Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, August 8, 2023 (part 5 of 5)

The City and the Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement and that the City will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the time specified herein, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. The City and Contractor also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving the actual loss suffered by the City if the Work is not completed within the Contract Time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, and pursuant to the Contract Documents, the City and the Contractor agree that as liquidated damages (but not as a penalty), the Contractor shall pay the City the sum of $2,000 for each calendar day beyond November 11, 2025 (Milestone 1 – Substantial Completion) and continuing until Bidder achieves Milestone #1. Contractor shall pay the City the sum of $1,500 for each calendar day beyond that portion of the Contract Time within which the Bidder is required to achieve Milestone #2, Final Completion (January 19, 2026) continuing until Bidder achieves Milestone #2.

ARTICLE 3 - CONTRACT PRICE
The City agrees to pay, and the Contractor agrees to accept, in current funds for the performance of the Work pursuant to the Contract Documents, the Base Contract Sum and the Additive Alternate Sum for the completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents per the Schedule of Values which shall be submitted within seven (7) calendar days of award and approved by City:

TOTAL BASE CONTRACT SUM $67,526,000.00
For the Total Base Contract Sum of Sixty-Seven Million, Five Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents.

Additive and Deductive Alternates:

ADDITIVE ALTERNATE SUM
1 Gymnasium Floor Staining $10,845
2 Gym Equipment and Backstops $132,500
3 HVL Ceiling Fans (2) - Gymnasium $55,400
4 Paging System (Whole Facility) $156,200
5 Card Readers $137,100
7 Integral Waterproofing at Pool Deck $14,099
TOTAL ADDITIVE ALTERNATES $506,144

DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE
6 Spray-On Fireproofing ($181,047)
TOTAL DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATES ($181,047)
GRAND TOTAL $325,097
874

Page 3 ends

TOTAL CONTRACT SUM $67,851,097.00
For the Total Contract Sum of Sixty-Seven Million, Eight Hundred Fifty-One Thousand, Ninety-Seven Dollars, and Zero Cents.

The above Total Contract Sum includes all allowances, if any, provided for in the Contract Documents.

Compensation for Unit Price Items (if any) shall be based upon the unit prices stated in the approved schedule of values multiplied by the actual quantities or units of work and materials performed or furnished. Unit prices paid by the City may change depending on actual quantities or units of work completed in accordance with the Contract Documents.

ARTICLE 4 - PREVAILING WAGES
Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code, Sections 1770 to 1780, inclusive thereof, the Contractor, and any subcontractor, of any tier, shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations.

In compliance with Senate Bill 854 and the California Labor Code, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractors must submit their certified payroll records directly to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Compliance Monitoring Unit through the electronic certified payroll reporting (eCPR) system, as well as to the City.

Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773.2, the Contractor is hereby advised that copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages and a general prevailing rate for holidays, Saturdays and Sundays and overtime work in the locality in which the Work is to be performed for each craft, classification, or type of worker required to execute the Contract, are on file in the City's office. The Contractor agrees that not less than said prevailing rates shall be paid to workers employed on this public works contract as required by Labor Code Section 1774.

These rate determinations are found on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations’ website at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

ARTICLE 5 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Agreement includes and incorporates by reference the Contract Documents for the Project, which consists of the following documents:
(a) Advertisement for Bids (00 11 13)
(b) Instructions to Bidders (00 21 13)
(c) Substitution Procedures (00 26 00)
(d) Bid Form (00 41 00)
(e) Subcontractor List (00 43 26)
(f) Proposed Schedule of Values Form (00 43 73)
875

Page 4 ends

(g) Non-Collusion Affidavit (00 45 19)
(h) Certificate of Worker's Compensation (00 45 26)
(i) Drug Free Workplace Certification (Document 00 45 27) (j) Agreement (00 52 00)
(k) Payment Bond Form (00 61 14)
(l) Performance Bond Form (00 61 13)
(m) Certification of Certified Payroll Records Submittal (00 62 92) (n) Guaranty Form (00 65 36)
(o) General Conditions (00 72 00)
(p) Project Manual Division 00 through 33 40 00
(q) Technical Specifications
(r) Contract Drawings
(s) Addenda (numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5) inclusive.
(t) Permits from other agencies as may be required by law. (u) Geotechnical Engineer Report
(v) Geotechnical Engineering Report Supplement No. 1
Exhibits to this Agreement are enumerated as follows:
• Accepted Contractor’s Bid Form attached hereto as Exhibit A; • Insurance Certificates and Endorsements as Exhibit B; and • City Business License as Exhibit C.
• Performance and Payment Bonds.

ARTICLE 6 - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of the Agreement, adequate and sufficient workers’ compensation insurance for all Contractor’s employees employed at the site of improvements, and, if any Work is sublet, Contractor shall require each subcontractor similarly to provide workers’ compensation insurance for all of the latter’s employees, unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by Contractor. If any class of employees engaged in Work under this contract at the site of the Project is not protected under workers’ compensation law, Contractor shall provide, and shall cause each subcontractor to provide, adequate insurance for the protection of employees not otherwise protected. Contractor shall indemnify the City and the County of El Dorado for any damage resulting to it from failure of 876

Page 5 ends

either Contractor or any subcontractor to take out or maintain such insurance.

By its signature upon this Agreement, Contractor certifies that it has carefully reviewed and is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation, or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the labor Code. Contractor, as a condition precedent to the commencement of its Work pursuant to the Agreement, shall comply with such provisions.

ARTICLE 7 - INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
To the fullest extent permitted by law, including, without limitation, Civil Code section 2782, et seq., and in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, City Council members, employees, agent, the County of El Dorado, the Architect/Engineer, the Project Manager, the Project consultants, and their respective principals, officers and employees, and each of them, of and from any and all claims, demands, suits, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, losses, or liability, in law or in equity, of every kind and nature whatsoever related to, arising out of, or in connection with, Contractor's operations to be performed under this Agreement, and as otherwise set forth in Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Document 00 72 00 (General Conditions Article 11). The obligations of defense and indemnity set forth in this Article, and in the Contract Documents, shall not be limited by any insurance requirements or obligations pursuant to the Contract Documents, and shall not extend to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, or the active negligence of the City. The obligations arising from this Article shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other rights or obligations of indemnity (including all duties to defend), which would otherwise exist as to a party, or person described elsewhere in the Contract Documents.

Contractor shall maintain the insurance coverage described in Document 00 72 00 (General Conditions Article 11), of the Project Manual, throughout the performance of the Agreement, including any maintenance, warranty and/or guaranty periods. This Agreement shall not be operative until evidence of such insurance has been provided to, and approved by, the City as to form, amount, and carrier. Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence Work at the Project until subcontractor provides evidence to Contractor and City that subcontractor has obtained insurance acceptable to the City.

ARTICLE 8 - NOTICES
Whenever any provision of the Contract Documents requires the giving of written notice, it shall be deemed to have been validly given if delivered in person to the individual for whom it is intended, or if delivered at or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the address listed below:

Notices required to be given to City: Notices required to be given to Contractor:

Public Works Director/City Engineer Robert J. Kjome, Executive Vice President City of South Lake Tahoe Roebbelen Contracting, Inc.
1740 D Street 1241 Hawks Flight Court
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 877

Page 6 ends

Notices required to be given to any surety(ies):

TBD
ARTICLE 9 – MISCELLANEOUS

9.1 Terms. Terms used in this Agreement will have the meanings indicated in the Contract Documents.

9.2 Assignment. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Agreement will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and, specifically but without limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents.

9.3 Successors and Assigns. City and Contractor each binds itself, its partners, successors, assign, and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents.

9.4 Severability. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any law or regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon City and Contractor, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision.

9.5 South Lake Tahoe City Code. Contractor acknowledges that all pertinent provisions within the South Lake Tahoe City Code are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full herein, and, further, the failure of Contractor or any subcontractor, of any tier, to comply with any of its/their obligations under the Contract Documents, or the requirements of the South Lake Tahoe City Code, or any other applicable law, code, statute, or regulation, shall be deemed a material breach of the Agreement.

9.6 Third Party Beneficiary. Contractor expressly acknowledges the City's status as a third party beneficiary solely with respect to the performance to be rendered under each subcontract, of any tier, upon the Project, and, as a result, Contractor acknowledges that City possesses, inter alia, the rights enumerated within the South Lake Tahoe City Code as to the enforcement of obligations under subcontracts of any tier.

9.7 Regulatory Requirements. Contractor acknowledges that the Project is subject to requirements and regulations issued on behalf of various governmental and/or regulatory bodies, including, without limitation, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, among others. Contractor agrees to fully and promptly comply with any and all requirements and regulations issued on behalf of such entities.

9.8 Governing Law. This Agreement and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of El Dorado, State of California, and governed by California 878
879

Page 8 ends

EXHIBIT A

BID FORMS
ROEBBELEN CONTRACTING, INC.
880
881
882
00 41 00
Bid Form

Page 3 ends

Addendum No. 4
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Aquatics Center Issue Date: 05/16/23 15-30160018-BN2 Revision Date: 6/12/23
CSLT – Recreation & Aquatics Center Bid Breakdown Form (Due on 6/28/23 by 2pm) Division Spec Section Description Value
Division 00 / 01 $
Div 00 Procurement and Contracting Requirements
Div 01 General Conditions/General Requirements
Site Work $
02 41 16 Structure Demo
Survey & Staking
Div 31 Earthwork, Utilities, & Paving
SWPPP
Div 33 Utilities
Site Work Finish $
32 84 00 Planting and Irrigation
32 92 00 Turf and Grasses
32 84 00 Plants
32 31 19 Decorative Metal Fences and Gates
32 33 00 Site Furnishings
Concrete $
03 10 00 Concrete Formwork and Accessories
03 21 00 Reinforcing Steel
03 30 00 Cast in Place Concrete
03 35 00 Concrete Floor Finishing
03 41 00 Structural Precast Concrete
03 45 00 Precast Architectural Concrete
03 54 00 Portland Cement Based Underlayment
Masonry $
04 05 00 Mortar and Grout
04 22 00 Concrete Unit Masonry
04 43 13 Anchored Stone Masonry Veneer
Metals $
05 12 00 Structural Steel
05 12 13 Architecturally Exposed Struct Steel
05 21 00 Steel Joists
05 30 00 Metal Decking
05 50 00 Metal Fabrication
05 51 00 Metal Stairs
883
00 41 00
Bid Form

Page 4 ends

Addendum No. 4
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Aquatics Center Issue Date: 05/16/23 15-30160018-BN2 Revision Date: 6/12/23
05 51 33 Aluminum Ladders
05 55 16 Metal Stair Nosing
05 58 13 Metal Column Covers
05 73 00 Decorative Metal Stairs and Railings
Wood, Plastics and
Composites $
06 10 00 Rough Carpentry
06 16 43 Exterior Gyp Sheathing
06 41 00 Architectural Wood Casework
06 63 10 Plastic Fabricated Benches
Thermal, Fire and Moisture
Protection $
07 10 00 Below Grade Waterproofing
07 13 26 Self-Adhering Sheet Waterproofing
07 21 00 Thermal & Sound Insulation
07 21 19 Foamed-in Place Insulation
07 22 00 Roof and Deck Insulation
07 26 16 Below Grade Vapor Retarder
07 81 00 Spray- Applied Fire Protection
07 81 23 Intumescent Fire Protection
07 84 13 Penetration Firestopping
07 92 00 Joint Protection
07 95 00 Expansion Control
Roofing Systems $
07 52 11 SBS Modified Bitumen Membrane Roofing
07 70 10 Roof Ice Melt System
07 76 00 Hybrid Pedestal System
Exterior Finishes $
07 42 13 Formed Metal Wall Panels
07 46 46 Fiber Cement Siding
07 62 00 Sheet Metal Flashing and Trim
Openings $
08 16 13 Composite Doors
08 31 13 Access Doors and Frames
08 33 13 Coiling Counter Doors
08 90 00 Louvers and Vents
Glass/Glazing $
08 41 13 Aluminum Framed Storefronts, Entrances and Window 08 43 23 Folding Glass Storefronts
08 44 13 Glazed Aluminum Curtain Walls
08 71 00 Door Hardware
884
00 41 00
Bid Form

Page 5 ends

Addendum No. 4
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Aquatics Center Issue Date: 05/16/23 15-30160018-BN2 Revision Date: 6/12/23
08 71 13 Automatic Door Operators
08 81 00 Glass Glazing
Framing/Gyp $
05 40 00 Cold Formed Metal Framing
06 16 43 Exterior Gypsum Sheathing
09 21 16 Gypsum Board
Finishes $
09 05 61 Flooring Preparation
09 25 13.23 Interior Acrylic Polymer Coating System
09 30 00 Tiling
09 64 29 Wood Strip Flooring
09 67 23 Resinous Flooring
09 51 00 Acoustical Ceilings
09 84 12 Acoustic Accessories
09 77 33 FRP Panels
09 65 00 Resilient Flooring and Base
09 68 13 Tile Carpeting
09 91 13 Exterior Painting
09 91 23 Interior Painting
09 96 00 High Performance Coatings
09 96 23 Graffiti Resistant Coatings
Specialties $
10 14 19 Dimensional Letter Signage
10 14 70 Environmental Graphics
10 21 13 Toilet Compartments
10 31 00 Manufactured Fireplaces
10 41 00
Emergency Access and Information
Cabinets
10 51 29 Phenolic Lockers
Equipment $
11 31 00 Residential Appliances
11 40 00 Food Service Equipment
11 66 23 Gymnasium Equipment
11 66 43 Scoreboards
Furnishings $
12 24 00 Window Shades
12 36 00 Countertops and Horizontal Surfaces
Special
Construction $
13 11 00 Swimming Pool General Requirements
13 11 01 Swimming Pool Excavation
885
00 41 00
Bid Form

Page 6 ends

Addendum No. 4
City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Aquatics Center Issue Date: 05/16/23 15-30160018-BN2 Revision Date: 6/12/23
13 11 02 Swimming Pool Concrete
13 11 03 Swimming Pool Shotcrete
13 11 04 Swimming Pool Ceramic Tile
13 11 05 Swimming Pool Plaster
13 11 06 Swimming Pool Equipment
13 11 07 Swimming Pool Mechanical
13 11 08 Swimming Pool Electrical
Conveying
Equipment $
14 24 00 Hydraulic Elevators
Fire Suppression $
21 00 50 Basic Fire Sprinkler Materials and Methods
21 10 00 Fire Sprinkler Systems
Plumbing & HVAC $
Div 22 Plumbing
Div 23 HVAC
Electrical $
Div 26 Electrical
Div 27 Communications
Div 28 Electronic Safety and Security
Sub-Total $
Overhead & Profit $
Payment & Performance Bond $
Insurance $
Owner Allowance - Heavy Snow Removal $ 200,000.00
Total Bid Amount $

END OF SECTION
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
South Lake Tahoe Multi-Generational
Recreation and Aquatic Center
City Council Meeting
August 8, 2023
915
Project
Timeline
• Existing Recreation Center was built (48 years ago).
1975
• DPW reported to the City Council on agency facility conditions. 2010
• City Council adopts Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan. Specifically, the Master Plan states: “Renovate and modernize the Recreation & Swim Complex to provide a state-of-the-art multipurpose, multi-generational recreation, aquatic, senior and visitor center.”
2014
• City Council appropriated funding for preliminary concepts. City Council proposed a City Transient Occupancy Tax (Measure P) to fund the project. 2015
• Measure P was passed by voters
November 2016
916
Project
Timeline 2015–2016
Public meetings were
held to receive public
input and develop
project concepts.
2017
DPW contracted with
SKD of Denver to begin
the design process.
2019
DPW contracted with
Perkins & Will to
perform conditions
assessment and
alternative analysis.
2020
City Council and County
BOS adopted resolutions to
construct a new Recreation
Center. DPW reported to
the City Council on agency
facility conditions.

