Zoning Administrator
Emergency Manager Yes City Manager (Director of Emergency Services) Grant Writer Yes Handled within each department/program; City’s Finance Department Grants Manager
also oversees and manages all City grants
GIS Data—Hazard Areas Yes GIS Analyst – Public Works Department GIS Data—Critical Facilities Yes GIS Analyst – Public Works Department GIS Data—Building Footprints Yes GIS Analyst – Public Works Department GIS Data—Land Use Yes GIS Analyst – Public Works Department GIS Data—Assessor’s Data Yes GIS Analyst – Public Works Department Warning Systems/Service (Reverse 911, Cable
Override, Outdoor Warning Signals)
Yes Fire Danger/Red Flag Warning System;
CivicReady; Reverse 911
Source: HMPC Data Collection Guide
City Departments/Agencies
The City of South Lake Tahoe government consists of a City Council with three council members, a Mayor Pro Term and the Mayor. The City Manager is appointed by the Mayor and City Council as the Chief Executive Officer of the City of South Lake Tahoe and is directly responsible to the City Council to develop and implement policies guiding the City.

City Attorney’s Office
The City attorney, directly appointed by the City Council, and the Deputy City Attorney are responsible for administration of all legal affairs of the City, including the City Council, the various City commissions, as well as all City departments and officers.

City’s Clerk Office
The City Clerk is elected for a four-year term and is directly responsible to the public and serves as a direct link between the residents and their government. The City Clerk oversees, promotes, and encourages open and participatory government. The City’s Clerk Office maintains the City’s municipal code and also attests and certifies ordinances, resolutions, agreements and deeds.

City Manager’s Office
The City Manager directly manages the following functions: Communications, Economic Development, Sustainability and Strategic Priorities. The City Manager is currently also supported by a Public Information Officer (PIO).

City Services
Finance Department
The Finance Department is responsible for protecting the City’s fiscal health and sustainability by maintaining compliance with financial policies and internal controls and ensuring accurate accounting of financial transactions. The department oversees timely revenue collection and accounts receivable processing, timely payment of accounts payable, payroll and debt service, transparent and professional financial reporting, effective budget management, grant administration, cash and investment management, debt financing and administration, and ensuring efficient purchasing practices. The 462
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-26 department provides professional support to the City Council, City Manager, and operating departments to assist them in making sound financial and organizational decisions that promote the fiscal sustainability of the City and its ability to provide services to the community.

Fire Department
The South Lake Tahoe Fire Department services 16 square miles of urban/wildland interface housing with a population of roughly 24,500 people. The Fire Department provides fire suppression, vehicle accidents support, rescue, medical call response, or other response to residences for concerned citizens that need help. The Fire Department also provides community outreach and education programs.

Development Services Department
The Development Services Department is responsible for projects and programs consistent with the policies of the City’s General Plan Housing Element. The department consists of three divisions: the Building Division, Planning Division, and Housing Division.

The Building Division issues Building Permits, performs inspections to ensure compliance of the CBC, TRPA regulations, and City Ordinances for all construction. The division also enforces driveway encroachments, ADA issues, and investigates building and substandard housing complaints.

The Planning Division is responsible for current and long-range planning activities, which implement the City’s General Plan. Current planning activities include reviewing and permitting development activities to ensure new development and redevelopment projects are consistent with the City’s General Plan, PASs, and Title 6, Development Services, of the South Lake Tahoe City Code. The Planning Division provides the staff support for the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Commission.

The Housing Division oversees the City’s housing programs and resources consistent with the policies of the City’s General Plan Housing Element. They department also oversees the implementation and development of multi-unit affordable housing projects supported through grant funds and project partners.

Human Resources Department
The City of South Lake Tahoe Human Resources Department is responsible for coordinating recruitment efforts for the City. Human Resources also provides support to City employees at all levels.

Parks and Recreation Department
The Parks and Recreation Department sustains the delivery of the parks, facilities, programs, and services to create a sense of community, enable a safe environment, and enhance City residents’ quality of life.

Police Department
The police department is a full-service police department that strives to make South Lake Tahoe safe and crime-free. In a typical month, the department responds to about 2,350 calls for service. The department includes K-9 Officers, Patrol Division, Crisis Response Unit (Special Weapons and Tactics Team [SWAT] Team and Crisis Negotiations Team), Joint Dispatch Center, Detective Unit and community services.

Public Works Department
The Public Works Department is responsible for engineering, CIP implementation, Streets and Snow Removal Services, along with the operation and maintenance of City-owned Facilities and Equipment. The Public Works Department also has web-based service request portal for City staff and citizens. The service allows the public to submit service requests for public works. 463
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-27

2.11.3 City of South Lake Tahoe Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table 2-13 identifies financial tools or resources that the City could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities.

Table 2-13 City of South Lake Tahoe’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible
/Eligible
to Use
(Yes/No)
Comments
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes The City is an Entitlement Jurisdiction under the CDBG Program. A majority of CDBG allocation is for housing
development and housing-related services, including
income loan program funding. Because of the Entitlement status the HOME Investments Partnership Program,
Emergency Shelter funds are available to the City. The funds, granted through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) target programs and/or projects
geared towards assisting low and moderate-income persons by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunity.

The City has been awarded other CDBG funds related to
economic development (business loan programs), business coaching technical assistance, and related housing programs for low and moderate-income households. They have not
yet applied for CDBG-Mitigation Funds (CDBG-MIT) funds.

Capital Improvements Project
funding
Yes Numerous CIP projects are being implemented or are under development in the City using federal and state funding sources, including transportation program funding (federal and state). Funding for restoration projects is also provided by the TRPA SEZ Mitigation Funds.

Authority to levy taxes and
assessments for specific purposes
Yes Tax assessment for a specific mitigation project.

Fees for water, sewer, services No Utility fees can be used for hazard mitigation of water and sewer projects; however, the STPUD and three other small water providers serve the City’s water and wastewater needs.

The STPUD implements their own LHMP and uses associated utility rates and fees to complete the large-scale utility upgrade projects and improvements in their service area.

Impact fees for new development Yes The City oversees a comprehensive development impact fee program.

Incur debt through general
obligation bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax
bonds
Yes
Incur debt through private activities Yes
Withhold spending in hazard-prone
areas
No
464
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-28

2.11.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnership Capabilities City of South Lake Tahoe Strategic Plan 2021 – 2026
This 5-year Strategic Plan serves as a “blueprint” for the City Council and discusses in detail the respective objectives and action items of five strategic priorities that focus on the built environment, recreation and equitable access, community for all, economic development, and continuous improvement. Carbon neutrality is one of its strategic priorities. The action items for the carbon neutrality goal include establishing a sustainability/energy manager position to facilitate the implementation of the City Climate Action Plan (CAP), creating a comprehensive communication strategy to ensure there is consistent messaging related to developing a more sustainable community, and working with community partners to achieve 100% local, renewable energy for all entities by 2025.

Public safety is another key strategic priority. One of the key action items in the Plan states “develop a wildfire preparedness and emergency evacuation plan in coordination with neighboring jurisdictions.” TRPA Lake Tahoe Regional Plan (2012)
The TRPA leads the cooperative effort to preserve, restore, and enhance the unique natural and human environment of the Lake Tahoe Region, while improving local communities’ interactions with the environment. The Regional Plan describes the needs and goals of the region and provides statements of policy to guide decision making as it affects the region's resources and remaining capacities. The plan with all of its elements, as implemented through agency ordinances and rules and regulations, will achieve and maintain the adopted environmental threshold carrying capacities (thresholds) while providing opportunities for orderly growth and development. The Plan discusses six elements as well as the goals and policies established for these elements. The six elements include: Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Conservation Element, Recreation Element, Public Services & Facilities Element, and Implementation Element.

Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (2015) This Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was developed by the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT), an action-oriented forum of organizations involved in implementing the Lake Tahoe Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy. It builds on previous planning efforts and covers the wildland urban interface (WUI) for all Lake Tahoe Basin fire protection districts and departments. The CWPP examines common issues faced by Lake Tahoe communities and general strategies for mitigation while also provides an in-depth assessment of each TFFT geographic division and provides specific recommendations, actions, and projects for improving community resiliency to wildfire.

El Dorado County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
El Dorado County developed their LHMP update to make the County and its residents less vulnerable to future hazard events. The LHMP includes a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to the County, assessed the County’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The County is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Floods, levee failures, wildfires, and severe weather are among the hazards that can have significant impact in El Dorado County. Based on the risk assessment, the LHMP’s HMPC identified goals and objectives for reducing the County’s vulnerability to hazards. The goals include: 1) minimize risk and vulnerability of El Dorado County to the impacts of natural hazards and protect lives and reduce damages and losses to property, economy, public health, and safety, and the environment; 2) provide protection for critical facilities, infrastructure, utilities and services from hazard impacts; 3) improve public awareness, education, and preparedness for all hazards; 4) increase communities’ capabilities to mitigate 465
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-29 losses and to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from a disaster event; 5) maintain FEMA Eligibility/Position the communities for grant funding, and 6) continued compliance with the NFIP/enhancement of floodplain management program through participation in the NFIP.

Lake Tahoe Forest Action Plan (2019)
Responding to the increasing threat to the forests in the Lake Tahoe Region, the partner organizations of the TFFT developed the Lake Tahoe Forest Action Plan in 2019 to proactively minimize the growing risk.

The Plan charts a path for collaboration across property boundaries to accelerate landscape restoration and community wildfire protection. The Plan aligns with state and federal plans and mandates that call for increasing the pace and scale of forest management including Nevada’s Cohesive Strategy Implementation Plan and Forest Action Plan, California Executive Orders B-52-18 and N-05-19, and USDA Forest Service Region 5’s Ecological Restoration Leadership Intent. The Plan implements the forest health focus area of the Basin’s Environmental Improvement Program, the signature partnership to restore and protect Tahoe’s natural resources. The action plan also contains three overarching strategies that support completing and maintaining all WUI treatments and implementing large-landscape restoration: 1) scale up to match the scale of the solution to the scale of the threat; 2) build capacity for all phases of the forest landscape management cycle; and 3) leverage technology for rapid, large-scale, more efficient implementation.

City of South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan (2020)
The City developed their first CAP in 2020, which will allow for the continuation and growth of South Lake Tahoe’s climate leadership. In 2017, the City of South Lake Tahoe became the first jurisdiction in the Sierra Nevada and the 26th in the nation to adopt a 100% Renewable Resolution, committing the City to a number of renewable energy targets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. This commitment highlighted the community’s support for progressive and urgent action on climate. The strategies in the City’s CAP will allow them to effectively achieve emissions reduction goals, improvements to public health and safety, improved equity and justice engagement and policies, better jobs and prosperity, and local environmental quality. The 2020 CAP, in combination with this LHMP update, is the City’s main roadmap to create a more resilient community.

City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update (2016)
The Municipal Services Review (MSR) process is a comprehensive assessment of the ability of existing government agencies to effectively and efficiently provide services to residents and users. This review is intended to provide El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) with information related to the operations and management of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The MSR focuses on service providers within the area of the City and will make determinations in each area of evaluation, providing the basis for El Dorado LAFCo to review possible amendments to SOI or possible reorganization, consolidation, or annexation with those other service providers. The MSR assessed the following areas of evaluation for the City: growth and population projections, disadvantaged unincorporated communities, present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies, financial ability to provide services, agricultural and open space lands and SOI Review.

Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LVFPD) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2020) LVFPD is a special district that was formed in 1947 to provide fire protection along California’s south shore of Lake Tahoe. The area of the district is approximately 83 square miles in size, located six miles south of the City. The LVFPD provides fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to the community of Meyers (unincorporated community in El Dorado County), permanent population 12,000, and automatic and 466
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-30 mutual aid to neighboring communities. Seasonal tourist fluctuations may swell the population of Meyers to over 50,000.

The LVFPD’s LHMP serves to help protect the district’s assets and communities by improving disaster preparedness and increasing resiliency. It serves as a guide for the LVFPD’s decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of potential hazards. The LVFPD LHMP contains a HIRA section that assesses hazards including avalanche and debris flows, dam failure, drought/tree mortality/extreme heat, floods, severe storms and wildfire. This LHMP is a comprehensive, long-term plan that focuses on identifying mitigation strategies, local policies and actions that can be implemented to reduce specifically identified risks and future losses to constituents.

Liberty Utilities Outage Map
Outage Central provides comprehensive and timely information about electric power outages. As shown in Figure 2-8, residents can check the status of a power outage, see how many individuals are affected and obtain the estimated restoration time. Information is updated every 15 minutes and is displayed in both an easy-to-read table and a map-based interface.
467
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-31 Figure 2-8 Liberty Utilities Outage Central Map
Source: Liberty Utilities 2022
On the same webpage, detailed updates and information with regards to utility shutoffs caused by recent hazards and disasters are also available for residents to view.

Community Shelters
According to the City’s Housing Element, there are currently no homeless shelters in the City of South Lake Tahoe. Most of the current homeless population often uses motel rooms or camping for their permanent residence. The nearest homeless shelter in El Dorado County is Grace Place, which is operated by United Outreach of El Dorado County during the winter months. This shelter is located over 50 miles away in Camino, California.
468
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-32 Dam Owners and Operators Coordination
The City of South Lake Tahoe coordinates with numerous dam owners and operators, including owners upstream of the County. Coordination involves partnerships with federal, state, and local officials, agency engineers, emergency managers, emergency preparedness coordinators, dam owners and operators, and property owners near areas that can be potentially affected by dam incidents. Key agencies within the City’s partnership include the FEMA’s National Dam Safety Program (NDSP), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Forest Service, California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), El Dorado Irrigation District, South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), and Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association. Given there are range of mitigation actions that can be taken to reduce the risk of dam incidents and the effects of dam failure, the City has an ongoing partnership with key dam owners and operators in order to ensure each agency is aware of each other’s actions and to coordinate them effectively, recognizing that working together maximizes risk reduction. As a result, many of these dam owners and operators were invited as stakeholders to inform and support the update of the City’s LHMP. STPUD was also a HMPC participant and provided additional details on the Emergency Effluent Holding dam. Information on Echo Lake dam was acquired from the National Inventory of Dams (NID), the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), and from safety details the City acquired from the El Dorado Irrigation District (i.e.,1992 dam rehabilitation activities, etc.). El Dorado Irrigation District was also invited to participate in the LHMP update as a regional stakeholder, and requested to comment on the plan during public review.

Information on these dam owners and operators are shown in the table below.