July 2020
DPW contracted with
JK-Architecture of
Tahoe City for A&E
design for the new
Recreation and Aquatic
Center.
917
Design and Implementation Decisions
July 2020
Begin A&E Process
Oct. 20 &
Jan. 21
Public Workshops
Jan. 2020 –
July 2021
Schematic Design
July–Nov. 2021
Design Development
Nov. 2021
Traditional DesignBid-Build selected
Nov. 2021 –
Mar. 2022
Construction
Documents prepared
Mar.–Sep. 2022
Public Presentations
and Reviews
June 2022
Decision to split the
project into 2 phases
(Site Civil and Vertical)
July 2022
Begin Phase 1
Construction
July 2023
Complete Phase 1
Construction
918
Design and
Implementation Challenges
Design-Build vs. Design-Bid-Build
• There are advantages/disadvantages and risks with either option • City recently adopted a D-B ordinance that would give more flexibility and options to use alternative delivery methods • Design-Bid-Build traditionally provides more control by the owner for complex projects, where public input and decisions are required
• D-B provides more flexibility on schedule and cost caps Two-Phased Implementation
• The goal was to split the project into 2-phases to reduce risks related to underground work and accelerate construction work. • The city issued request for bids for the second phase on October 22, 2022. Two bids were received, and City Council rejected both bids on November 15, 2022.
• The vertical construction delay has resulted in 6 months to 1-year delay in project construction.
• However, the current bid is more favorable from a cost perspective than the last bid results.
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
Phase I – Site Work
Phase I – Site Work
was awarded to
Mcuen Construction
on June 21, 2022
Phase I is now
complete for a total
cost of
$3,245,771.65
931
Phase II:

Structure and
Vertical
Construction
Pre-Qualification was advertised on March 24,
2023
Four Firms were pre-qualified:
• Broward Builders, Inc.
• Clark/Sullivan Construction
• Devcon Construction Inc.
• Roebbelen Contracting Inc.

Project Bid was advertised on May 16, 2023
Bids were Received on June 27, 2023
• City Received one bid from Roebbelen Construction
932
Bid Results
Base Bid: $67,526,000
• Alt#1: Gymnasium Floor Staining: $10,845
• Alt#2: Gym Equipment, Backstops: $132,500
• Alt#3: HVL Fans (Add 2 to Gym): $55,400
• Alt#4: Paging Capability: $156,200
• Alt#5: Card Readers: $137,100
• Alt#6: Spray-On Fireproofing (Deduct): ($181,047)
• Alt#7: Integral Waterproofing at Pool Deck: $14,099
Alternate Bids:

Total = Base + Alts = $67,851,097
933
Bid
Comparison
(Base Items)
Engineers Estimate: $68,118,148
(Sierra Con)
Roebbelen: $67,526,000
Roebbelen’s bid is 1% below the
Engineer’s Estimate and within a
reasonable range
934
Infrastructure Inflation Indices
Industrial Bldg. Actual Cost Index
$50 M in 2019 equates to $71 M in 2023
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

90.4 94.6 100.0 103.0 108.4 132.6 141.9
935
Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. Background
Roebbelen has been in
business since 1959
Roebbelen is signatory to the
Carpenters and Laborers
unions
Roebbelen employs 200 or
more skilled tradespeople in
the field at any given time
Annual revenue is usually in
excess of $300M with a large
portion of our business
coming from the Civic, K-12,
and Corporate Contracting
markets
Roebbelen is a Sacramento
Based Contractor
Roebbelen is a certified DVBE
(Disable Veteran Business
Enterprise)
936
Project
Experience
937
Project
Experience
938
Project
Experience
939
Today’s Budget Appropriation
Item Amount
Base Construction $67,526,000
Alternates $325,097
Construction Contingency $3,392,555
Labor Compliance $50,000
Utility Fees $265,000
Inspection and Permitting $20,000
Total $71,578,652
940
Funding Overview
Source of Funds Amount
Bond Proceeds $55,000,000
Measure P Cash on Hand $12,400,000
Measure S Sales Tax $1,000,000
General Fund – Commercial Kitchen $1,900,000
ARPA - Unallocated $2,700,000
General Fund – Excess Reserves $700,000
Total $73,700,000
Today’s Budget Appropriation $71,578,652
941
Other Costs (to be allocated later)
Item Amount
Construction Management $1,000,000
Special Inspection $650,000
Commissioning $200,000
Incentive Bonus (If needed) $225,000
Total $2,075,000
942
Items Earmarked
for Fundraising
through the
South Lake
Tahoe Parks
Foundation
Item Amount
Kitchen, Gym, Pool, and $100,000
Maintenance
(Operational Daily Use)
AV and Computer Equipment $175,000
Public Art $100,000
Furniture and Gym Equipment $680,000
(FF&E)
Total $1,055,000
943
Project Time-Line
2023 2004 2025 2026
Final
Completion:

Jan 19, 2026
Substantial
Completion:

Nov. 11, 2025
Start of Main
Construction:

May 1, 2024
Recommend to
Award:

August 8, 2023
NTP: August 23
944
Questions
945
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Agenda Item #:14
Agenda Item: Heavenly Valley Neighborhood Traffic and Parking Plan and Negotiations with Heavenly Resort Related to On-Street Parking Agreement
Executive Summary: During the winter of 2022-23, City staff received several complaints and concerns from the residents of the Heavenly Valley neighborhood regarding traffic congestion, overflow parking, illegal parking, and general nuisance in the area during winter periods. Staff organized a public meeting on May 15, 2023, and presented options to the City Council on June 6, 2023, for neighborhood preservations, including reduction of on-street parking in the current Heavenly agreement and restriction of seasonal parking within the Heavenly Valley residential neighborhood with additional No Parking or Residential Parking permit program. This agenda item proposed establishing a "No Parking or Residential Parking" zone in the Heavenly Valley Neighborhood, establishing a Chain Control Ordinance and Angle Parking Ordinance, and providing an update on negotiations with Heavenly Resort regarding modification to the current on-street agreement. This item also provides an option for the City Council to terminate the existing agreement by directing the City Attorney to terminate the agreement with 180-day notice.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to 1) Hold the first reading (by title only) of an Ordinance amending South Lake Tahoe City Code, Title 4, Chapter 4.25, by adding Article IX (Chain Control Zone), and refer the second reading and adoption to the September 12, 2023 meeting; 2) Hold the first reading (by title only) of an Ordinance amending City of South Lake Tahoe City Code Section

4.25.420 to establish Angle Parking on the East Side of Ski Run Boulevard from David Lane to Regina Road and Removing Outdated Angle Parking Areas, and refer the second reading and adoption to September 12, 2023 meeting; 3) Pass a Resolution Establishing Seasonal No Parking Restrictions and Residential Parking Permit zones on Certain Streets in the Heavenly Valley Neighborhoods; 4) Pass a Resolution appropriating $200,000 from the Parking Bellamy Court Fund Available Fund Balance and Authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary purchase orders for implementation of the No Parking and Residential Parking Permit program in Heavenly Valley Neighborhood; and 5) Provide direction to City staff to either continue negotiating with Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership for OnStreet Parking related to the Heavenly Resort area or to terminate the current Agreement with Heavenly with 180-days of notice.

Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works, David Stevenson, Chief of Police Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_-_Heavenly_On-Street_Parking_Agreement.docx 02_-_Chain_Control_Ordinance.docx
03 - Ordinance Angle Parking
04-Ordinance Angle Parking (redline).pdf
05 - Resolution_No_Parking_Zones_Final_Revised.docx
06-Resolution_Heavenly_Valley_Funding_for_Parking_Permit_Program.docx 07-C-81-13 Heavenly 2013 Agreement
08- Presentation - Heavenly Parking
946
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Title: Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership On-Street Parking Agreement and Neighborhood Parking and Traffic Protection Plan
Location: Heavenly Valley Neighborhood
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works - (530) 542-6031 David Stevenson, Chief of Police – (530) 542-6120
Background: On September 17, 2013, the City entered into an agreement with Heavenly Valley LP (now Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership d/ba/ Heavenly Mountain Resort (Heavenly)) to allow parking on certain roadways near the Heavenly Resort to ease traffic congestion and provide additional parking for employees and tourists. This agreement stipulates that Heavenly can use certain roadways as overflow parking (See Attachment 07). There are additional requirements for snow plowing, sanding, payment of $20,000 annually for using City streets as overflow parking, and payment for sanding recovery by City forces.

During the winter of 2022-23, City staff received several complaints and concerns from the residents of the Heavenly Valley neighborhood regarding traffic congestion, overflow parking, illegal parking, and general nuisance in the area during winter periods. Staff organized a public meeting on May 15, 2023, and presented options to the City Council on June 6, 2023, for neighborhood preservations, including reduction of on-street parking in the current Heavenly agreement and restriction of seasonal parking within the Heavenly Valley residential neighborhood with additional No Parking or Residential Parking permit program. A series of short-term, midterm, and long-term solutions were presented, and City Council passed a motion generally approving these recommendations.

Issue and Discussion:

A. Agreement with Heavenly/Vail Resorts: In order to address the resident’s concerns and issues raised by the public, staff is proposing changes to the Heavenly Agreement, as shown in Table “A” below. During the last two months, staff has been negotiating a new agreement. These changes were developed based on comments received from the public and City Council. Staff has discussed these changes to the agreement term with Heavenly and is continuing to finalize the final language of the agreement, which is mutually acceptable to both parties.

Table A – Proposed Changes to the Term of Agreement with Heavenly Item Description Current Term Proposed Term
Term Exclusive Use Non-Exclusive Use
Payment $20,000 per year $155,200 (Based on the number of parking spaces x $10/day x 40 days per
year overflow parking (388 x 10 x 40)
947
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 5
Item Description Current Term Proposed Term
On-Street Parking 1. Angle parking spaces on the east side of Ski Run Boulevard and parallel
parking on the west side of Ski Run
Blvd between David Lane and Needle
Peak Road.

2. Angle parking spaces on east side of
Ski Run Boulevard and parallel
parking on the west side of Ski Run
between Needle Peak and Regina
Road.

3. Parallel parking spaces on Saddle
Road between Wildwood Avenue and
Ski Run Boulevard.

4. Parallel parking spaces on the north
side of Needle Peak Road between
Wildwood Avenue and Keller Road.

5. Parallel parking spaces on the north
side of Regina Road between
Wildwood Avenue and Keller Road.

6. Parallel parking spaces on the west
and north sides of Keller Road
between Saddle Road and the Saddle
Road return Loop.

1. Angle parking spaces on the east
side of Ski Run Boulevard and
parallel parking on the west side of
Ski Run Blvd between David Lane
and Needle Peak Road.

2. Angle parking spaces on the east
side of Ski Run Boulevard and
parallel parking on the west side of
Ski Run Boulevard between Needle
Peak and Regina Road.

3. Parallel parking spaces on north side
of Saddle Road between Wildwood
Avenue and Ski Run Boulevard.

4. Parallel parking spaces on the west
and north sides of Keller Road
between Saddle Road and the
Saddle Road return loop.

Note: Parking on Needle Peak Road
and Regina Road are eliminated and
no longer allowed.

Snow Removal and
Deicer Application
Heavenly may remove snow at its
discretion using its own equipment and
apply deicer and abrasives using its
own equipment as it deems
necessary to achieve the stated
purposes of this agreement
Heavenly shall remove snow using its
own or contracted equipment and apply
deicer and abrasives using its own or
contracted equipment to achieve the
stated purposes of this agreement.

Note: Snow Removal is a primary
function of Heavenly along these
roadways:

1. Lower Ski Run Boulevard between
Needle Peak Road and Pioneer Trail.

2. Upper Ski Run Boulevard between
Needle Peak Road and Regina
Saddle Road.

3. Wildwood Avenue between Needle
Peak Road and Saddle Road.

4. Needle Peak Road between Ski Run
Boulevard and Wildwood Avenue.

5. Saddle Road between Ski Run
Boulevard and Wildwood Avenue.

6. Keller Road above Saddle Road up
to Sherman Way.
948
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 3 of 5
Item Description Current Term Proposed Term
Street Sweeping Heavenly will pay one-half of the actual costs of recovery of abrasives that
either Heavenly or the City has put
down during the winter season.

Heavenly will pay a flat fee of $3,500
annually for street sweeping to recover
abrasives that either Heavenly or the
City has put down on the streets.

Street Repair Heavenly shall reimburse the City for
the cost of any road repair work
required as a result of damage caused
by Heavenly's negligent use of its snow
removal or deicer equipment.

Heavenly shall reimburse the City for
the cost of any road repair work
required as a result of damage caused
by Heavenly’s negligent use of its snow
removal or deicer equipment, plus pay a
one-time payment of $217,222 (42%
of Ski Run repair costs).

Chain Control None Heavenly will station a minimum of one staff member to monitor vehicle access
on Ski Run Road south of Pioneer Trail
during Chain Control. See Chain
Control Ordinance (Attachment 02).

Changeable
Message Sigs
None Heavenly will deploy three (3) portable
Changeable Message Signs (CMS) at
major decision points to inform
motorists of road and parking
conditions.

Transit Service None During the first year, Heavenly will use 100% of the funds generated from the
Parking Lot revenue toward transit
service. The revenue will be used for
both transit and operational service for
subsequent years.