Table 2-14 City of South Lake Tahoe Dams of Concern Owner/Operator & Emergency Information
Dam Name Downstream
Community
Dam Owner
Echo Lake South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Irrigation District Emergency Effluent Holding South Lake Tahoe STPUD
Fallen Leaf Lake Fallen Leaf Lake USDA FS
Tallac South Lake Tahoe Wooldridge and Jarvis
Other Planning Capabilities (Ongoing)
The HMPC noted the following additional mitigation outreach efforts during planning sessions:
• Fire Department – The City’s Fire Department keeps up-to-date emergency/disaster information available on its website, which covers various resource including Community Evacuation Plan, Emergency Evacuation Plan map, Fire Danger/Red Flag Warning System. The website also contains information related to Lake Tahoe Basin fuels reduction and fire prevention strategy. In addition, the website mentions that June is the annual wildfire awareness month for the City. The City also aims to become a Fire Adapted Community.
• County of El Dorado Office of Emergency Services (OES) Website – The main County’s website contains various information related to emergency preparedness. The County’s OES website includes linkages to Cal OES, FEMA, County’s LHMP, as well as other emergency preparedness-related resources.
• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency – The agency published an article regarding Caldor Fire and Climate Resilience on October 2021, mentioning that TRPA and Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) partners are working to bring more resources into the Basin and scaling up wildfire protection and forest fuel reduction projects. Other partnerships noted include the Tahoe Science Advisory Council and the Lake Tahoe West Restoration Partnership. 469
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-33 • California Tahoe Conservancy – The Conservancy received $41 million to reduce wildfire risk and help Tahoe adapt to climate change in 2021. This funding will help the Conservancy and its partners in the TFFT implement the Lake Tahoe Basin Forest Action Plan more quickly. The Forest Action Plan – developed by the TFFT’s 21 federal, tribal, state, and local conservation, land management, and fire agencies – charts a path for collaboration across property boundaries to accelerate landscape restoration and community wildfire protection at Tahoe. • Tahoe Prosperity Center – The Tahoe Prosperity Center (TPC) is a regional community and economic development nonprofit for the Tahoe Basin. The TPC’s Executive Director was a HMPC representative and involved in the City’s LHMP update. The organization focuses on comprehensive economic development and working with local businesses, jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations, and community members to advance data-driven initiatives for the community and economy.

2.11.5 Opportunities for Enhancement
Based on the capabilities assessment, the City of South Lake Tahoe has several existing mechanisms in place that already help to mitigate hazards. In addition to these existing capabilities, there are also opportunities for the City to expand or improve on these policies and programs to further protect the community.

Required future opportunities for enhancement comply with Assembly Bill 2140 include amending the City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element to include the LHMP. The City can update other plans, such as the City’s Capital Improvement 5 Year Plans to include hazard mitigation actions and climate adaptation strategies that relate to infrastructure resiliency. Other future improvements may include providing hazard training for staff or hazard mitigation grant funding in partnership with TRPA, El Dorado County, other adjacent counties, and Cal OES.

Benefits of CRS Program Participation
The City of South Lake Tahoe does not currently participate in the NFIP CRS Program. There are currently only 89 active flood insurance policies in effect in the City, with an average premium cost of $974. With a small number of policies, the City will need to determine if it makes sense to apply to participate in the program. Table 2-14 shows the CRS discount for policy holders by CRS Class if the City did participate in the program.

Table 2-15 Cost Savings by Policy and by Community for each CRS Class CRS Class Description Total SFHA X-STD/AR/A99
09 Per Policy $33 $100 $44
Per Community $2,940 $2,588 $352
08 Per Policy $62 $199 $44
Per Community $5,528 $5,176 $352
07 Per Policy $91 $299 $44
Per Community $8,116 $7,764 $352
06 Per Policy $124 $398 $88
Per Community $11,057 $10,353 $704
05 Per Policy $153 $498 $88
Per Community $13,645 $12,941 $704
04 Per Policy $182 $597 $88
Per Community $16,233 $15,529 $704
03 Per Policy $211 $697 $88
Per Community $18,821 $18,117 $704
02 Per Policy $241 $796 $88
470
Chapter 2
City Profile and Capability Assessment
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 2-34 CRS Class Description Total SFHA X-STD/AR/A99
Per Community $21,409 $20,705 $704
01 Per Policy $270 $896 $88
Per Community $23,997 $23,293 $704
1 – SHFA includes Zones A, AE, A1-A30, V, V1-V30, AO, and AH; discount varies depending on class. 2 – SFHA includes Zones A99, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, and AR/AO; 10 percent discount for Classes 1-6; 5 percent discount for Classes 7-9
Source: CRS 2021
At a Class 9, there is an average discount of $100 per policy for the 26 policies in place within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and approximately $2,940 in annual savings across the entire community. This is a small saving from a per policy perspective, but with CRS Class improvements, it may add up to more substantial community-level benefits. CRS participation will only provide direct financial benefits to flood insurance policy holders; however, the program does provide benefits to the greater community beyond the policy holder insurance discounts, such as comprehensive floodplain management practices, public awareness about flood hazards and insurance, and flood protection assistance.

Other Opportunities
Additional training opportunities will help to inform City staff members on how best to integrate hazard information and mitigation projects into their departments. Continuing to train City staff on mitigation and the hazards that pose a risk to the City will lead to more informed staff members who can better communicate this information to the public. The City’s Grant Manager in the Finance Department in conjunction with the Fire Department and Development Division staff are currently being trained on HMGP funding opportunities and grant writing by participating in federal and state (FEMA and Cal OES) webinars and training series.
471
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-1 3 Planning Process
DMA Requirement §201.6 Local Mitigation Plans (b) and §201.6(c)(1):

An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; 2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; and 3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

3.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in the City of South Lake Tahoe This single-jurisdiction LHMP update is a customized plan tailored for the City of South Lake Tahoe. The City’s previous HMP was adopted in 2008 and expired in 2012.

The increasing cost of disaster recovery in the nation and the State of California over the past decades, and specifically from the recent wildfires in 2021 that occurred near the Tahoe Basin (Tamarack Fire) and in the Tahoe Basin (Caldor Fire), has prompted a renewed interest in determining effective and holistic approaches to minimize natural hazards. Hazard mitigation planning plays an important role in building community resilience through the identification of hazards, assessment of vulnerabilities, and the development of mitigation actions.

The City recognized the importance of developing a customized and updated LHMP and was responsible for initiating its development in 2021. The goal of the LHMP update is to develop practical, attainable, and cost-effective mitigation actions to reduce vulnerability to the identified hazards and reduce human, property, and economic losses from hazard events. The City contracted with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) to facilitate and develop the plan. Wood’s role was to:
• Assist in establishing the HMPC as defined by the DMA of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) commonly known as the 2000 Stafford Act Amendments;
• Meet the DMA requirements as established by federal regulations and follow the FEMA planning guidance;
• Facilitate the entire planning process based on a Community Outreach Strategy; • Identify the data requirements for the HMPC and conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data;
• Perform risk assessments that identify, evaluate, and prioritize natural and human-caused hazards that could impact the City;
• Conduct a vulnerability assessment to identify the hazard’s impacts on the City’s critical facilities, infrastructure, property, and future development;
• Assist in facilitating the public input process through the circulation of an online survey in both English and Spanish;
• Support community engagement during the planning process through the facilitation of two inperson Community Conversations (public workshops); 472
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-2 • Integrate the risk and vulnerability assessment to help the City determine appropriate mitigation goals and objectives to minimize long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards; • Produce draft and final plan documents; and
• Coordinate with Cal OES and FEMA Region IX plan reviews.

The original HMP broadly covered natural hazards and vulnerabilities in the City of South Lake Tahoe. This new and updated plan expands on the HMP and is tailored to address the natural and human-health hazards in the City, the identified hazard impacts specific to South Lake Tahoe’s critical facilities and infrastructure, and the development of a locally attainable mitigation strategy. The LHMP update will involve adopting, implementing, assigning responsibility, monitoring, and reviewing the mitigation actions over time to ensure the goals and objectives of the plan are being achieved and the plan remains relevant.

The remainder of this chapter provides a narrative of the steps taken to prepare the LHMP.

3.2 Local Government Participation
The LHMP update is a single-jurisdictional plan that covers the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Area, which is the same boundary as the City limits. The DMA planning regulations and guidance stress that each local government seeking FEMA approval of their mitigation plan must participate in the planning effort in the following ways:
• Participate in the process as part of the HMPC
• Identify potential mitigation actions; and
• Formally adopt the plan.

For the City of South Lake Tahoe’s HMPC, “participation” was defined at the outset of the planning process as the following:
• Providing a virtual meeting space to ensure HMPC engagement during in the LHMP planning process; • Completing and returning the Wood Plan Update Guide (also referred to as a Data Collection Guide); • Collecting and providing other requested data (as available); • Managing administrative details;
• Engaging the community during the facilitation of two in-person public outreach workshops; • Making decisions on plan process and content;
• Identifying mitigation actions for the plan;
• Reviewing and providing comments on plan drafts;
• Informing the public, local officials, and other interested parties about the planning process and providing opportunity for them to comment on the plan;
• Advertising, coordinating, and participating in the public input process; and • Coordinating the formal recommendation of the plan by the City Planning Commission and formal adoption of the plan by the City Council.

The City met all FEMA’s requirements for plan participation. The City brought together a local planning team with representatives from City departments to help collect data, identify mitigation actions and implementation strategies, and review and provide data on plan drafts. The City engaged several federal, state, regional, and local stakeholder representatives from various agencies and municipalities in the region (Cal OES, TRPA, California Tahoe Conservancy [Conservancy]). In most cases, one or more representatives from each City department and each local agency attended the three HMPC meetings.

The preparation of the updated LHMP was also intended to assist the City in reducing its risk from natural and human-health hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction. For the City’s HMPC, the intention of the plan is to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the 473
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-3 City’s departments, as this is the previous HMP was prepared 13 years ago. As a result, the HMPC set out to develop a plan that would meet the objectives summarized below. • The plan would meet or exceed program requirements specified under the DMA of 2000. • The plan would not only meet Cal OES and FEMA requirements, but also the needs of the City. • The plan would coordinate existing and ongoing plans and programs already established at the City so that high-priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts would be funded and implemented.
• The plan would create a linkage between the LHMP and established plans such as the South Lake Tahoe General Plan Health and Safety Element and City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) so that existing planning mechanisms can be integrated to help the City achieve successful mitigation.

Given plan integration is a key strategy in the success of LHMP implementation, the HMPC focused on consistency between plans and programs at the City, including the South Lake Tahoe General Plan and the City’s CIP. The HMPC focused on ensuring each department representative consulted with their individual departments in between meetings to ensure existing capabilities were adequately documented in the LHMP and that mitigation actions were thoroughly reviewed and developed by a range of department leads throughout the City. Appendix A provides additional information and documentation of the planning process.

3.3 The 10-Step Planning Process
The City followed a planning process for the LHMP update that uses the DMA planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a four-phase process:
1) Organize Resources
2) Assess Risks
3) Develop the Mitigation Plan
4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Into this process, the City integrated a detailed 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s CRS and FMA programs, if South Lake Tahoe intends to join the CRS in the future. Thus, the modified 10-step requirements of the HMA grants including HMGP, BRIC program (formerly PDM), FMA, CRS, and the flood control projects authorized by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are addressed. FEMA’s March 2013 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook recommends a 9-step process within the four-phase process. Table 3-1 summarizes the four-phase DMA process, the detailed CRS planning steps and work plan used to develop the plan, the nine handbook planning tasks from FEMA’s 2013 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, and where the results are captured in the plan. The sections that follow describe each planning step in more detail, including information on the schedule and general timeframe of activities that took place to develop the plan.

Table 3-1 Planning Processes Used to Develop the City of South Lake Tahoe’s LHMP Update FEMA 4-Phase
Guidance Phases
CRS Planning Steps 2013 FEMA Local Mitigation
Planning Handbook Steps (44
CFR Part 201)
Location in LHMP
Phase 1: Organize
Resources
Step 1. Organize
Resources
1: Determine the Planning Area
and Resources
Chapters 1, 2, and 3
2: Build the Planning Team 44 CFR
201.6(c)(1)
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1
474
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-4 FEMA 4-Phase
Guidance Phases
CRS Planning Steps 2013 FEMA Local Mitigation
Planning Handbook Steps (44
CFR Part 201)
Location in LHMP
Step 2. Involve the public 3: Create an Outreach Strategy 44 CFR 201.6(b)(1)
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1
Step 3. Coordinate with
Other Agencies
4: Review Community Capabilities
44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) & (3)
Chapter 2, Section 2.2;
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1
Phase 2: Identify
Hazards and Assess
Risks
Step 4. Assess the hazard 5: Conduct a Risk Assessment 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i) 44 CFR
201.6(c)(2)(ii) & (iii)
Chapter 4, Sections 4.1
through 4.3
Step 5. Assess the
problem
Chapter 4, Sections 4.1
through 4.3
Phase 3: Develop a
Mitigation Strategy
Step 6. Set goals 6: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i); 44 CFR
201.6(c)(3)(ii); and 44 CFR
201.6(c)(3)(iii)
Chapter 5, Section 5.1
Step 7. Review possible
activities
Chapter 5, Section 5.2
Step 8. Draft an action
plan
Chapter 5, Section 5.3
Phase 4: Implement
and Monitor the
Plan
Step 9. Adopt the plan 8: Review and Adopt the Plan Chapter 6, Appendix C Step 10. Implement,
evaluate, and revise
7: Keep the Plan Current Chapter 6
9: Create a Safe and Resilient
Community 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)
Chapter 6

3.3.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources
Planning Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort
The organization of the planning effort was initiated as a joint commitment and effort by the City and South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue to develop the plan and establish the framework and organization for the planning process. Organizational efforts were initiated with the City to inform and educate the HMPC participants of the purpose and need for the City, single-jurisdictional LHMP update. The City held an initial call on March 2, 2021 with Wood to discuss the organizational aspects of the planning process. On April 4, 2021 the City circulated the HMPC invitee list to City department staff and to various federal, state, and local agencies in the Tahoe Basin. The schedule of subsequent planning activities is summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Schedule of Planning Activities Project Task Meeting Date(s)
Project Kick-Off Meeting March 3, 2021
Circulate Draft HMPC Invitee List April 4, 2021
HMPC Meeting #1 May 20, 2021
Submit Draft Public Outreach Strategy June 2, 2021
Public Outreach Workshop #1 October 13, 2021
Circulate Public Survey (2-Month Survey Period) October 8, 2021 through January 8, 2022 Prepare Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment November 1, 2021 HMPC Meeting #2 November 3, 2021
Develop Goals and Objectives January 15, 2022
HMPC Meeting #3 February 4, 2022
Compile Mitigation Action Worksheets February 18, 2022
Submit 1st Administrative Draft LHMP March 18, 2022
City and HMPC Provides Consolidated Comments on 1st
Administrative Draft LHMP
March 25, 2022
475
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-5 Project Task Meeting Date(s)
Submit 2nd Administrative Draft LHMP April 1, 2022
Complete FEMA Region IX Review Tool: Elements A Through D April 1, 2022 Circulate Public Review Draft LHMP (20-Day Public Review) April 4, 2022 Public Workshop #2 TBD
Public Review Ends April 23, 2022
Submit Final Draft LHMP to Cal OES for Review (45-Day Review Period)
April 29, 2022
Submit Final Draft LHMP to FEMA Region IX for Review June 13, 2022 City Council Hearing* TBD
*City Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month.