Coordination
Meetings
None Bi-Weekly Meeting during winter
conditions
Negotiations with Heavenly have been promising but remain ongoing. City Staff plans to continue to negotiate and, if successful, finalize the Agreement Terms and bring the final version for approval on September 12, 2023. Alternatively, City Council can terminate the Agreement by providing a 180-day notice to Heavenly/Vail now or on September 12, 2023, if a mutually acceptable agreement is not reached. However, the termination of the Agreement notice now will still allow on-street parking until February/May 2024 under the current agreement.

B. Neighborhood Protection Plan: In order to mitigate any potential overflow parking along residential streets in the Heavenly Valley neighborhood, staff is proposing establishing Seasonal No Parking Restrictions in the Heavenly Valley neighborhood, which typically consist of Residential Parking on one-side of the roadway and No Parking on the other side. For certain roadways with limited width, No Parking is recommended on both sides. (See Attached Resolution 05). The roadways that currently have No Parking will remain unchanged. The 949
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 4 of 5
parking restriction will include all residential streets within a half-mile of Heavenly Lodge between November 1 to May 1.

Staff also proposes changing the parking fines from $75 to $300 per Council recommendation.

The change to the parking fine will require an amendment to the Master Fee Schedule, which will be scheduled for September 12, 2023, Council Agenda.

C. Chain Control Plan and Other Ordinance Changes
Finally, to create a safer driving environment during winter conditions, due to steep grades in the Heavenly Valley area, staff is proposing the adoption of a Chain Control Ordinance on certain streets and recommended establishing a Chain Control Zone on certain Streets including Ski Run Boulevard, Wildwood Avenue, Keller Road, Need Peak Road, Saddle Road, and Regina Road, east of Pioneer Trail, to be activated when winter conditions warrant upon the order of the Police Chief.

Staff recommends establishing a chain control checkpoint on Ski Run Boulevard near David Lane, where vehicles without tire traction devices or four-wheel drive with snow-tread tires will be turned back. The Chief of Police recommends establishing a fine of $205 for drivers of vehicles operating within the Chain Control Zone without tire chains or four-wheel drive with snow-tread tires during times when the Police Chief has issued an order activating the Chain Control Zone (See Attachment 02, Chain Control Ordinance).

In addition, City must establish “Angle Parking” by Ordinance to allow parking on Ski Run. The attached Ordinance establishes Angle Parking on Ski Run and updates all Angle Parking in the City. (See Attachments 03 and 04 (Redline Version)).

D. Summary
If adopted, these upgrades, plus the changes in the proposed revision to the Agreement with Heavenly, will address the short-term and mid-term solutions proposed during the June 6th meeting. Other long-term concepts that were presented on June 6, 2023, include:
1) New Parking Garage with some type of transit connection to Heavenly Lodge; 2) Construction of a Pedestrian/Bike Path on Ski Run/Needle Peak/ Wildwood to separate the vehicle from pedestrians to improve safety.

These longer-term projects will be evaluated with future CIP programs. Currently, there is no funding for these projects, and cost-sharing with Heavenly and other parties may be required to fund these projects.

Financial Implications: Staff is requesting $80,000 in funding for the purchase of signs and posts, $20,000 for the initial implementation of the Residential Parking Permit Program (“RPPP”), and $100,000 for the installation of the signs. The City can purchase the signs and posts, and due to staffing issues and timeline, staff proposes to retain a contractor to install the signs before the winter season. To fund these needs, staff is proposing to use the available fund balance in the Enterprise Fund 510 Parking Bellamy Court. This fund receives its revenues from the parking meters installed around the parking garage. This funding source is appropriate to use to address the existing parking issues in the Heavenly Valley neighborhood. The attached Resolution 950
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 5 of 5
(Attachment 06) includes the total appropriations of $200,000 from the available fund balance in Fund 510 Parking Bellamy Court as follows: $180,000 into a new Capital Improvement Project account Heavenly Valley Traffic Safety 301-50048- (36352 Transfer In, 45017 Signs Supplies, and 42025 Contract Services for installation), and $20,000 into Parking Management Program Account 515-05330 (36352 Transfer In, 45010 General Supplies) for RPPP set-up.

Environmental Considerations: The actions proposed in this item are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

Policy Implications: This project advances the City Council Strategic Priorities and Goals related to traffic safety and neighborhood preservation. 951
Ordinance 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 1 of 3
Ordinance 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
September 12, 2023
An Ordinance Amending South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 4, Chapter 4.25 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic) to Add Article IX (Chain Control Zone) to Establish a Chain Control Zone on Certain Streets in the Heavenly Valley Neighborhood

FINDINGS
A. The city streets leading up to the Heavenly California Base are steep and become icy and slick in winter conditions, which has led to an increasing number of accidents and vehicles becoming stuck and blocking snow removal operations, especially vehicles without proper traction such as tire chains or four-wheel drive with snow-tread tires, further exacerbating the public safety issues on these streets and in surrounding neighborhoods.

B. As part of the ongoing effort to improve parking and traffic conditions in the Heavenly Valley neighborhood, especially during winter conditions and the Heavenly ski season, the Public Works Director/City Traffic Engineer and Police Chief have recommended establishing a Chain Control Zone on certain Streets including Ski Run Boulevard, Wildwood Avenue, Keller Road, Needle Peak Road, Saddle Road, and Regina Road, to be activated when winter conditions warrant upon the order of the Police Chief.

C. The Public Works Director/City Traffic Engineer and Police Chief intend to establish a chain control checkpoint on Ski Run Boulevard near David Lane, where vehicles without tire traction devices or four-wheel drive with snow-tread tires will be turned back.

D. The Public Works Director/City Traffic Engineer and Police Chief recommend establishing a fine of $205 for drivers of vehicles operating within the Chain Control Zone without tire chains or four-wheel drive with snow-tread tires during times when the Police Chief has issued an order activating the Chain Control Zone.

E. The City has authority to establish a chain control zone on highways (including city streets) under California Vehicle Code section 27459.

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

SECTION 1. South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 4, Chapter 4.25 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic), is hereby amended to add Article IX (Chain Control Zone) as follows:
952
Ordinance 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 2 of 3
Article IX. Chain Control Zone

4.25.810 Chain Control Zone Established.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle without tire traction devices on the following streets during times when the Police Chief has issued an order activating the chain control zone and chain control zone signage is in place:

Streets east of Pioneer Trail between the intersection with Price Road and the intersection with Keller Road:

A. Ski Run Boulevard south of Pioneer Trail;
B. Wildwood Avenue south of Pioneer Trail;
C. Keller Road south of Pioneer Trail;
D. Needle Peak Road;
E. Saddle Road; and
F. Regina Road.

4.25.820 Required Tire Traction Devices.

A. Tire traction devices are devices or mechanisms having a composition and design capable of improving vehicle traction, braking, and cornering ability upon snow or icecovered surfaces, such as chains or cables. Tire traction devices shall meet the requirements in California Vehicle Code section 605, as may be amended from time to time.

B. Snow-tread tires shall be of a type and design manufactured for use on snow as a replacement for tire traction devices, shall be in good condition, and shall bear the marking of M-S, M/S, or other marking indicating that the tire was manufactured for use on snow.

C. When the chain control zone is activated and chain control signage is in place, tire traction devices shall be placed on at least two drive wheels, or in the alternative, fourwheel drive vehicles may be equipped with snow-tread tires on all four wheels.

4.25.830 Penalty.

Any person violating the provisions of this article shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $205 or a greater amount set by resolution of the city council.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. 953
Ordinance 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 3 of 3
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that adoption of the proposed Ordinance is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) because the Ordinance is general policy and procedure making.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after the date of its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on September 12, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
954
Resolution 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Ordinance 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
September 12, 2023
An Ordinance Amending South Lake Tahoe City Code Section 4.25.420 to Establish Angle Parking on the East Side of Ski Run Boulevard from David Lane to Regina Road and Remove Outdated Angle Parking Areas

FINDINGS
A. As part of the ongoing effort to improve parking and traffic conditions in the Heavenly Valley neighborhood, especially during winter conditions and the Heavenly ski season, the Public Works Director/City Traffic Engineer has recommended angle parking on the east side of Ski Run Boulevard from David Lane to Regina Road.

B. The Public Works Director/City Traffic Engineer recommends removing outdated angle parking areas referencing sections of Ski Run Boulevard where angle parking is no longer used or needed, and updating the segment of Harrison Avenue where angle parking is installed.

C. Under California Vehicle Code section 22503, a local authority may adopt an ordinance to permit angle parking on any roadway.

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

SECTION 1. Section 4.25.420 (Manner of parking – Angle parking) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Angle parking is permitted upon the following city streets upon the following conditions:

A. Upon the westerly side of Harrison Avenue between San Jose Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue; provided that, no portion of any stopped or parked vehicle shall extend over the roadway side of a white line painted upon the road surface parallel to and eight feet from the westerly boundary line of the right-of-way of such Harrison Avenue.

B. Upon the easterly side of Ski Run Boulevard between David Lane and Regina Road; provided that, the front of the vehicle is parked within 18 inches of the edge of the rolled curb and entirely within any white lines painted on the road surface designating parking spaces.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, 955
Resolution 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 2 of 2
such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that adoption of the proposed Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) because the Ordinance addresses parking striping and regulations on an existing roadway.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after the date of its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on September 12, 2023, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
956

4.25.420 Manner of parking – Angle parking.

Angle parking is permitted upon the following city streets upon the following conditions:

A. Upon the westerly side of Harrison Avenue between Lakeview San Jose Avenue and Modesto Los Angeles Avenue; provided, that no portion of any stopped or parked vehicle shall extend over the roadway side of a white line painted upon the road surface parallel to and eight feet from the westerly boundary line of the right-of-way of such Harrison Avenue.

B. Upon the easterly side of Ski Run Boulevard between David Lane and Regina Road; provided that, the front of the vehicle is parked within 18 inches of the edge of the pavement and entirely within any white lines painted on the road surface designating parking spaces.Upon those portions of Ski Run Boulevard from its intersection with State Route No. 11 (U.S. Highway 50) to its westerly terminus at the southerly extension of the westerly boundary line of Lakeside Avenue, marked by white lines painted on the road surface designating angle parking; provided, that the vehicle is parked wholly within the white lines designating a single parking space.

C. Upon the southwesterly side of Ski Run Boulevard from its intersection with Forest View Heights Road to a point 300 feet northwesterly along the right-of-way boundary of such Ski Run Boulevard from such intersection; provided, that the front of the vehicle is parked within 18 inches of the curbing provided at the edge of such road and entirely within any white lines painted on the road surface designating parking spaces.

D. Upon both sides of Ski Run Boulevard between Lakeside Avenue and Mackedie Way; provided, that the vehicle is parked wholly within the white lines designating a single parking place, and within eight feet of the right-of-way of Ski Run Boulevard. 957
Resolution 2023-XXX August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 3
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
August 8, 2023
Establishing Seasonal or Permanent No Parking Restrictions on Certain Streets in the Heavenly Valley Neighborhoods

BACKGROUND
A. As part of the ongoing effort to improve parking and traffic conditions in the Heavenly Valley neighborhoods, especially during winter conditions and the Heavenly ski season, the Public Works Director/City Traffic Engineer recommends establishing certain residential streets as no parking areas or Residential Parking Permit (RPP) from November 1 to May 1.

B. Under South Lake Tahoe City Code section 4.25.300(C) and California Vehicle Code section 22507(a), the City Council is authorized to establish no parking areas by resolution and enforce the no parking areas once appropriate signage is installed.

C. If the City Council adopts an ordinance to authorize residential permit parking under California Vehicle Code section 22507(a), then the Public Works Director/Traffic Engineer will propose modifications to this resolution to authorize residential permit parking on one or both sides of those streets where residents have indicated sufficient support for such a program.

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

1. Establishes no parking areas from November 1 to May 1, or maintains permanent no parking areas where such areas already exist, on the following streets and segments of streets:
a. Bridle Road (RPP on the northerly side and No Parking on southerly side) b. Bonita Road (No Parking on the northerly side and RPP on the southerly side) c. Donner Lane (RPP on the westerly side and No Parking on the easterly side) d. Keller Road from intersection with Sherman Way to intersection with Saddle Road (No Parking on easterly side and southerly side )
e. Keller Road from intersection with Saddle Road to intersection with Regina (RPP on northerly side (450 feet west of Saddle) and No Parking on southerly side) 958
Resolution 2023-XXX August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 3
f. Keller Road from intersection with Regina Road to intersection with Markoffer Way (No Parking both sides)
g. Knoll Lane (RPP on easterly side and No Parking on westerly side) h. Logroad Place (No Parking both sides)
i. Lucinda Court (RPP on westerly side and No Parking on easterly side) j. June Way (No Parking both sides)
k. MacKedie Way (No Parking both sides)
l. Needle Peak Road from intersection with Keller Road to intersection with Wildwood Avenue (RPP on southerly side and No Parking on northerly side) m. Overlook Court (No Parking both sides)
n. Regina Avenue from intersection with Wildwood Avenue to intersection with Keller Road (RPP on easterly side and No Parking on westerly side) o. Saddle Road from intersection of Saddle to Keller Road (No Parking both sides) p. Saddle Road from intersection of Keller Road to Wildwood Avenue (No Parking both sides)
q. Saddle Road from intersection of Wildwood Avenue to Ski Run Blvd (No Parking on southerly side)
r. Saddle Road from intersection of Ski Run Blvd to end (No Parking both sides) s. Sherman Way (No Parking both sides)
t. Ski Run Boulevard from intersection of Pioneer Trail to David Lane (No Parking both sides)
u. Ski Run Boulevard from intersection of MacKedie Way to intersection of Saddle Road (No Parking both sides)
v. Timber Lake Place (No Parking both sides)
w. Terrace Drive (No Parking both sides)
x. Wildwood Avenue from intersection with Saddle Road to intersection with Overlook Court (No Parking both sides)
y. Wildwood Road (No Parking both sides)
z. Woods Avenue (No Parking both sides)
aa.Verdon Lane (No Parking both sides)

2. Amends the Master Fee Schedule to add a Parking Citation fine of $300 for parking in one of the no parking areas listed in this Resolution.
959
Resolution 2023-XXX August 8, 2023 Page 3 of 3
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on August 8, 2023, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

BACKGROUND
A. City staff has received several requests regarding traffic congestion and parking impacts in the Heavenly Valley neighborhood during winter seasons due to parking overflow from the Heavenly/Vail Resort.

B. City staff met and discussed the traffic congestion and parking impacts with the neighborhood on May 15, 2023.

C. City staff presented options to the City Council on June 6, 2023, and City Council supported the implementation of additional No Parking zones and deploying a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) in the residential areas and on designated roadways, in addition to increasing the parking fines.

D. City staff has introduced an Ordinance to implement Residential Parking Permit Program on a citywide basis.

E. City staff can implement the proposed mitigations through procurement of the equipment and materials necessary to install additional signs and implement the Residential Parking Permit Program for the Heavenly Valley neighborhood.

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

1. Appropriates $200,000 from the Parking Bellamy Court Fund 510 available fund balance to the following accounts: 1) $180,000 to the new CIP Account Heavenly Valley Traffic Safety 301-50048-(36352, 45017 and 42025) for purchasing signs and posts ($80,000) and installation of the signs ($100,000); and 2) $20,000 to Parking Management Program Account 515-05330 (36352 and 45010) for RPPP set-up.

2. Authorizes and directs the City Manager to sign the necessary Purchase Orders in accordance with the City’s Procurement policy for the equipment and materials necessary for the proposed additional No Parking and Residential Parking Permit Program for the Heavenly Valley neighborhood.
961
Resolution 2023-XXX August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on August 8, 2023, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, 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.
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
Heavenly Valley Parking and
Traffic Management Plan
Council Presentation – August 8, 2023
972
Community
Input
973
Heavenly Village Parking and Traffic Issue and Potential Solutions Issues Potential Countermeasures
 Double Parking on Regina.
 Parking concerns on Keller.
 Parking concerns along Needle Peak.
 Parking in No Parking Zones.
 Traffic Bypass traffic along Verndon.
 Skidding and Traffic Hazards during major
snowfall/ice build-up.
 Traffic congestion and parking issues when onstreet parking is full.  Pedestrian Safety Issues.
 Spillover parking from Heavenly Lodge Parking
Area.
 Reduce on-Street Parking in the area.
 Prohibit On-Street Parking between November 1 to May 1 in residential areas, allowing residential parking permits.  More parking enforcement.
 Institute chain control measure at the bottom of the Ski Run (will apply to all vehicles).
 Add Tow Signs.
 Increase Parking Fines and Towing.
 Provide accurate traveler information at decision points to inform visitors when parking lot and on-street parking is full.  Heavenly to explore transit options.
 City to explore other means to bring visitors to Heavenly Lodge
974
Recommended Short-Term Solutions
• Establishing seasonal No Parking or Residential Parking Permits zones in residential streets subject to an overflow impact. The average zone of parking impact is estimated to be about half-mile from the Heavenly Lodge. No Parking or Residential Permit will only be effective from November 1 to May 1. • Add Tow-Away underplate.
• Increase the No Parking violation fine from $75 to $300. • Implement a Chain Control Area at the bottom of the Ski Run with a $205 fine for violation.
• Improve coordination with Heavenly/Vail Resort during winter weather events. 975
Potential Long-Term Solutions
Long-term projects are conceptual only and require more detailed evaluation, direction from City Council, and inclusion in City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Currently, there is no funding for these projects, and cost-sharing with Heavenly and other parties may be required to fund these projects.  A new Parking Garage with transit connection to Heavenly Lodge  Construction of Pedestrian/Bike Path on Ski Run/Needle Peak/ Wildwood to separate the vehicle from pedestrians to improve safety. 976
Item Description Current Term Proposed Term
Term Exclusive Use Non-Exclusive Use
Payment $20,000 per year $155,200 per year (Based on the number of parking spaces x $10/day x 40 days per year overflow parking
(388 x 10 x 40)
On-Street Parking 1. Angle parking spaces on the east side of Ski Run Boulevard and parallel parking on the west side of Ski Run Blvd
between David Lane and Needle Peak Road.

2. Angle parking spaces on east side of Ski Run Boulevard and parallel parking on the west side of Ski Run between Needle Peak and Regina Road.

3. Parallel parking spaces on Saddle Road between
Wildwood Avenue and Ski Run Boulevard.

4. Parallel parking spaces on the north side of Needle Peak Road between Wildwood Avenue and Keller Road.

5. Parallel parking spaces on the north side of Regina Road between Wildwood Avenue and Keller Road.

6. Parallel parking spaces on the west and north sides of Keller Road between Saddle Road and the Saddle Road
return Loop.

1. Angle parking spaces on the east side of Ski Run
Boulevard and parallel parking on the west side of
Ski Run Blvd between David Lane and Needle Peak
Road.

2. Angle parking spaces on the east side of Ski Run
Boulevard and parallel parking on the west side of
Ski Run Boulevard between Needle Peak and
Regina Road.

3. Parallel parking spaces on north side of Saddle
Road between Wildwood Avenue and Ski Run
Boulevard.

4. Parallel parking spaces on the west and north sides
of Keller Road between Saddle Road and the
Saddle Road return loop.

Note: Parking on Needle Peak Road and Regina Road
are eliminated and no longer allowed.
977
Item Description Current Term Proposed Term
Snow Removal
and Deicer
Application
Heavenly may remove snow at its discretion using its
own equipment and apply deicer and abrasives using
its own equipment as it deems
necessary to achieve the stated purposes of this
agreement
Heavenly shall remove snow using its own or
contracted equipment and apply deicer and
abrasives using its own or contracted equipment
to achieve the stated purposes of this
agreement.

Note: Snow Removal will be primary function of
Heavenly along these roadways:

1. Lower Ski Run Boulevard between Needle
Peak Road and Pioneer Trail.

2. Upper Ski Run Boulevard between Needle
Peak Road and Regina Saddle Road.

3. Wildwood Avenue between Needle Peak
Road and Saddle Road.

4. Needle Peak Road between Ski Run
Boulevard and Wildwood Avenue.

5. Saddle Road between Ski Run Boulevard
and Wildwood Avenue.

6. Keller Road above Saddle Road up to
Sherman Way. 978
Item Description Current Term Proposed Term
Street Sweeping Heavenly will pay one-half of the actual costs of recovery of abrasives that either Heavenly or the City
has put down during the winter season.

Heavenly will pay a flat fee of $3,500 annually for
street sweeping to recover abrasives that either
Heavenly or the City has put down on the
streets.

Street Repair Heavenly shall reimburse the City for the cost of any road repair work required as a result of damage
caused by Heavenly's negligent use of its snow
removal or deicer equipment.

Heavenly shall reimburse the City for the cost of
any road repair work required as a result of
damage caused by Heavenly’s negligent use of
its snow removal or deicer equipment, plus pay
a one-time payment of $217,222 (42% of Ski Run
repair costs).

Chain Control None Heavenly will station a minimum of one staff member to monitor vehicle access on Ski Run
Road south of Pioneer Trail during Chain Control.

See Chain Control Ordinance.
979
Item Description Current Term Proposed Term
Changeable
Message Sigs
None Heavenly will deploy three (3) portable
Changeable Message Signs (CMS) at major
decision points to inform motorists of road and
parking conditions.

Transit Service None During the first year, Heavenly will use 100% of the funds generated from the Parking Lot
revenue toward transit service. The revenue will
be used for both transit and operational service
for subsequent years.

Coordination
Meetings
None Bi-Weekly Meeting during winter conditions
980
981
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Agenda Item #:15
Agenda Item: Supplemental Analysis of Tiered Inclusionary Housing Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Executive Summary: The City Council provided direction to staff to prepare additional analysis of a potential tiered inclusionary housing policy. The analysis was completed and is presented with the intent of informing the direction regarding the creation of an inclusionary housing ordinance for future adoption by the City Council.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion directing staff to draft a Tiered Inclusionary Housing Requirement Ordinance for presentation and adoption by the City Council.

Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager
Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_-_Tiered_Inclusionary_Analysis.docx
02-Supplemental_Tiered_Analysis_FINAL.pdf
982
Council Agenda Report- August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Title: Supplemental Analysis of Tiered Inclusionary Housing Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Location: City-wide
Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager
Background: At its January 24, 2023 meeting, the City Council was presented the Analysis of Local Funding Sources for Housing Initiatives report (Report) that analyzed eight different local discretionary funding sources that could provide revenue to fund the City’s housing initiatives.

Upon receiving the presentation, the Council provided direction to staff to conduct further stakeholder outreach on the potential implementation of a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and a Real Estate Vacancy Tax. The Council also requested that additional nexus and feasibility analysis be completed to further inform discussion about a potential inclusionary housing percentage and in-lieu fee.

The supplemental nexus and feasibility analysis was presented to the City Council on May 2. After receiving the presentation, holding public comment and engaging in Council discussion, direction was provided for staff to conduct enhanced analysis of inclusionary housing and commercial linkage fee policies.

At its June 6, 2023 meeting the City Council approved a scope of work and budget to include the following:
 Enhanced Residential Nexus and Feasibility Analysis
 Coordination with HCD for Regulatory Compliance
 Enhanced Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus and Feasibility Analysis  Additional Meeting Attendance
Issue and Discussion: The primary focus of the additional analysis is to inform the discussion of a tier based inclusionary housing policy. Additionally, the analysis further reviews and updates the nexus and feasibility analysis contained in the original report presented to the City Council on January 24, 2023.

While not central to the analysis, the scope also included a task to prepare materials necessary to facilitate a review of the City’s inclusionary housing proposal by HCD to ensure consistency with AB1505. Upon consultation with HCD this task has been determined to be unnecessary at this time.
983
Council Agenda Report- August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 4
Analysis Summary and Recommendation
The supplemental study provides a nexus and feasibility analysis of a tier-based inclusionary housing policy. The analysis includes a recommendation to base tiers on unit size rather than unit value due to the challenges of verifying applicant provided value information and potential costs associated with collecting fees after construction once a final assessment by El Dorado County is issued. Therefore, nexus and feasibility analysis are provided based on single-family, condominium, and multi-family unit size.

The attached report provides extensive detail on the analysis conducted on the induced workforce demand created by each development type. This in turn determines the recommended inclusionary percentage for each building type.

The feasibility study component of the analysis determined the induced workforce housing demand and equivalent in-lieu fee necessary to mitigate the housing impact associated with each development type as well as the ability for each development type to absorb the associated in-lieu fee. This analysis considered the “net gap” as well as the total cost of providing the induced workforce housing.

The analysis concludes that single-family and condominium projects with units less than 2,000 square feet and multi-family rental units generally cannot absorb the cost of an inclusionary housing requirement. Staff is recommending that these projects be exempt, as well as construction of any residential units that are deed restricted for tenants with income at or below moderate income.

The analysis also concluded that for sale single-family and condominium projects have an increased ability to absorb an inclusionary requirement as unit size gets larger. Staff is recommending that the rate associated with the “net gap” equivalent (subsidy needed to develop affordable housing after outside grants and funding sources) be applied to units between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet and that the rate associated with the total cost of developing affordable housing be applied to units greater than 3,000 square feet in order to incentivize development of smaller units. This recommendation is consistent with the workforce housing demand nexus and feasibility analysis.

Recommended Inclusionary Percentage and In-Lieu Fee Amounts for Single-Family Homes and Condominiums
Inclusionary
Percentage
Equivalent In-Lieu
Fee Per Unit
In-Lieu Fee
2,000 Sq. Ft or Under Exempt
2,001-2,500 Sq. Ft. 5% Net Gap $5.29 Sq. Ft.
2,501-3,000 Sq. Ft. 6% Net Gap $5.84 Sq. Ft.
3,001-5,000Sq. Ft. 9% Total Cost $16.77 Sq. Ft
>5,000 Sq. Ft. 17% Total Cost $17.65 Sq. Ft
While all analysis conducted has been thorough and consistent with industry best practices, no amount of analysis can consider every conceivable variable in the market place. Similarly, no housing policy can be made to account for every variable that may exist. The above table provides 984
Council Agenda Report- August 8, 2023 Page 3 of 4
the recommended parameters for an inclusionary housing policy that can be easily and cost effectively implemented. It is based on thorough analysis while also representing a reasonable fit for the most likely to occur development scenarios. Furthermore, it seeks to incentivize the development of smaller units, which are most likely to be used as local residential housing stock.

Unlike the large-scale residential development projects common in many other cities, most market-rate residential development in the City consists of the construction of a single home or perhaps a small residential development. As such, most projects would not be large enough to trigger on-site mitigation and would by default be subject to the in-lieu fee. However, for projects that are large enough to potentially provide on-site mitigation, staff recommends that ability to do so at the above noted percentage corresponding with the size of the unit constructed.

Upon receiving direction from City Council on this framework and rate structure, a complete draft of the ordinance will be presented for consideration for adoption.

This analysis includes only that related to inclusionary housing. Further analysis and recommendations on a commercial linkage fee policy is scheduled to be provided at the September 12th Council meeting.

Financial Implications:

Due to market variations and lacking an exact inclusionary housing policy proposal, it is not possible to precisely forecast revenue generation. However, the analysis made a thorough attempt at providing the best possible estimate. To do so, the analysis used an average of $6.00 per square foot to represent the net financing gap associated with providing inclusionary units and an average of $16 per square foot to represent the full cost of providing inclusionary units.

Applying each of these in-lieu fees uniformly across all development types is estimated to generate annual revenue ranging from $355,000 (based on $6.00 per Sq. Ft.) to $950,000 (based on $16.00 per Sq. Ft.). The recommended inclusionary policy is a hybrid scenario that seeks to strike a balance between generating revenue and incentivizing smaller residential development that is more likely to be used as local resident housing. As such, potential revenue generation is anticipated to fall in between this range. A more precise revenue estimate can be completed once an exact inclusionary housing policy is known.

Environmental Considerations:

The recommendation in this report is not a project under CEQA, because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Policy Implications:

The recommended action is consistent with City Strategic Plan Action Item 1.3.5: Establish a local discretionary funding source to leverage access to and increase competitiveness for outside funds, and implement Council direction to conduct outreach to analyze vacancy tax and transient occupancy tax funding sources.
985
Council Agenda Report- August 8, 2023 Page 4 of 4
The recommended action is also consistent with the following adopted policies and programs:

City General Plan Housing Element
Policy 1-1. The City shall adopt programs, ordinances, incentives, land use plans and other regulatory mechanisms that provide opportunities for the private sector to address the housing needs of citizens of all economic levels.