Invitations to the kick-off meeting were extended to key City departments, and federal and state agencies, El Dorado County, Douglas County, neighboring municipalities, and key stakeholders. Using FEMA planning guidance, representatives from City departments and South Lake Fire Rescue established the base membership for the HMPC stakeholder committee. The HMPC also included representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, and stakeholders, and other organizations. Key representatives from these agencies and stakeholders included staff from TRPA, STPUD, Conservancy, LVFPD, and the Tahoe Prosperity Center. The list of agencies and individuals invited to participate is included in Appendix A.

The HMPC was established as a result of this effort, as well as through interest generated through outreach conduced for this project, which is outlined in more detail in the Community Outreach Strategy.

The HMPC collectively developed the plan with leadership from the City and South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue, as well as facilitation by Wood. The HMPC meetings also had participation from other agency stakeholders with an interest in hazard mitigation, which are described in Planning Step 3. Representatives from the following City departments and other agencies participated on the HMPC:

City of South Lake Tahoe
• City Manager’s Office (including the City PIO)
• South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue
• Finance Department
• City Clerk Office
• Development Services Department (including the Building Division) • Public Works Department
• Police Department
• Parks and Recreation
Other Agency and Organization Stakeholders
• TRPA
• STPUD
• California Tahoe Conservancy
• Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
• Lake Valley Fire District
• Tahoe Prosperity Center
A list of participating HMPC representatives is included in Appendix B. This list includes all HMPC members that attended one or more HMPC meetings detailed in Table 3-2. The City also utilized the support of other City staff in order to collect and provide requested data and to conduct timely reviews of draft documents; this support staff included the City’s GIS Manager and the City’s Capital Improvements Project Manager. The core HMPC group was also supplemented by input from other government and 476
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-6 stakeholder representatives that contributed to the planning process as identified in Planning Step 3:

Coordinate with Other Department and Agencies.

The planning process officially began with a kick-off meeting on May 20, 2021. The meeting covered the scope of work and an introduction to the DMA requirements. Participants were provided with a Plan Update Guide (also referred to as a Data Collection Guide), which included worksheets to facilitate the collection of information necessary to support development of the plan. Using FEMA guidance, Wood designed these worksheets to capture information on past hazard events, identify hazards of concern to the jurisdiction, quantify values at risk to identified hazards, inventory existing capabilities, and record possible mitigation actions. A copy of the Data Collection Guide for this project is included in Appendix A.

The City completed and returned the worksheets in the Data Collection Guide to Wood staff for incorporation into the plan.

During the planning process, the HMPC communicated through virtual sessions, email, and monthly virtual meetings, and added information to the City’s LHMP webpage. Draft documents were distributed via email to the City (Fire Department representative) and then distributed to the HMPC stakeholders. The HMPC met three times during the planning period (May 20, 2021 through February 4, 2022).

The dates and purposes of these meetings are described in Table 3-3. The HMPC also met internally (monthly) in between meetings to help the City’s South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue (Fire Department) track deliverables, worksheet materials, and public outreach documentation. Agendas for each of the meetings and lists of attendees are included in Appendix A. Figure 3-1 is from HMPC Meeting #1.

Table 3-3 Schedule of Planning Meetings
Meeting Type Meeting Topic Meeting Date(s)
HMPC Meeting #1 Kick-off meeting: introduction to DMA, the planning process, and hazard identification
May 20, 2021
HMPC Meeting #2 Risk assessment overview and work session on new goal development
November 3, 2021
HMPC Meeting #3 Development of mitigation actions; selection and prioritization of mitigation recommendations
February 4, 2022
At HMPC Meeting #1, the planning process scope and schedule were discussed, along with the list of hazards addressed in the plan, followed by a presentation that reviewed the Community Outreach Strategy and Data Collection Guide. The group was asked what hazards presented the greatest concern.

HMPC Meeting #2 focused on the findings from the risk assessment and the specific vulnerabilities to the City’s critical assets and infrastructure that need to be addressed in the mitigation strategy. Mitigation goals and objectives from the previous 2008 HMP and 2018 El Dorado County LHMP were reviewed. The HMPC also participated in brainstorming sessions to develop new mitigation goals and objectives. Figure 3-1 is from HMPC Meeting #2.
477
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-7 Figure 3-1 HMPC Meeting #2
This led to further discussion and the prioritization of mitigation actions developed at the HMPC meeting #3. Figure 3-2 is from HMPC Meeting #3.

Figure 3-2 HMPC Meeting #3
Planning Step 2: Involve the Public
Early discussions with the City of South Lake Tahoe established the initial plan for public involvement. At the kick-off meeting, the HMPC discussed options for public involvement and agreed to an approach using established public information mechanisms and resources within the community with a focus on 478
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-8 digital platforms such as Zoom meetings, virtual public workshops scheduled in conjunction with Planning Commission meetings, and social media postings. This approach was outlined in the project’s Community Outreach Strategy (Appendix C).

Public outreach was initiated during the plan development process with an informational press release to notify the public of the purpose of DMA and the hazard mitigation planning process for the City of South Lake Tahoe. The City Fire Department coordinated the circulation of outreach materials, such as press releases and social media postings and advertisements prior to the first public workshop. Public involvement activities included the development of the LHMP webpage, the organization of two public outreach workshops, and circulation of press releases and an online survey. The City compiled public comments received during the first public workshop and based on the online survey.

The City also compiled public comments on the planning process, hazard profiles, risk assessment, and the Draft LHMP during a second public workshop. During this time formal comments on the draft plan circulated during public review were compiled, organized, and reviewed by the City. These comments were submitted by email and through an online form. The City received a total of seven public comments on the plan, which included a combination of five written comments and two verbal comments received during the second public workshop. A summary of these comments and the comment-response matrix is included in Appendix A. The City incorporated public input by reviewing the comments and revising the LHMP prior to submittal to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX.

The City also took public comment during the second public workshop. The second public workshop was held as an in-person public workshop referred to as a “Community Conversation.” The City notified the project stakeholders and public about the second public workshop via email, the circulation of press releases, newspaper notices, and social media postings. The second public workshop was also advertised on daily and weekly City of South Lake Tahoe newsletter updates. The City received two public comments during the second public workshop; these comments are included in a comment-response matrix in Table 3-6 at the end of this chapter.

Project Webpage
At the beginning of the planning process, the City created a LHMP webpage linked to the City’s main website to keep the public informed on hazard mitigation, the development of the LHMP and the planning process, and as a place to solicit public input. The LHMP webpage include a background section on hazard mitigation planning and the DMA. It highlighted recent natural hazard events that have occurred in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The webpage elaborated on the LHMP plan development process and the purpose of the public survey. The webpage encourages the public to get involved in the development of the plan via filling out the survey. The LHMP webpage publicized media releases, mailings, newsletters, surveys, and public meeting advertisements. The City intends to keep the LHMP webpage active after the plan is completed to keep the public informed about the status of the mitigation actions. Figure 3-3 shows the City of South Lake Tahoe LHMP webpage.