Policy 2-5. The City shall recognize that it will become difficult to attract employees if they cannot afford to purchase or rent housing in South Lake Tahoe. The City shall encourage and support programs and activities that create a robust local economy that provides residents with good paying employment and the means to purchase and/or rent housing in the City. 986
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 2560 9th St., Suite 211 803 2nd St., Suite A 448 South Hill St., Suite 701 1140 3rd St. NE, 2nd Floor 234 5th Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94710 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Washington, DC 20002 New York, NY 10001 510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486 www.bae1.com
Memorandum

To: Hilary Roverud, Development Services Director, City of South Lake Tahoe Zachary Thomas, Housing Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe Jessica Wackenhut, Associate Housing Planner, City of South Lake Tahoe From: Aaron Nousaine, MCRP, Principal, BAE Urban Economics Date: July 27, 2023
Re: Supplemental Analysis for a Tiered Residential Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Following completion of the revised Analysis of Local Funding Source(s) for Housing Initiatives report on January 20, 2023 and the Supplemental Residential Nexus analysis memorandum on March 2, 2023, the City of South Lake Tahoe commissioned additional analysis regarding options for establishing a residential inclusionary housing ordinance with a tiered structure based on the size or value of the market rate property.

Unit Size vs. Unit Value
During City Council deliberation of potential funding sources, including the option to establish a new inclusionary housing policy, some members of Council expressed interest in an inclusionary housing ordinance with multiple thresholds based on project value or unit size.

BAE recommends basing an inclusionary housing ordinance on unit size and not on value.

In most cases where local governments apply tiered inclusionary housing requirements, the difference between each tier is typically defined based on housing type (i.e., detached singlefamily, attached duplexes or triplexes, and townhomes or stacked flats, versus multifamily apartments or condominiums) and/or tenure (i.e., is it rental or ownership housing). In the event that the City elected to implement an inclusionary housing policy based on project value, the City would either need to rely on the developer’s estimates of project value in order to assess an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee upon issuance of building permits, or the City would need to wait until project completion and issuance of a final assessment by El Dorado County.

Most jurisdictions structure inclusionary housing requirements and in-lieu fees on a per unit or per square foot basis, which allows the jurisdiction to require payment of the in-lieu fee at issuance of the building permit or prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. BAE recommends that the City of South Lake Tahoe do this also. This provides a greater 987
2 inducement for the timely payment of in-lieu fees since the jurisdiction could otherwise withhold the needed permits. Postponing payment of the in-lieu fee until the unit is finished increases the risk of non-payment. If non-payment does occur, the jurisdiction would then need to take action against the property owner, potentially culminating in a lean being placed on the property. The possible cost to the jurisdiction to collect unpaid and delinquent in-lieu payments fee could be significant, both in dollars and missed opportunities.

Updated Informational Nexus Analysis
The following section provides updated nexus analyses which align with a tiered inclusionary housing policy structure for single-family homes based on the square footage of the market rate unit. This section also provides nexus calculations for multifamily rental apartments, as well as two different nexus scenarios for for-sale residential condominium units.

Single-Family Housing
Based on direction provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe, the nexus analysis for singlefamily for-sale housing is based on the following size categories:
 Under 2,000 sq. ft.
 2,001-2,500 sq. ft.
 2,501-3,000 sq. ft
 3,001-5,000 sq. ft.
 Over 5,000 sq. ft.

Household Spending
To identify pricing and unit size assumptions that align with the five categories identified above, BAE evaluated the characteristics of new homes built within the City of South Lake Tahoe in 2022 and in January through June of 2023. This included evaluation of assessed value as well as market sale prices for properties that have changed hands since construction.

Table 1 reports the per unit sale price, square footage, and average sale price per square footage for properties within each category that is then used as the basis for the analysis. Due to changes in interest rates, which have increased since the prior analysis, the estimated household income required to purchase a housing unit has increased at all levels. The figures, therefore, do not match those presented in prior analyses.

Induced Employment
Table 2 reports the supported by household spending associated with newly built single-family homes. The estimates were generated using the Impacts for Planning (IMPLAN) economic impact model based on data from June 2023. The employment estimates presented here differ from those presented in prior analyses. Due to the limited impacts per household, the analysis calculates impacts of 100 households and per unit. To the extent that housing units are occupied less than full-time, the impacts may be less than analyzed here. 988
3 Table 1: Income Required to Purchase a Newly Built Single-Family For-Sale Home Notes:
(a) Represents the estimated value of a newly constructed homes in South Lake Tahoe in 2022 and 2023. (b) Monthly ownership costs are based on the following assumptions:

Annual Interest Rate - 7.25%
Loan Term (Years) - 30 years
Down Payment (% of Sale Price) - 20%
Property Tax (Annual) - 1.0%
Homeowners Insurance (% of Sale Price) - 0.4%

(c) Assumes that housing costs do not exceed 30 percent of household income. (d) This assumes that the hypothetical development project contains a total of 10 units. This assumption provides for ease of analysis and does not impact the results of the analysis.

Sources: ListSource; Mortgage Brokers; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; BAE, 2023.

Under 2,000 Sq. Ft. 2,001-2,500 Sq. Ft.

Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $500,000 Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $1,000,000 Square Feet (Sq. Ft.) 1,511 Square Feet (Sq. Ft.) 2,326 Price Per Sq. Ft. $331 Price Per Sq. Ft. $430
Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $3,316 Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $6,632 Annual Housing Cots $39,794 Annual Housing Cots $79,589 Household Income Required (c) $132,648 Household Income Required (c) $265,296 Number of Household in Development (d) 100 Number of Household in Development (d) 100 Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $13.26 Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $26.5 2,501-3,000 Sq. Ft. 3,001-5,000 Sq. Ft.

Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $1,200,000 Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $1,715,900 Square Feet (Sq. Ft.) 2,526 Square Feet (Sq. Ft.) 3,612 Price Per Sq. Ft. $475 Price Per Sq. Ft. $475
Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $7,959 Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $11,381 Annual Housing Cots $95,507 Annual Housing Cots $136,567 Household Income Required (c) $318,356 Household Income Required (c) $455,222 Number of Household in Development (d) 100 Number of Household in Development (d) 100 Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $31.8 Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $45.5 Over 5,000 Sq. Ft.

Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $3,125,000
Square Feet (Sq. Ft.) $6,250
Price Per Sq. Ft. $500
Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $20,726
Annual Housing Cots $248,715
Household Income Required (c) $829,051
Number of Household in Development (d) 100
Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $82.9
989
4 Table 2: Estimated Impacts Per 100 New Market Rate Single-Family For-Sale Units Notes:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 100 households, as reported in Table 1.

Sources: Impacts for Planning (IMPLAN) Economic Impact Model; BAE, 2023. 2,000 Sq. Ft. or Under
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 9.2 $433,731 $782,698 $1,298,709
Total 9.2 $433,731 $782,698 $1,298,709
Per Job 1.0 $47,090 $84,976 $140,999
Per Unit 0.09 $4,337 $7,827 $12,987
2,001-2,500 Sq. Ft.

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 12 $543,239 $1,002,056 $1,627,134
Total 12 $543,239 $1,002,056 $1,627,134
Per Job 1 $44,942 $82,900 $134,613
Per Unit 0.12 $5,432 $10,021 $16,271
2,501-3,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 15 $651,887 $1,202,467 $1,952,561
Total 15 $651,887 $1,202,467 $1,952,561
Per Job 1 $44,942 $82,900 $134,613
Per Unit 0.15 $6,519 $12,025 $19,526
3,001-5,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 21 $932,145 $1,719,428 $2,791,999
Total 21 $932,145 $1,719,428 $2,791,999
Per Job 1 $44,942 $82,900 $134,613
Per Unit 0.21 $9,321 $17,194 $27,920
Greater Than 5,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 38 $1,697,623 $3,131,425 $5,084,793
Total 38 $1,697,623 $3,131,425 $5,084,793
Per Job 1 $44,942 $82,900 $134,613
Per Unit 0.38 $16,976 $31,314 $50,848
990
5 Induced Workforce Housing Demand
Table 3 converts the induced employment estimates reported in Table 2 based on estimates of the average number of workers per household to reflect the number of workforce households that are support based on new household spending, both per 100 new market rate units and per new market rate unit. According to this data, new household spending associated with the introduction of one new market rate for-sale housing unit in South Lake Tahoe can generate demand for up to 0.09 to 0.38 new jobs in South Lake Tahoe. Across all income levels, this equals demand for 0.6 to 0.23 new workforce housing units. Excluding demand among higher income workforce households, who are assumed to be able to afford market rate housing independently, household spending associated with one new market rate for-sale unit can generate demand for up to 0.04 to 0.23 new workforce units.

Equivalent In-Lieu Fee
Based on the induced workforce housing demand summarized in Table 3, Table 4 estimates an in-lieu fee that would be economically equivalent to providing housing equal to the induced workforce housing demand generated by creation of a new for-sale housing unit. The equivalent in-lieu fee is equal to the induced workforce housing demand by income level multiplied by the net financing gap (i.e., the gap between the sale price that is affordable at each income subtracted from the total cost of providing the unit) associated with providing the required housing. Based on this approach, the in-lieu fee that would represent an equivalent economic value may range from $26,785 to $110,319, if based on the full cost of providing inclusionary housing units, or from $9,314 to $38,424, if based only on the net gap.

While many communities apply inclusionary housing in-lieu fees on a per market rate unit basis, as described above, industry professionals often recommend structuring in-lieu fees to align with the size of the market rate unit on a per square foot basis. This allows greater generalizability and provides an incentive to develop smaller market rate units. To illustrate this, Table 4 also reports the equivalent in-lieu fee per square foot of new market rate development, estimated using the average square footage for housing units built within each size classification reported in Table 1. BAE estimates that the equivalent per square foot inlieu fee varies little between size classifications, from $5.29 per market rate square foot to a maximum of $6.17, and an average of $5.86 per square foot, when calculated based on the net financing gap, and from a minimum of $15.18 to a maximum of $17.73, and an average of $16.82, when based on the total cost of providing inclusionary housing units.

991
6 Table 3: Induced Employment and Workforce Housing Demand by Income Level (Page 1 of 2)
Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2023.

2,000 Sq. Ft. or Under
Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.00
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.00
Low (80% AMI) 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.01
Moderate (120% AMI) 2.1 1.7 1.2 0.01
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.2 1.8 0.1 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 1.6 1.8 0.9 0.01
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 2.9 1.9 1.5 0.01
Total 9.2 1.7 5.5 0.06
2,001-2,500 Sq. Ft.

Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.00
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.01
Low (80% AMI) 2.0 1.5 1.3 0.01
Moderate (120% AMI) 2.8 1.7 1.6 0.02
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.2 1.8 0.1 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 2.0 1.8 1.1 0.01
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 3.7 1.9 1.9 0.02
Total 12.1 1.7 7.3 0.07
2,501-3,000 Sq. Ft.

Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.01
Very Low (50% AMI) 1.0 1.3 0.8 0.01
Low (80% AMI) 2.3 1.5 1.6 0.02
Moderate (120% AMI) 3.3 1.7 1.9 0.02
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.3 1.8 0.2 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 2.4 1.8 1.4 0.01
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 4.5 1.9 2.3 0.02
Total 14.5 1.7 8.7 0.09
3,001-5,000 Sq. Ft.

Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.01
Very Low (50% AMI) 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.01
Low (80% AMI) 3.4 1.5 2.3 0.02
Moderate (120% AMI) 4.8 1.7 2.8 0.03
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.4 1.8 0.2 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 3.5 1.8 1.9 0.02
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 6.4 1.9 3.3 0.03
Total 20.7 1.7 12.5 0.12
- Continued on Next Page -
992
7 Table 3: Induced Employment and Workforce Housing Demand by Income Level (Page 2 of 2)
Notes:
(a) Based on the distribution of induced jobs industry sector, as reported by IMPLAN based on household spending associated with households at different income levels, as reported in Table 1, combined with the distribution of workers by industry and household income, as reported in the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for the greater South Lake Tahoe area.
(b) Based on the distribution of workers by industry sector, income level, and household size, as reported in the PUMS.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2023.

Table 4: Estimated Financing Gap and Equivalent In-Lieu Fee (Page 1 of 2) Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2023.

Greater Than 5,000 Sq. Ft.

Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 1.7 1.1 1.5 0.02
Very Low (50% AMI) 2.6 1.3 2.0 0.02
Low (80% AMI) 6.1 1.5 4.1 0.04
Moderate (120% AMI) 8.7 1.7 5.0 0.05
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.7 1.8 0.4 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 6.4 1.8 3.5 0.04
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 11.7 1.9 6.1 0.06
Total 37.8 1.7 22.7 0.23
2,000 Sq. Ft. or Under
New Workforce Estimated Cost Equiv. In-Lieu Fee
Housing Demand Per Per Workforce Unit (b) Per Market Rate Unit (c) Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (a) Net Gap Total Cost Net Gap Total Cost Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.004 $551,912 $825,227 $2,064.82 $3,087 Very Low (50% AMI) 0.005 $489,556 $825,227 $2,411.47 $4,065 Low (80% AMI) 0.010 $395,346 $825,227 $3,905.04 $8,151
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.012 $58,805 $450,000 $720.74 $5,515 MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.001 $41,693 $450,000 $37.34 $403 SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.009 $20,200 $642,500 $174.90 $5,563 Total 0.040 $9,314 $26,785
Per Sq. Ft. (d) $6.17 $17.73
2,001-2,500 Sq. Ft.

New Workforce Estimated Cost Equiv. In-Lieu Fee
Housing Demand Per Per Workforce Unit (b) Per Market Rate Unit (c) Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (a) Net Gap Total Cost Net Gap Total Cost Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.005 $551,912 $825,227 $2,725.61 $4,075 Very Low (50% AMI) 0.006 $489,556 $825,227 $3,141.78 $5,296 Low (80% AMI) 0.013 $395,346 $825,227 $5,203.71 $10,862 Moderate (120% AMI) 0.016 $58,805 $450,000 $943.04 $7,217 MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.001 $41,693 $450,000 $52.61 $568 SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.011 $20,200 $642,500 $229.02 $7,284 Total 0.053 $12,296 $35,302
Per Sq. Ft. (d) $5.29 $15.18
- Continued on Next Page -
993
8 Table 4: Estimated Financing Gap and Equivalent In-Lieu Fee (Page 2 of 2) Notes:
(a) Represents the estimated new workforce housing demand by income level generated by household spending associated with a newly constructed housing unit reported in Table 1. (b) Reflects the estimated total cost and net financing gap associated with providing housing at each income level.

Housing targeted for occupancy at 80 percent of AMI or below is assumed to be new construction funded using state and federal tax credits. Housing occupied by households in the moderate-income (81-120 percent of AMI) and multifamily achievable (121-125 percent of AMI) income categories is assumed to be newly constructed market rate multifamily rental housing. Housing occupied by households in the single-family achievable (126-180 percent of AMI) income category is assumed to be existing single-family resale inventory.
(c) Equal to the induced workforce housing demand per new market rate unit multiplied by the total cost or net financing gap at each income level.
(d) Based on the assumed square footage per unit reported in Table 1.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2023.

2,501-3,000 Sq. Ft.

New Workforce Estimated Cost Equiv. In-Lieu Fee
Housing Demand Per Per Workforce Unit (b) Per Market Rate Unit (c) Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (a) Net Gap Total Cost Net Gap Total Cost Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.015 $551,912 $825,227 $8,518 $12,736 Very Low (50% AMI) 0.020 $489,556 $825,227 $9,818 $16,550 Low (80% AMI) 0.041 $395,346 $825,227 $16,262 $33,944
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.050 $58,805 $450,000 $2,947 $22,552 MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.004 $41,693 $450,000 $164 $1,774 SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.035 $20,200 $642,500 $716 $22,764 Total 0.166 $38,424 $110,319
Per Sq. Ft. (d) $6.15 $17.65
994
9 Multifamily Housing
In addition to the single-family housing categories discussed above, the City of South Lake Tahoe requested nexus analysis for multifamily rental housing, as well as for-sale multifamily condominium units, which function differently from an economic perspective than single-family homes. For the purposes of this research, BAE analyzed the nexus associated with a 968 square foot mid-market condominium priced at $605,100 and a 1,600 square foot high-end condominium unit priced at $2.9 million.

Household Spending
Table 5 reports the income needed to afford an average priced multifamily rental housing unit in South Lake Tahoe, while Table 6 reports the income needed to purchase a mid-market and high-end condominium. These range from an income of $74,720 per year needed to afford a market rate multifamily rental to nearly $811,000 per year for a high-end condominium unit.

Induced Employment
Table 7 reports the direct, indirect, and induced employment supported based on occupancy of newly constructed multifamily housing units in the City of South Lake Tahoe. To the extent that housing units are occupied less than full-time, the impacts may be less than reported.

Induced Workforce Housing Demand
Table 8 converts the induced employment estimates reported in Table 6 based on estimates of the average number of workers per household to reflect the number of workforce households that are support based on new household spending, both per 100 new market rate units and per new market rate unit.

Equivalent In-Lieu Fee
Table 9 estimates an in-lieu fee for multifamily development projects that would be economically equivalent to providing housing sufficient to meet the induced workforce housing demand. The in-lieu fee for multifamily rental housing that would represent an equivalent economic value may reasonably range from $6,115 per market rate unit, or $7.64 per square foot, if only accounting for the net financing gap, to $17,813 per unit, or $22.27 per square foot, if accounting for the full cost of developing the required housing. For mid-market condominium units, the equivalent in-lieu fee would range from $12,409 per unit, or $12.82 per square foot, to $35,790 per unit, or $36.97 per square foot if accounting for the full cost of constructing inclusionary units. For high-end condominiums, he equivalent in-lieu fee would range from $37,586 per unit, or $23.49 per square foot, if accounting for only the net financing gap, to $107,912 per unit, or $67.44 per square foot, if accounting for the full cost of constructing housing to meet induced workforce demand. 995
10 Table 5: Income Required to Rent a Newly Built Multifamily Rental Apartment Notes:
(a) Based on the projected market rent for a newly constructed two-bedroom unit. (b) Based on the El Dorado County utility allowance two-bedroom apartments in South Lake Tahoe. (c) Assumes that housing costs do not exceed: 30% of income

Sources: CoStar; El Dorado County, Public Housing Authority, Utility Allowances, Band South Lake Tahoe; BAE, 2023.

Table 6: Income Required to Purchase Newly Built High-End Condominiums Notes:
(a) Represents the estimated value of a newly constructed high-end condominium in South Lake Tahoe in 2023. (b) Monthly ownership costs are based on the following assumptions:

Annual Interest Rate - 7.25%
Loan Term (Years) – 30 years
Down Payment (% of Sale Price) - 20%
Property Tax (Annual) - 1.0%
Homeowners Insurance (% of Sale Price) - 0.4%
Homeowners' Association
Mid-Market – $629 month
High-End - $1,040 month
(c) Assumes that housing costs do not exceed 30 percent of household income. (d) Represents the estimated value of a newly constructed high-end condominium in South Lake Tahoe in 2023.

Sources: ListSource; Mortgage Brokers; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; BAE, 2023.

Square Feet 800
Rent Per Sq. Ft. 2.60
Average Monthly Rent (a) $2,079
Utility Cost (b) $132
Monthly Housing Costs for New Unit $2,211
Annual Housing Costs $26,534
Household Income Required (c) $88,448
Number of Households in Development 100
Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $8,844,800
Mid-Market Condominium High-End Condominium
Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $605,100 Estimated Sale Price, New Units (d) $2,900,000 Square Feet (Sq. Ft.) 968 Square Feet (Sq. Ft.) 1,600
Price Per Sq. Ft. $625 Price Per Sq. Ft. $1,813
Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $4,642 Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $20,274 Annual Housing Cost $55,710 Annual Housing Cost $243,288 Household Income Required (c) $185,699 Household Income Required (c) $810,960 Number of Household in Development 100 Number of Household in Development 100 Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $18.57 Aggregate Household Income (Millions) $81 996
11 Table 7: Estimated Impacts Per 100 New Market Rate Multifamily Rental Apartments and Condominiums
Note:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 100 households, as reported in Tables 5 and 6.

Sources: IMPLAN; BAE, 2023.

Multifamily Rental Apartments
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 6.2 $304,337 $525,136 $869,337
Total 6.2 $304,337 $525,136 $869,337
Per Job 1.0 $49,065 $84,661 $140,153
Per Unit 0.06 $3,043 $5,251 $8,693
Mid-Market Condominium
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 12 $602,780 $1,061,974 $1,754,588
Total 12 $602,780 $1,061,974 $1,754,588
Per Job 1.0 $48,790 $85,958 $142,019
Per Unit 0.12 $6,028 $10,620 $17,546
High-End For-Sale Condominiums
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 37 $1,660,577 $3,063,090 $4,973,832
Total 37 $1,660,577 $3,063,090 $4,973,832
Per Job 1.0 $44,942 $82,900 $134,613
Per Unit 0.37 $16,606 $30,631 $49,738
997
12 Table 8: Induced Employment and Workforce Housing Demand by Income Level Notes:
(a) Based on the distribution of induced jobs, as reported in Table 7, combined with PUMS data. (b) Based on the distribution of workers by industry sector, income level, and household size, as reported in the PUMS.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2023.

Multifamily Rental Apartments
Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.00
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.00
Low (80% AMI) 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.01
Moderate (120% AMI) 1.4 1.7 0.8 0.01
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 1.1 1.8 0.6 0.01
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.01
Total 6.2 1.7 3.7 0.04
Per Unit 0.06
Mid-Market Condominium
Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.005
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.8 1.3 0.7 0.007
Low (80% AMI) 2.0 1.5 1.3 0.013
Moderate (120% AMI) 2.8 1.7 1.6 0.016
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.2 1.8 0.1 0.001
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 2.1 1.8 1.2 0.012
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 3.9 1.9 2.0 0.020
Total 12.4 1.7 7.4 0.074
Per Unit 0.12
High-End For-Sale Condominiums
Ave. Workers Est. Worker Households
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Per 100 Mrkt. Units Per Mrkt. Unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 1.6 1.1 1.5 0.02
Very Low (50% AMI) 2.5 1.3 2.0 0.02
Low (80% AMI) 6.0 1.5 4.0 0.04
Moderate (120% AMI) 8.5 1.7 4.9 0.05
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.7 1.8 0.4 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 6.2 1.8 3.5 0.03
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 11.4 1.9 5.9 0.06
Total 36.9 1.7 22.2 0.22
Per Unit 0.37
998
13 Table 9: Estimated Financing Gap and Equivalent In-Lieu Fee Notes:
(a) Represents the estimated new workforce housing demand by income level generated by household spending associated with a newly constructed housing unit reported in Tables 5 and 6. (b) Reflects the estimated total cost and net financing gap associated with providing housing at each income level.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2023.

Multifamily Rental Apartments
New Workforce Estimated Cost Equiv. In-Lieu Fee
Housing Demand Per Per Workforce Unit (b) Per Market Rate Unit (c) Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (a) Net Gap Total Cost Net Gap Total Cost Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.002 $551,912 $825,227 $1,323 $1,978 Very Low (50% AMI) 0.003 $489,556 $825,227 $1,519 $2,561 Low (80% AMI) 0.007 $395,346 $825,227 $2,645 $5,521
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.008 $58,805 $450,000 $482 $3,690
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.001 $41,693 $450,000 $27 $297 SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.006 $20,200 $642,500 $118 $3,766 Total 0.027 $6,115 $17,813
Per Sq. Ft. (d) $7.64 $22.27
Mid-Market Condominium
New Workforce Estimated Cost Equiv. In-Lieu Fee
Housing Demand Per Per Workforce Unit (b) Per Market Rate Unit (c) Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (a) Net Gap Total Cost Net Gap Total Cost Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.005 $551,912 $825,227 $2,671 $3,994 Very Low (50% AMI) 0.007 $489,556 $825,227 $3,200 $5,394 Low (80% AMI) 0.013 $395,346 $825,227 $5,291 $11,045
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.016 $58,805 $450,000 $960 $7,349
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.001 $41,693 $450,000 $53 $571 SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.012 $20,200 $642,500 $234 $7,437 Total 0.054 $12,409 $35,790
Per Sq. Ft. (e) $12.82 $36.97
High-End For-Sale Condominiums
New Workforce Estimated Cost Equiv. In-Lieu Fee
Housing Demand Per Per Workforce Unit (b) Per Market Rate Unit (c) Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (a) Net Gap Total Cost Net Gap Total Cost Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.015 $551,912 $825,227 $8,332 $12,458 Very Low (50% AMI) 0.020 $489,556 $825,227 $9,604 $16,189 Low (80% AMI) 0.040 $395,346 $825,227 $15,907 $33,203
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.049 $58,805 $450,000 $2,883 $22,060 MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.004 $41,693 $450,000 $161 $1,736 SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.035 $20,200 $642,500 $700 $22,267 Total 0.162 $37,586 $107,912
Per Sq. Ft. (d) $23.49 $67.44
999
14 Financial Feasibility Testing
The following section summarizes key assumptions and findings from financial feasibility testing to assess the ability of single-family for-sale housing, multifamily rental apartments, and high-end for-sale condominium units to absorb imposition of an inclusionary housing inlieu fee requirement.

Development Cost and Revenue Assumptions
The cost and revenue assumptions used for the following financial feasibility analysis are based on those developed for use in the Analysis of Local Funding Source(s) for Housing Initiatives report and the Supplemental Residential Nexus analysis memorandum. Minor adjustments were made to account for changes to market financing terms, market rate pricing, and to account for differences in local impact and permitting fees.

Single-Family Feasibility
The financial feasibility testing exercise finds that the single-family for-sale housing prototypes are all likely to be financially feasible under current market conditions.

Tables 10 through 14, at the end of this memorandum, illustrate the financial assumptions used to model financial feasibility for each of the five single-family for-sale housing prototypes.

Note, however, that the tables show zero cost associated with inclusionary in-lieu fees. To assess the ability of each prototype to absorb additional housing in-lieu fees, BAE conducted sensitivity testing to identify the maximum in-lieu fee amount that each prototype could absorb while maintaining a residual land value of at least one million dollars per acre. The analysis found that the four single-family for-sale housing prototypes that are over 2,000 square feet in size could likely absorb the equivalent in-lieu fee identified in the nexus analysis. The larger prototypes (i.e., over 3,000 square feet) showed the likely ability to absorb an in-lieu fee based on the full cost of constructing inclusionary housing units.

BAE recommends excluding housing units under 2,000 square feet in size from a potential inclusionary housing policy and applying in-lieu fees based on the net financing gap associated with providing affordable and workforce housing, recognizing that the net gap based in-lieu fee represents the most readily defensible value based on the results of the nexus analysis. In the event that the City elects to apply in-lieu fee amounts above those identified based on the net financing gap for inclusionary housing, BAE recommends that the higher fee levels be applied only on larger, higher-end units over 3,000 square feet that are better positioned to absorb the additional cost.

Multifamily Feasibility
The financial feasibility testing exercise for multifamily housing finds that multifamily rental apartments are unlikely to be financially feasible under current market conditions, while market rate condominiums may be financially feasible depending on their market positioning.

BAE recommends that rental apartments be exempt from the inclusionary housing policy. 1000
15 The multifamily condotel/tourist mixed-use prototype analyzed for this research includes 66 residential condominiums that are sized at between 800 and 1,250 square feet. These units are intended to facilitate a condotel operation and are priced at an average of $605,000, which aligns with the mid-market price point used in the nexus analysis. Based on the cost and revenue assumptions presented in Table 16, the project may be expected to yield a positive residual land value of approximately of $8.1 million per acre compared to prevailing land costs of $3.5 to $5.3 million for this property type. Imposition of an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee consistent with those identified in the nexus analysis for mid-market condominiums would equal an additional cost to the builder of $819,198 to $2.4 million, depending on whether the fee is based on the net financing gap or total cost of providing inclusionary units.

At these fee levels, the project would likely remain feasible; though the higher fee level coupled with the upper-end cost would leave little margin to adapt to changes in the market.

However, additional sensitivity analysis indicates that if the project were restructured to emphasis larger units that maximize the condominium purchase price in line with current asking prices at Zalanta, the project may be able to support additional in-lieu fees in line those identified for high-end condominium as part of the nexus analysis.

Revenue Generation Potential
It is not possible to precisely forecast revenue generation associated with a new inclusionary housing policy in South Lake Tahoe without a more concrete policy proposal.

There were 21 new single-family homes constructed in South Lake Tahoe in 2022, which ranged in size from 1,353 square feet to 4,843 square feet, as illustrated in Figure 1. Only one unit over 5,000 square feet in size was built in 2018, though a number of applications have been submitted to the City for review in recent years. Assuming that the City applied a single inclusionary housing in-lieu fee of approximately $6.00 per square foot, which generally aligns with the net financing gap associated with providing inclusionary units, the City would likely generate approximately $355,000 per year in in-lieu fee revenue, or around $17,000 per new market rate single-family unit. If the City were to apply an in-lieu fee intended to offset the full cost of providing the inclusionary units, the City may consider applying an in-lieu fee of around $16 per square foot, which would generate around $45,000 per market rate unit, and close to $950,000 per year in gross in-lieu fee revenue.

Figure 1: Single-Family For-Sale Units Built in 2022 by Size Source: El Dorado County Assessor’s Office; BAE, 2023.
2 9
1 9
1,469
2,343
2,557
3,618
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
-
2 4
6 8
10 Under 2,000 2,001-2,500 2,501-3,000 3,001-5,000
Ave.

Sq. Ft.