The City made the Public Review Draft LHMP available on the LHMP webpage in April 2022 here:
https://www.cityofslt.us/LHMP
479
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-9 Figure 3-3 City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Website Online Survey
During the planning process and drafting stage, one web-based public survey was developed as a tool to gather public input. The survey was for the public to provide feedback to the HMPC on topics related to hazard concerns and reducing hazard impacts. The survey provided an opportunity for public input during the planning process and prior to finalization of the plan. The survey gathered public feedback on concerns about earthquakes, flooding, wildfires, climate change, and other hazards and solicited input on strategies to reduce their impacts. The first survey was released as on October 8, 2021 and closed on January 8, 2022 and (3-month comment period). The HMPC provided links to the public survey by distributing it using social media, email, and posting the link on the City’s LHMP webpage. 119 responses were received on the survey. This information was shared with the HMPC to inform the process.

The survey included a total of 15 questions. The first section included questions on ranking hazard significance. The results track with the significance levels noted in Chapter 4 of this plan, with wildfires flooding, climate change and drought being considered the most significant. Severe Weather: Winter Storms/Heavy Snow/High Wind and power outages events also ranked highly in significance based on the public input. This section also asked the public’s recent exposure to natural hazards and solicited the public’s input on specific hazard issues that they would like the HMPC to consider. The next section of the survey focused on questions related to mitigation actions that the City should consider in the plan. The results indicated that ability to purchase flood insurance, flood mitigation, indoor/outdoor warning, public education/awareness were mitigation actions that are considered to have high-priority to the public. The final part of the survey a short section of questions on demographics, specifically on whether participants were residents of the City or the unincorporated portion of El Dorado County outside the City of South Lake Tahoe. These questions are also intended to compile information on what segments of the population participated on the survey and where additional outreach efforts may be necessary.

The participants were also asked questions such as whether they have taken action to make their homes/business more disaster/resistant, how much they are willing to spend to make safety 480
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-10 improvements, what other types of information would be valuable and helpful. These results were shared with the HMPC and considered during the planning process. Figure 3-4 shows an example of the responses from the survey. The full results of the survey are included in Appendix A.

Figure 3-4 Example of Public Survey Response
481
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-11 Public Workshops
Public meetings were held during the draft plan development process and prior to finalizing the plan as further described in Table 3-4. The first public workshop, referred to as a “Community Conversation” was held on October 13, 2021. The second public workshop was held as an in-person workshop on May 26, 2022. This workshop was also broadcast live on the City’s Facebook social media platform. Figure 3-5 is a photo taken at the first public workshop.
482
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-12 Figure 3-5 1
st Public Workshop
Figure 3-6 is a photo taken at the second public workshop.

Figure 3-6 2
nd Public Workshop
All press releases and website postings are on file with the City of South Lake Tahoe Development Services and South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue. The public outreach activities described here were coordinated and fully supported by the City of South Lake Tahoe. The two public workshops scheduled and organized by the City are detailed in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Public Workshops
Meeting Topic Meeting Dates Meeting Locations
1 st Public Workshop October 13, 2021 In-person Community Conversation/Public Workshop #1 483
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-13 Meeting Topic Meeting Dates Meeting Locations
2 nd Public Workshop May 26, 2022 In-Person Community Conversation/Public Workshop #2 The first public workshop was held to solicit public and stakeholder input during draft development of the plan. Public outreach included an email distribution with a notice of the public meeting to the HMPC with direction to share with other associations, boards and committees and postings around the workplace.

The meeting notice was also posted on the City of South Lake Tahoe LHMP Webpage and on the City’s social media sites, such as Facebook. Approximately ten people attended the first public workshop.

Workshop materials are included in Appendix A. There were several general comments during a presentation from the public related to the Caldor Fire evacuation and recovery process. There was also one comment on the need to prepare a LHMP and once adopted the need to begin tracking hazard mitigation funding opportunities for key LHMP. Where appropriate, stakeholder and public comments were incorporated into the final plan, including the sections that address mitigation goals and strategies.

Comments submitted during the second public workshop were made about priority hazard risks related to flooding and wildfire. Comments also addressed proposed mitigation actions related to flooding.

Comments submitted during the second public workshop and during public review will be summarized in this chapter. A summary of the meeting was also shared with the HMPC and is included in Appendix A.

Prior to finalization of the plan a draft will be made available on the City’s LHMP webpage for a 20-day public comment period. The Public Review Draft LHMP update was circulated from April 25, 2022 through May 27, 2022. The City also posted an electronic form with the plan on the City’s LHMP webpage to capture electronic comments (see Appendix A).

Social Media
The City of South Lake Tahoe used the following social media platforms to circulate information on the LHMP:
• City Facebook (32,337+ followers).
• City Twitter (7,694+ followers).

The two social media platforms announced the kick-off of the LHMP planning process, advertised the City’s LHMP webpage and other events, included a link to the online survey, notified the public about meetings and workshops, and announced the availability of the plan for public input and comment. Figure 3-7 is an examples of news feed from the City’s Facebook page that announced and advertised the first public workshop. Figure 3-8 advertised the availability of the Public Review Draft LHMP. 484
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-14 Figure 3-7 Example on Announcement of Public Workshop #1 on City’s Facebook Page 485
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-15 Figure 3-8 Advertisement of the Public Review Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 486
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-16 Newspapers
The following regional and local print newspapers were used to circulate and advertise information on the LHMP, specifically the announcement of the public workshop:
• Tahoe Daily Tribune; and
• South Tahoe Now.

Press Releases
The City was encouraged to distribute and circulate press releases over the course of the LHMP development. The City and Wood staff also encouraged HMPC participants and stakeholders to distribute press releases during the project. Press releases were distributed as informational flyers, advertisements, posters, and public notices handed out during community events. These communication platforms were used to spread the news about the LHMP and invite the public to participate in the process.

Advertisements and press releases announced the kick-off of the LHMP planning process, advertised the City’s LHMP webpage and other events, included links to the public survey, notified the public about workshops, and announced the availability of the plan for public input and comment. Press releases were distributed to multiple print and digital news agencies. Figure 3-9 is an announcement distributed after the first public workshop in October 2020 and to further notify the public about the LHMP update.

Figure 3-9 Press Release published after the 1st Public Workshop 487
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-17 Public Review and Comments on the Draft LHMP
The City circulated the Public Review Draft LHMP for 30 days; it was posted on the City’s LHMP webpage and circulated from April 25, 2022, to May 27, 2022. The City solicited public input on the Draft LHMP by collecting and reviewing comments received during the public review period. Comments submitted during public review are summarized in this chapter and were incorporated in the revised version of the Draft LHMP submitted to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX. A detailed comment-response matrix addressing the public comments is included in Table 3-6 at the end of this chapter. This matrix also summarizes how the Draft LHMP was revised (if applicable) based on public comments.

Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies Early in the planning process, the HMPC determined that data collection, mitigation strategy development, and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting state and federal agencies and organizations to participate in the process. Based on their involvement in hazard mitigation planning, their landowner status in the County, and/or their interest as a neighboring jurisdiction, representatives from the following agencies were invited to participate on the HMPC:
• City of South Lake Tahoe
• TRPA
• El Dorado County*
• Lake Tahoe Unified School District*
• STPUD (local water utility provider and dam owner and operator) • Barton Memorial Hospital
• Tahoe Prosperity Center
• Liberty Utilities*
• California Tahoe Conservancy
• Lake Valley Unified School District
Wood in coordination with the City and the HMPC also used technical data, reports, and studies from the following agencies and groups:
• American Red Cross
• California DOF
• California Department of Fish and Game
• California Department of Fire Protection (Cal
Fire) and Forestry
• California Department of Parks and
Recreation Office of Historic Preservation
• California Department of Public Health
• California DWR
• California OES
• California Geological Survey
• California Natural Resources Agency
• El Dorado County Department of Health
Services Environmental Health and Safety
Division
• El Dorado Irrigation District (EID)
• FEMA Region IX
• USACE
• U.S. Center for Disease Protection
• U.S. Bureau of Land Management
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Forestry Service
• U.S. Geological Survey
• U.S. Census Bureau
• FEMA
• National Weather Service
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Climatic Data
Center
• National Resource Conservation Service
Note: Agencies marked with * were invited to become members of the HMPC but did not join the HMPC.

They were invited to review and comment on the Draft LHMP and were provided a direct link to download a copy of the plan through an email invitation.
488
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-18 Several opportunities were provided for the above groups to participate in the planning process. At the beginning of the planning process, invitations were extended to the first group to actively participate on the HMPC and as a stakeholder representative to support the DMA planning process and to maximize credits under the NFIP CRS Program if the City decides to participate in this program. Specific participants from these groups are detailed in Appendix C.

The City also provided various opportunities for El Dorado County and other neighboring communities, such as Douglas County and representatives from the Meyers community (LVFPD) to participate in the City of South Lake Tahoe LHMP update development. Others assisted in the process by providing data directly as requested in the Data Collection Guide or through data contained on their websites or as maintained by their offices. Dam owners and operators were also invited to participate in the outreach process and to comment on the Draft LHMP; this included specific input from STPUD (also a HMPC participant) and the EID on upstream high hazard dams and dam safety. These stakeholder groups were also invited to participate through the public outreach process, which included public workshops as previously described. Further as part of the HMPC and public outreach processes, all groups were invited to review and comment on the plan during public review and prior to submittal to Cal OES and FEMA.

Other Community Planning Efforts and Hazard Mitigation Activities Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the success of this plan. Hazard mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools, and actions that will reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability to hazards. The City of South Lake Tahoe uses a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as general plans and ordinances, to guide growth and development. Integrating existing planning efforts and mitigation policies and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible and comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community programs. The development of this plan incorporated information from the following existing plans, studies, reports, and initiatives listed in Table 3-5. Other related planning efforts were inventoried in the capability assessment in Chapter 2.

Table 3-5 Incorporated Planning Mechanisms
City of South Lake Tahoe
Plans
How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP
City of South Lake Tahoe General
Plan Health and Safety Element
(2011)
• Incorporated relevant hazard information from the Health and Safety Element into the LHMP.
• Reviewed the Safety Element goals in HMPC Meeting #2 and developed new goals for the LHMP that were consistent and mutually reinforcing. • Reviewed the implementation program for the General Plan to determine if plan updates occurred, when, how often, and whether the next update can integrate the LHMP into the Safety Element.
• Assembly Bill 2140 requires the adoption of LHMPs into the General Plan Health and Safety Element after LHMP Approval; this topic was discussed during each HMPC meeting.
• The LHMP emphasizes need to ensure General Plan is amended to include the LHMP after it is approved by City Council; this information is included in the chapter on the adoption process.

Zoning Ordinance • The South Lake Tahoe City Code’s Title 6 – Development Services includes land use development standards, building regulations, community investment and revitalization strategies and incentives for rehabilitation and upgrading public and private infrastructure in community plan areas, plan area statement and other land use regulations, floodplain management regulations, and residential development design standards.

Growth Management Ordinance • Development in the Tahoe Basin, including the City of South Lake Tahoe is guided by the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan. While not referenced as a 489
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-19 City of South Lake Tahoe
Plans
How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP
growth management ordinance, development in the Tahoe Basin is controlled by established growth caps that regulate development over time through development rights. Development rights are land use units that entities must acquire before a property is developed. They include TAUs, single- and multi-family residential units, and CFA. These incentives also apply to development in the City’s Planning Area and encourage removing development from environmental sensitive areas and transferring that development to areas for suitable for buildings and infrastructure in town centers.

NFIP Participation (1980) • The City of South Lake Tahoe has participated in the NFIP since July 3, 1978 via regular entry; the current effective map date is April 3, 20172. • The LHMP integrates information in the risk assessment on the most recent FIS completed for El Dorado County on September 26, 2008. • Reviewed repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss information from the Community Information System (CIS) and discussed the benefits of joining the CRS while also taking into account the low number of policy holders in the City (88 flood insurance policies).

Floodplain Ordinance (2001) • The City of South Lake Tahoe adopted its Floodplain Management Ordinance in 2001 which is in Chapter 6.65 of the City Code. It provides direction for new and existing developments located within SFHAs. The primary goal of this ordinance is to reduce future flood damage through the implementation of building techniques that minimize the potential loss of life and property due to development in floodplains. It references the more restrictive floodplain development standards found in the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan and the Lahontan Basin Plan. It contains six articles that cover methods of reducing flood losses, general provisions, administration related to the floodplain administrator, and various standards and provisions for flood hazard reduction.
• The Floodplain Ordinance also contains elevation and floodproofing requirements regarding residential and nonresidential construction, new or substantial improvement. Requirements related to residential construction, new or substantial improvements shall have the lowest floor, including basement follow specific building standards if located in an AO zone. For example, such construction must be elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height equal to or exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM or elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. Construction in an A zone must be elevated to or above the BFE (according to one of the methods in City Code Chapter 6.65.150(B)). Construction in all other zones shall be elevated to or above the BFE. The elevation of the lowest floor shall also be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, verified by the community building inspector, and provided to the floodplain administrator.
• The City, in cooperation with FEMA’s NFIP, has completed a re-study of the 1978 FIRM and has been revised as April 3, 2012.

City of South Lake Tahoe Capital
Improvement Program
• The City’s Engineering Division is responsible for implementation of the City’s adopted five-year CIP, which consists of a variety of projects to construct, maintain, repair, and rehabilitate the City's infrastructure, facilities, and specialized equipment.
• The City’s CIP utilizes a numerical rating system driven by the City’s five strategic priorities of: Improving the Built Environment; Public Trust and 490
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-20 City of South Lake Tahoe
Plans
How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP
Accountability; Economic Development; Partnership Development; Fiscal Sustainability.
• The City’s CIP is classified by four categories: infrastructure projects, facility projects, equipment projects and pavement management system. • The most recent and top-priority CIP projects include: D Street Public Works Facility (completed in 2019), Sierra Blvd Streetscape (completed in 2019), Lake Tahoe Blvd Bike Trail (scheduled for 2021), Bijou Park Creek SEZ/Watershed Restoration (scheduled for 2021), Upper Bijou Park Creek Restoration (scheduled for 2021), and Tahoe Valley Greenbelt (scheduled for 2021).

STPUD UWMP (2020) • STPUD is a major water supply of the City. • The core requirements for this UWMP include: 1) A description of the water service area; 2) a description of the existing and planned supply sources; 3) estimates of past, present, and projected water use; 4) 20x2020 analysis and target compliance; 5) a description of the conservation program; 6) a description of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Several of the objectives and the sustainability principles outlined in the plan will help the City mitigate drought hazards. • The UWMP was reviewed during the development of new mitigation actions to ensure the plan information is incorporated into the new mitigation actions.

City of South Lake Tahoe EOP
(July 2021)
• The EOP is a basic plan that addresses the City of South Lake Tahoe’s responsibilities in emergencies associated with natural disaster, humancaused emergencies, and technological incidents. It provides a framework for the coordination of recovery efforts within the City. • The EOP was recently updated in July 2021 and addresses current hazard issues in the City, which ties in with the hazard mitigation effort that this 2021 LHMP aims for.
• The City’s EOP has been activated over the past few years due to flooding, wildfires, and Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS).
• Also, members of the City’s Emergency Management Community Council created an Emergency Preparedness Guide to help local residents be prepared for disasters after the Angora Fire happened in June 2007.

Climate Action Plan (2020) • The City developed a CAP in 2020. • Results from the CAP was used specifically to address climate change consideration with regards to flood hazards.

Other Plans
South Lake Tahoe MSR and SOI
Update (2016)
• The MSR process is a comprehensive assessment of the ability of existing government agencies to provide services to residents and users. This review is intended to provide El Dorado LAFCo with all necessary and relevant information related to the operations and management of the City of South Lake Tahoe.
• The MSR focuses on service providers within the area of the City and will make determinations in each area of evaluation, providing the basis for El Dorado LAFCo to review possible amendments to SOI or possible reorganization, consolidation, or annexation with those other service providers.
• The MSR assessed the following areas of evaluation for the City: Growth and Population Projections, Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public 491
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-21 City of South Lake Tahoe
Plans
How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP
Service, including Infrastructure needs or Deficiencies, Financial Ability to Provide Services, Agricultural and Open Space Lands and SOI Review.

El Dorado County LHMP (2018) • Hazard profile information from the 2018 El Dorado County LHMP was incorporated throughout the LHMP, where appropriate; this included information on avalanche, drought, flood, severe weather, and earthquake hazards.
• HMPC reviewed the 2018 El Dorado County LHMP goals during the development of the City of South Lake Tahoe LHMP goals and objectives. • There are comparative tables on the hazards profiled in the State and County plan to those addressed in the Health and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan. This information was helpful for the HMPC to compare which hazards to address and which to prioritize. • El Dorado County stakeholder from the Department of Emergency Services participated in the HMPC meetings and provided mitigation goals and action strategies to consider developing in the City’s LHMP. • El Dorado County intends to update their plan in 2021; this provides the City with another opportunity to participate with hazard mitigation planning efforts in the region.

California State Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2018)
• Reviewed goals and objectives in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) and noted the new and revised hazards related to community resilience.
• Reviewed the hazards profiled in the SHMP and compared those with the hazards summarized in the City’s 2011 Health and Safety Element and the 2018 El Dorado County LHMP.
• Integrated disaster declaration information and other key findings on major hazards from the SHMP into the City’s LHMP Update. • Under 44 CFR Section 201.6, LHMPs must be consistent with the SHMP. In updating this plan, HMPC and Wood staff reviewed California’s SHMP to identify key relevant state plan elements.
• Climate change is expected to intensify existing hazards in the City.

Consistent with the organization of the 2018 California SHMP, the City and HMPC integrated a discussion of climate change hazards and considerations throughout the hazard profiles in the risk assessment.

LVFPD LHMP (2020) • Hazard profile information from the 2020 LKFPD LHMP was incorporated throughout the LHMP, where appropriate; this included information on avalanche, drought, floods, and wildfire hazards.

TRPA Regional Plan (2012) • Information from the 2012 TRPA Regional Plan’s Land Use Element and Conservation Element was incorporated throughout the LHMP, where appropriate; this included information on flood hazard and SEZs.

Douglas County, Nevada Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2019)
• Hazard profile information from the 2019 Douglas County HMP was incorporated throughout the LHMP, where appropriate; this included information on severe weather hazard.

Other documents were reviewed and considered, as appropriate, during the collection of data to support Planning Steps 4 and 5, which include the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. Appendix B References identifies additional documents and community planning efforts utilized in the development of this plan. Specific references relied on in the development of this plan are also sourced throughout the document as appropriate.
492
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-22

3.3.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks
Planning Steps 4 and 5: Identify the Hazards and Assess the Risks Wood led the HMPC in a comprehensive research effort to identify and document all the hazards that have, or could, impact the City’s Planning Area. Data collection worksheets were developed and used in this effort to aid in determining hazards and vulnerabilities and where risk varies across the Planning Area.

GIS were used to display, analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities. The HMPC conducted a capability assessment to review and document the Planning Area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk and vulnerability from hazards. By collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency plans, the HMPC could assess those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and vulnerabilities identified. Using this information, Wood developed the risk assessment portion of the plan, which contained the hazard identification, the vulnerability assessment, and the capability assessment. Wood completed the risk assessment in November 2021 and the information was presented at the second HMPC meeting on November 3, 2021. A more detailed description of the risk assessment process and the results are included in Chapter 4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. The risk assessment also included a vulnerability assessment on flooding and increased risk due to climate change.

3.3.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan
Planning Steps 6 and 7: Set Goals and Review Possible Activities Wood facilitated brainstorming and discussion sessions with the HMPC on February 4, 2022, including a description of the purpose and process of developing planning goals, as well as discussion of a comprehensive range of mitigation alternatives, and a method of selecting and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria. Additional details of the process to develop goals and actions is included in Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy. Documentation on the process the HMPC used to develop the goals and strategy is in Appendix C.

Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
Based on input from the HMPC during the February 4, 2022 meeting and from subsequent review of the draft risk assessment and the goals and activities identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, the City (with support from Wood) produced a complete first draft of the plan. This complete draft was internally circulated for HMPC review and comment in March 2022. HMPC and agency comments were integrated into the second draft in April 2022.

Public Review Draft LHMP
The Public Review Draft LHMP was advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. The City circulated the Public Review Draft LHMP for 30 days from April 25, 2022 to May 27, 2022. During this time, Wood integrated comments and issues from the public and stakeholders, as appropriate, along with additional agency and other stakeholder internal review comments. During the public review period, the City received seven comments from the public. Public comments are briefly summarized in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6 Summary of Comments Received during Public Review Comment Response
Oral Comment #1 (Oral Comment Received During Public Workshop #2) • There was a comment made about flood risk
in the State Streets neighborhood and the
need to consider implementation of additional
• The City references several new flood mitigation
projects in the mitigation strategy in Section 5.2.3,
Mitigation Action Plan that address flood risk. The City 493
Chapter 3
Planning Process
City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2021 – 2026 Page 3-23 Comment Response
flood mitigation projects in this part of the
City.
clarified that an update of the City’s floodplain
ordinance will address flood risk and added that this
mitigation action is focused on enhancing floodplain
regulations for new development and ensuring the
updated ordinance better complies with the NFIP
program requirements.

Oral Comment #2 (Oral Comment Received During Public Workshop #2) • There was a public comment about the timing
of final review before the plan is considered by
the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
• Once the public review period closes, the City will
review public comments and incorporate input and
revise the Draft LHMP that is submitted to Cal OES for
review. A summary of comments and responses to
those comments would be included in the Draft LHMP.

Cal OES has 45 days to review the plan. Once they
finalize their review, they will submit the Draft LHMP to FEMA Region IX for a second 45-day review. Once
FEMA Region IX completes review and submits a
“approvable pending adoption” letter, the City can then prepare the Final LHMP for adoption by the City
Council.

Electronic Written Comment #1
• There was a written comment on how TRPA
coverage restrictions reduce the ability for
proper defensible space.
• Comment noted. Tree removal for defensible space can
be permited through the TRPA for properties in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The TRPA was a HMPC
stakeholder involved in the development of the City’s
LHMP update. They also recognize that defensible
space maintenance is critical in managing wildfire risk in the Tahoe Basin. Additionally, most trees less than 14
inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) can be
removed without a tree removal permit, as long as the
property is not situated along the lakeshore and does
not contain trees within a SEZ or backshore area.

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilNovember 1, 2022

South Lake Tahoe City Council
November 1, 2022