Units
Square Feet
1001
16 Multifamily housing development in South Lake Tahoe tends to occur only occasionally, indicating that revenue associated with residential in-lieu fees levied on such projects cannot not be relied upon as an ongoing source of funding for key City priorities, like affordable and workforce housing programs. Based on the feasibility analysis, it nonetheless appears that such projects could potentially absorb an additional in-lieu fee burden. For example, a project with 60 new mid-market condominium units could likely support imposition of a fee of approximately $13 per square foot which could generate nearly $745,000 in total revenue, assuming an average unit size of just under 1,000 square feet. Additional revenue may be achievable if the in-lieu fee were set at a higher level, however, only some projects may be likely to absorb the higher in-lieu fee, which could have a cooling effect on projects that are not positioned at the very top of the local tourist condominium market.

Recommendations
Based on the analysis summarized above, BAE recommends that the City of South Lake Tahoe establish an inclusionary housing policy that applies to for-sale housing, both single-family homes and multifamily condominiums, based on the size of the market rate housing unit(s).

BAE recommends exempting units under 2,000 square feet to encourage construction of smaller units and to avoid imposing requirements that would contribute to the increased cost of housing suitable for full-time workforce occupancy. BAE recommends establishing inclusionary percentages based on those identified in the nexus analysis and setting in-lieu fee amounts based on the net financing gap associated with providing inclusionary housing units.

If the City elects to set inclusionary percentages or in-lieu fees above these levels, BAE recommends doing so only within the larger size categories that align with larger, higher-end units that are better positioned to absorb the additional cost without resulting in infeasibility.

Exhibit A: Recommended Inclusionary Percentage and In-Lieu Fee Amounts Notes:
(a) Based on estimated workforce housing demand induced by new household spending. (b) To be levied based on the size of the market rate housing unit in square feet. The value is based on the net financing gap associated with providing housing at each income level multiplied by the induced workforce housing demand.

Source: BAE, 2023.

Inclusionary
Percentage (a) Net Cost Total Cost
2,000 Sq. Ft. or Under Exempt
2,001-2,500 Sq. Ft. 5% $5.29 n.a.
2,501-3,000 Sq. Ft. 6% $5.84 n.a.
3,001-5,000 Sq. Ft. 9% $5.84 or $16.77
Greater Than 5,000 Sq. Ft. 17% $6.15 or $17.65
Fee
In-Lieu (b)
Exempt
1002
17 Table 10: Pro Forma Financial Feasibility Analysis, Single-Family For-Sale, Under 2,000 Sq. Ft. Note: (a) The value associated with acquiring residential development rights and required coverage is assumed to be included in the price of the land. Under this scenario, the builder/property owner is assumed to receive a development allocations directly from TRPA. (b) Note that the under 2,000 square foot residential prototype is structured as a small multi-unit development with eight units on just over one-half acre, which is consistent with the nature of recent smaller single-family and town home development projects built within the City of South Lake Tahoe in recent years. Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Feasibility Analysis Construction Development Costs Revenue
Site Size (Acres / Sq. Ft.) 0.60 26,136 Site Work Per Site Sq. Ft. $8 Site Work $209,088 Gross Sales Revenue $4,800,000Net Density (Dw elling Units/Acre) 13 Hard Cost Per Gross Bldg. Sq. Ft. $195 Residential Hard Cost $2,357,160 Less Marketing Costs ($96,000)Gross Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 13,168 Garage Parking Costs ($ sq. ft.) $125 Garage Costs $16,875 Less Total Project Costs ($3,924,917)Building Height (Stories) 1 Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee, Per Unit $0 Land Commodities/Entitlements $90,000 (a)Site Utilization Factor 50.4% Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 20.0% Impact & Permitting Fees $127,218 Residual Land Value $779,083Floor Area Ratio (Floor Area/Site Size) 0.50 Developer Profit (% of Hard and Soft Costs) 15.0% Linkage Fee $0 Project Value per Unit $97,385 Soft Costs $513,250 Residual Land Value/Acre $1,298,472 Construction Type Type 5 - Wood Operations Per Sq. Ft. / Per Unit Subtotal Dev. Costs $3,313,590 Market Rate Residential Sale Price $397 $600,000 Cost Per Unit $414,199 Unit Detail 8 1,511 Marketing Costs (% of Sale Price) 2.0% Developer Profit $497,039
Garage Space (Sq. Ft. Per Unit) 135 Financing
Loan-to-Cost Ratio 65.0% Financing
Gross Residential Square Feet 13,168 Loan Fee (Points) 1.0% Interest on Construction Loan $92,749 Interest Rate 6.63% Points on Construction Loan $21,538Loan Period (Months) 12 Subtotal Financing Costs $114,288Draw dow n Factor 65.0%Total Loan Amount $2,153,834 Total Project Costs, $3,924,917 Cost Per Unit $490,615Cost Per Gross Sq. Ft. $298
1003
18 Table 11: Pro Forma Financial Feasibility Analysis, Single-Family For-Sale, 2,001-2,500 Sq. Ft. Note: (a) The value associated with acquiring residential development rights and required coverage is assumed to be included in the price of the land. Under this scenario, the builder/property owner is assumed to receive a development allocation directly from TRPA. Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 0.15 6,534 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) $8 Land Use Commodities Cost (a) $0 Residential Sales Revenue $1,000,000 Residential Unit Type Res. sf Residential Hard Costs (per sf) $195 Linkage Fees $0 Less Transaction Costs ($10,000) AVG SFR 2,326 Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 15%
Residential Gross Area (sf) 2,326 Development Costs Total Project Value $990,000 Value (per sf) $430 Site Prep Costs $52,272 Less Total Project Costs $675,104 Sales Transaction Costs as % of Sale Price 1.0% Residential Hard Costs $453,570 Less Builder Fee $50,000 Financing Costs Permit and Impact Fees $73,605
Financing Interest on Construction Loan $15,521 Soft Costs $75,876 Residual Land Value $264,896 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Points on Construction Loan $4,260 Subtotal Construction Costs $655,324 Residual Land Value/Acre $1,765,973 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.0% Subtotal Financing Costs $19,781Interest Rate 6.63% Financing $19,781 Period of Initial Loan (Months) 12Draw dow n Factor 55% Total Project Costs $675,104Total Hard + Soft Costs $655,324 Total Loan Amount $425,960
Builder Fee 5%
1004
19 Table 12: Pro Forma Financial Feasibility Analysis, Single-Family For-Sale, 2,501-3,000 Sq. Ft. Note: (a) The value associated with acquiring residential development rights and required coverage is assumed to be included in the price of the land. Under this scenario, the builder/property owner is assumed to receive a development allocation directly from TRPA. Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 0.15 6,534 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) $8 Land Use Commodities Cost (a) $0 Residential Sales Revenue $1,200,000 Residential Unit Type Res. sf Residential Hard Costs (per sf) $195 Linkage Fees $0 Less Transaction Costs ($12,000) AVG SFR 2,526 Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 15%
Residential Gross Area (sf) 2,526 Development Costs Total Project Value $1,188,000 Value (per sf) $475 Site Prep Costs $52,272 Less Total Project Costs $722,293 Sales Transaction Costs as % of Sale Price 1.0% Residential Hard Costs $492,570 Less Builder Fee $60,000 Financing Costs Permit and Impact Fees $74,561
Financing Interest on Construction Loan $16,606 Soft Costs $81,726 Residual Land Value $405,707 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Points on Construction Loan $4,557 Subtotal Construction Costs $701,130 Residual Land Value/Acre $2,704,714 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.0% Subtotal Financing Costs $21,163Interest Rate 6.63% Financing $21,163 Period of Initial Loan (Months) 12Draw dow n Factor 55% Total Project Costs $722,293Total Hard + Soft Costs $701,130 Total Loan Amount $455,734
Builder Fee 5%
1005
20 Table 13: Pro Forma Financial Feasibility Analysis, Single-Family For-Sale, 3,001-5,000 Sq. Ft. Note: (a) The value associated with acquiring residential development rights and required coverage is assumed to be included in the price of the land. Under this scenario, the builder/property owner is assumed to receive a development allocation directly from TRPA. Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 0.15 6,534 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) $8 Land Use Commodities Cost (a) $0 Residential Sales Revenue $1,715,900 Residential Unit Type Res. sf Residential Hard Costs (per sf) $195 Linkage Fees $0 Less Transaction Costs ($17,159) AVG SFR 3,612 Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 15%
Residential Gross Area (sf) 3,612 Development Costs Total Project Value $1,698,741 Value (per sf) $475 Site Prep Costs $52,272 Less Total Project Costs $978,528 Sales Transaction Costs as % of Sale Price 1.0% Residential Hard Costs $704,340 Less Builder Fee $85,795 Financing Costs Permit and Impact Fees $79,754
Financing Interest on Construction Loan $22,497 Soft Costs $113,492 Residual Land Value $634,418 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Points on Construction Loan $6,174 Subtotal Construction Costs $949,857 Residual Land Value/Acre $4,229,452 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.0% Subtotal Financing Costs $28,671Interest Rate 6.63% Financing $28,671 Period of Initial Loan (Months) 12Draw dow n Factor 55% Total Project Costs $978,528Total Hard + Soft Costs $949,857 Total Loan Amount $617,407
Builder Fee 5%
1006
21 Table 14: Pro Forma Financial Feasibility Analysis, Single-Family For-Sale, Over 5,000 Sq. Ft. Note: (a) The value associated with acquiring residential development rights and required coverage is assumed to be included in the price of the land. Under this scenario, the builder/property owner is assumed to receive a development allocation directly from TRPA. Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 0.650 28,314 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) $10 Land Use Commodities Cost $0 Residential Sales Revenue $3,125,000Residential Hard Costs (per sf) $176 Linkage Fees $0 Less Marketing Costs ($93,750) Residential Unit Type Res. sf Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 20% Luxury SFR 6,250 Construction Costs Total Project Value $3,031,250 Residential Gross Area (sf) 6,250 Operations Site Prep Costs $283,140 Less Total Project Costs $1,809,586 Sale Price (per sf) $500 Residential Hard Costs $1,100,000 Less Developer Profit $625,000 Marketing Costs as a % of Sale Price 3% Permit and Impact Fees $96,589 Financing Costs Soft Costs $276,628 Residual Land Value $596,664 Financing Interest on Construction Loan $36,104 Subtotal Construction Costs $1,756,357 Residual Land Value/Acre $917,945 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Points on Construction Loan $17,124 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.5% Subtotal Financing Costs $53,229 Financing $53,229Interest Rate 5.75% Period of Initial Loan (Months) 12 Total Project Costs $1,809,586Draw dow n Factor 55%Total Hard + Soft Costs $1,756,357 Total Loan Amount $1,141,632
Developer Profit (% of Sales Revenue) 20%
1007
22 Table 15: Pro Forma Financial Feasibility Analysis, Multifamily Rental Apartments Notes: (a) Based on fee data provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe. Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe; BAE, 2023.

Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Feasibility AnalysisDevelopment Intensity Site Acquisition Cost (per site sq. ft.) $23 Site Acquisition Cost $1,698,003 Gross Scheduled Rents $1,583,731 Site Size (Acres / Sq. Ft.) 1.7 73,965 Less Vacancy ($79,187) Total Residential Units 72 Construction Construction Less Operating Expenses ($548,763) Net Density (Dw elling Units/Acre) 42 Site Work Per Site Sq. Ft. $30 Site Work $2,249,870 Net Operating Income (NO $955,782 Gross Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 67,800 Residential Hard Cost, Per Net Sq. Ft. $285 Residential Hard Cost $15,442,826Building Height (Stories) 4.0 Podium Parking Per Space $7,300 Surface Parking $280,600 Capitalized Project Value $19,115,636Site Utilization Factor 33% Tuck Under Parking Per Space $18,250 Tuck-Under Parking $730,000 Total Development Cost ($29,414,510) Floor Area Ratio (Floor Area/Site Size) 0.9 Surface Parking Per Space $6,100 Podium Parking $0 Residual Project value ($10,298,875) Tow n Impact & Permitting Fees Per Sq. Ft. $9.80 (a) Tow n Impact & Permitting Fees $664,666 Project Value per unit ($143,040) Construction Type Type 5 - Wood Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee $0 Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 18% Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) $3,366,593 Total Developer Fee (% of Hard and Soft Costs) 3% Developer Fee (% of Hard and Soft Costs $682,037 Total Residential Units 72 Developer Profit (% of Hard and Soft Costs 12% Subtotal Construction Costs $23,416,593 Cost Per Unit $325,230
Operations 125% of AMI
Unit Mix (Count / Net Sq. Ft.) Market Unit Size (SF) Apartment Rental Rates Per Sq. Ft / Per Unit Developer Profit $2,809,991 1 Bedroom 32 620 1 BR (Per Sq. Ft. / Per Unit) $2.42 / $1,497 2 Bedroom 32 800 2 BR (Per Sq. Ft. / Per Unit) $2.60 / $2,079 Financing 3 Bedroom 8 1,100 3 BR (Per Sq. Ft. / Per Unit) $1.99 / $2,191 Interest on Construction Loan $1,314,121 Net Residential Sq Ft 72 54,240 Points on Construction Loan $175,802 Annual Operating Cost (% of rental revenue 33% Subtotal Financing Costs $1,489,923 Circulation (% / (Count / Avg. Sq. Ft.) 25% 13,560 Average Vacancy Rate 5.0% Capitalization Rate 5.00% Total Project Costs $29,414,510 Total Residential Gross Sq Ft 67,800 Cost Per Unit $408,535 Financing Cost Per Gross Sq. Ft. $434
Number of Parking Spaces Loan-to-Cost Ratio 70% Cost Per Net Sq. Ft. $542 Surface Parking (# - sf) 46 400 Loan Fee (Points) 1%Tuck-Under Parking (# - sf) 40 300 Interest Rate 5.75%Podium Parking (# - sf) 0 350 Period of Initial Loan (Months) 24 Total Parking 86 30,400 Draw dow n Factor 65%
Total Loan Amount $17,580,217
Parking Ratio (Spaces Per Unit) 1.2
1008
23 Table 16: Pro Forma Financial Feasibility Analysis, High-End Condominium/Tourist Mixed-Use Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Feasibility Analysis Lot Size (acres/sf) 1.5 65,340 Construction Fees and Exactions Total Revenues Total Building Area (sf) 136,750 Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) (d) $20 Residential Linkage Fee $0 Hotel Revenues Hotel Hard Costs (per key) $330 Land Use Commodities Cost $4,033,350 Room Revenues $4,415,040 # of Avg. Total Condo Hard Costs (per sf) $375 Total Fees and Exactions $4,033,350 Food and Beverage Revenues $2,034,403 Hotel Keys sf sf. Restaurant Hard Costs (per sf) $175 Other Operating Department Revenues $250,334 Hotel Room Characteristics 72 350 25,200 Conference Space Hard Costs (per sf) $150 Construction Costs Miscellaneous Income $263,199 Parking Podium Hard Costs (per space) $50,000 Site Prep Costs $1,306,800 Subtotal Hotel Revenues $6,897,285 % sf Soft Cost, (% of Hard Costs) 20% Hotel Hard Costs $11,642,400 Circulation 25% 6,300 Condo Hard Costs $31,151,250 Condo Revenues Walls and Shafts 15% 3,780 Revenues Restaurant Hard Costs $0 Room Revenues $3,303,300 Hotel Gross Area 35,280 Hotel Revenues Conference Space Hard Costs $0 Food Revenues $1,681,256 Average Daily Room Rate (per night) $240 Retail Hard Costs $2,400,000 Other Operating Department Revenues $263,920 Hotel Operations Room Revenues (% Total Hotel Rev.) 64.0% Parking Podium Hard Costs $6,000,000 Miscellaneous Income $208,227 Days Open per Year 365 Food and Beverage Revenues (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 29.5% Permit and Impact Fees $2,006,242 Subtotal Condo Revenues $5,456,703 Available Room Nights 26,280 Other Operating Department Revenue (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 3.6% Soft Costs $10,500,090 Retail Revenues $66,400 Average Annual Occupancy 70.0% Miscellaneous Income (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 2.9% Subtotal Construction Costs $65,006,782 Total Revenues $12,420,389 Occupied Room Nights 18,396
Condo Revenues (e) Construction Financing Costs Expenses Condo # of Avg. Sale Price (per sf) $625 Interest on Construction Loan $3,549,370 Hotel Expenses Condo Unit Types Units sf Res. sf Average Daily Room Rate (per night) $350 Points on Construction Loan $845,088 Room Expenses ($1,138,968) 1-Bed 23 800 18,400 Room Revenues (% of Total Condo Rev.) 60.5% Subtotal Const. Financing Costs $4,394,458 Food Expenses ($1,400,821) 2-Bed 33 1,000 33,000 Food Revenues (% of Total Condo Rev.) 30.8% Developer Profit (15% Costs) $11,015,188 Other Operated Department Expenses ($162,264) 3-Bed 10 1,250 12,500 Other Operating Department Revenue (% of Total Condo Rev.) 4.8% Total Project Costs $84,449,778 Undistributed Operating Expenses ($1,682,806) Total 66 63,900 Miscellaneous Income (% of Total Condo Rev.) 3.8% Less Condo Sales ($39,937,500) Management Fee ($200,835) Plus Marketing Costs $1,198,125 Replacement Reserves ($132,478) % sf Expenses Insurance ($69,079)
Circulation 20% 12,780 Hotel Expenses Project Costs Net of Sales Revenue $45,710,403 Real Estate Taxes ($502,814) Walls and Shafts 10% 6,390 Room Expenses (% of Room Revenues) 25.8% Condo Expenses Condo Gross Area 83,070 Food Costs (% of Food Revenues) 68.9% Room Expenses ($495,495) Other Operating Department Expenses (% or OODR) 64.8% Food Expenses ($1,157,656) Condo Operations Undistributed Operating Expenses (% of Total Rev.)(g) 24.4% Ow ners' Revenues ($1,403,903) Average Annual Occupancy 65.0% Management Fee (% of Total Rev.) 2.9% Retail Expenses ($23,240) Days Available per Year (Ow ner) 90 Replacement Reserves (FF&E) (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 1.9% Total Expenses ($8,370,359) Available Room Nights Per Year (Ow ners) 5,940 Insurance (% Total Hotel Rev.) 1.0% Occupied Room Nights Per Year (Ow ner) 3,861 Real Estate Taxes (% of Project Costs Net Sales Rev.) 1.1% Net Operating Income (NOI) $4,050,030 Days Available Per Year (Guest) (b) 275 Retail Expenses 35.0% % of Condo Units in Hotel Pool 80% Project Value $57,857,565 Available Room Nights Per Year (Guests) 14,520 Condo Expenses Residual Land Value $12,147,161 Occupied Room Night Per Year (Guests) 9,438 Sales Marketing (% of Room Revenues) 3.0% Land Value/Acre $8,098,107 Room Expenses (% of Room Revenues) 15.0%
Hotel Amenities Food Costs (% of Food Revenues) 68.9%
Conference/Event Space (sf) 0 Ow ner's Revenue Share (% of Total Revenues) 50.0% Restaurant (sf) 0
Financing
Commercial Space Loan to Cost Ratio 65%
Gross Retail 18,400 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 2.00% Interest Rate 7.00%
Parking # Avg Total Period of Initial Loan (Months) 24
Parking Configuration Stalls sf Parking sf Draw dow n Factor 60% Surface Parking 0 375 0 Total Hard + Soft Costs + Land $65,006,782 Podium Parking 120 375 45,000 Total Loan Amount $42,254,408 Total 120 45,000
1009
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Agenda Item #:16
Agenda Item: Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrade Project
Executive Summary: On April 5, 2022, the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority entered into an agreement with Walker Consultants to evaluate the City Parking Garage and provide recommendations to upgrade the parking structure, circulation, Parking Revenue, and Access Control System (PARCS), 12 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and Advance Parking Guidance System (APGS). Subsequently, the project was divided into two phases to allow early payout of the Garage Bonds. Phase 1 will include structural and circulation upgrades. The current project is for Phase 1.

Phase 2 of the project consists of PARCS, APGS, and installation of the EV charging stations and will be bid out in the Spring of 2024.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing and directing the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority Chair to execute a contract with JPB Designs, Inc. for $478,300, plus 10% contingency of $47,830 for the Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrade Project and amending FY 2022/23 Parking Garage Budget, including appropriating $171,130 from the Parking Garage Fund balance.

Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works, Jeff Roberson, Support Lieutenant, Scott Crivelli, Detective Seargent
Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_Bellamy__Parking_Garage_Award.docx
02_-_Bellamy_Parking_Garage_Agreement.docx
03-Resolution_Bellamy_Parking_Garage (3).docx
1010
South Tahoe Joint Powers
Parking Financing Authority August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to
South Tahoe Joint Powers
Parking Financing Authority
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Title: Agreement with JPB Designs, Inc. for Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrade Project Location: 1 Bellamy Court, South Lake Tahoe, CA
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works; Jeff Roberson, Support Lieutenant (530) 542-6521; and Scott Crivelli, Detective Seargent (530) 54206130 Background: In November 2013, the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority issued $7,735,000 of Parking Revenue bonds to refund the bonds issued in 2002 to finance the acquisition and construction of the parking facility. The bonds are secured and paid from the net operating revenue of the garage, special tax revenue levied in CFD No. 2001-1, and the debt service reserve fund.

On April 5, 2022, the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority entered into an agreement with Walker Consultants to evaluate the City Parking Garage and provide recommendations to upgrade the parking structure, circulation, Parking Revenue, and Access Control System (PARCS), the addition of 12 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and Advance Parking Guidance System (APGS).

On November 1, 2022, the City Council amended Walker’s Consultant contract to divide the project into two phases. Phase 1 will include structural and circulation upgrades. Phase 2 of the project consists of PARCS, APGS, and installation of the EV charging stations for an estimated cost of $500,000. To allow early bond payment, the City plans to stretch out the construction and award Phase 1 and bid Phase 2 by Spring 2024.

Issue and Discussion: On June 18, 2023, the Public Works Department advertised the Parking Garage Upgrade Project on the City Planet Bids website. 483 vendors were notified. 24 bidders downloaded the bid documents. The Project bidding period closed on July 26, 2023.

Public Works received three sealed bids, which were publicly opened and read aloud at the scheduled bid opening located at the City Public Works Building. The lowest responsible and responsive bidder was determined to be JPB Designs, Inc., with a bid amount of $478,300. The Engineer’s Estimate for the bid was $275,000.

The bid results are as follows:

Name of Contractor Location Base Bid Price
JPB Designs, Inc. Orangevale, CA $478,300.00
Pullman SST, Inc. Benicia, CA $592,593.69
Slater Waterproofing, Inc. Montclair, CA $597,756.00
1011
South Tahoe Joint Powers
Parking Financing Authority August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Financial Implications:

The lowest responsive and responsible bid received for this project was from JPB Designs, Inc., for $478,300.00. Although the lowest, responsible bidder is above the Engineer’s Estimate, the City has received three valid bids within a reasonable range of each other. One of the factors associated with bids higher than Engineer Estiamte' is a very short timeline allocated for the construction of the project to minimize revenue impacts to the Parking Garage and impacts to the Heavenly Village businesses.

To fund this project, the following amounts are needed:

Expense Description Amount
JPB Designs, Inc. $478,300
10% Construction Contingency $47,830
Materials Testing $2,000.00
Labor Compliance Oversite $3,000.00
TOTAL ANTICIPATED EXPENSES $531,130
The following budgets are available to fund this project:

Parking Garage:
 Construction (Account 52005320-48030): $250,000.00
 Technical Services (Account 52005320-42030: $110,000.00 Staff is requesting an additional appropriation from the Parking Garage Fund balance, in the amount of $171,130, to close the funding gap.

Environmental Considerations: This project is considered maintenance and is exempt from Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) permits and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities). All applicable best management practices will be utilized to protect air and water quality during construction.

Policy Implications:

This project advances the City Council Strategic Priorities and Goals, specifically:
 Action Item 1.5 (Carbon Neutrality) to implement various projects to reach the City’s 100% renewable energy and Climate Action Plan goals, including building robust EV charging infrastructure by 2025.
 Action Item 5.3 (Infrastructure and Maintenance) actively seeking funding to develop sustainable infrastructure projects based on the prioritized capital improvement project list The project also upgrades the parking garage with needed structural upgrades to maintain public safety.

The City staff have coordinated with PADMA to construct the project, and appropriate public notices and notifications will be provided to minimize impacts to the users and businesses. 1012
00500

Page 1 ends

SOUTH TAHOE JOING POWERS PARKING FINANCING AUTHORITY

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AGREEMENT (00500)
DOCUMENT 00500 - AGREEMENT
City of South Lake Tahoe

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

AGREEMENT
for

BELLAMY PARKING GARAGE UPGRADE
PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT No. 23-52005320-48030-01
FORMAL BID No. 23-52005320-48030-01BN1
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 8th day of August 2023 by and between the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority (STJPPFA), herein designated “STJPPFA,” and JPB Designs, Inc. herein designated as “Contractor.” WITNESSETH, that the STJPPFA and the Contractor, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereafter set forth, agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - THE WORK
Contractor agrees to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, facilities, materials, transportation and services necessary to perform and complete, in a good and workmanlike manner, the BELLAMY PARKING GARAGE UPGRADE as required pursuant to the Contract Documents.

ARTICLE 2 - COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION
The Work to be performed under this Agreement shall commence at the time as specified in the Notice to Proceed, and the Contractor shall diligently undertake the performance of the obligations as set forth in the Contract Documents to achieve Final Completion of the Work (as defined at Section 9.9 Special Provisions) on or before October 20, 2023 (the “Contract Time”).

No grading or excavation or other land disturbance will be allowed between October 15th and May 1st; all Work shall be performed after the issuance of the Notice to Proceed, and Final Completion achieved within the contract time as set forth in these Contract Documents. 1013
00500

Page 2 ends

The STJPPFA and the Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement and that the STJPPFA will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the time specified herein, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. The STJPPFA and Contractor also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving the actual loss suffered by the STJPPFA if the Work is not completed within the Contract Time.

Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, and pursuant to the Contract Documents, the STJPPFA and the Contractor agree that as liquidated damages (but not as a penalty), the Contractor shall pay the STJPPFA the sum of $2,000 for each calendar day beyond October 16, 2023, and continuing until Bidder achieves Milestone #1, Substantial Completion (per Document 00100, Article 1.04.A.1), and $5,000 for each calendar day beyond October 20, 2023, that portion of the Contract Time within which the Bidder is required to achieve Milestone #2, Final Completion (per Document 00100, Article 1.04.A.3).

In accordance with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation Document 00400.4.2 (“Bid Proposal”), the daily amount that Contractor may charge to the STJPPFA for all delay costs, direct and indirect (and inclusive of all expenses and damages, including, without limitation, jobsite and home office overhead costs and extended general conditions) applicable to the first sixty (60) calendar days of Compensable Delay, if any, is [$300 per day], the amount set forth by Contractor in Document 00400.4.2 (“Bid Proposal”). This sum shall represent the exclusive and sole amount (i.e., payment in full for any and all direct and indirect delay costs) that Contractor, on behalf of itself and subcontractors and suppliers, of every tier, shall receive for any and all Compensable Delay(s) during the first sixty (60) calendar days of actual, Compensable Delay at the Project. Delay costs that may arise from Compensable Delay, if any, beyond the first sixty (60) calendar days of a Compensable Delay, if allowable, shall thereafter be governed by, and subject to, the applicable provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Standard Specifications, as modified by the Special Provisions, and the Contract Documents.

ARTICLE 3 - CONTRACT PRICE
The STJPPFA agrees to pay, and the Contractor agrees to accept, in current funds for the performance of the Work pursuant to the Contract Documents, the Contract Sum for the completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents as follows:

Bid
Item
Reference
to
Drawing
Work
Item or
Detail
Number Description Units
Total
Quantity Unit Price Extension
1 R-001 1.1
Project Mobilization - General
Conditions L.S. 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
2 R-001 1.2 Concrete Formwork Incidental
3 R-001 1.3 Concrete Shores and Reshores Incidental
4 R-001 1.4 Concrete Reinforcement Incidental
5 R-001 1.5 Traffic Control L.S. 1 $9,000 $9,000
1014
00500

Page 3 ends

4.00 CONCRETE CEILING REPAIR
6 R-001 4.1
Ceiling Repair - Partial
Depth/Shallow S.F. 10 $250.00 $2,500.00

11.0 CRACK AND JOINT REPAIR
7 R-001 11.1 Seal Cracks and Joints L.F 1,520 $45.00 $68,400.00 8 R-001 11.3 Vertical Joint Sealant L.F. 825 $60.00 $49,500.00 9 R-001 11.5
Epoxy Injection - Grouted
CMU walls and Concrete
Beam L.F
400 $85.00 $34,000.00
10 R-001 11.7 Cove Sealant L.F. 1860 $35.00 $65,100.00

21.0 P/T SYSTEM REPAIR
11 R-001 21.1
Inspect P/T Tendon
Anchorage EA. 3 $2,000.00 $6,000.00

76.0 CRACK REPAIR AND TUCKPOINTING
12 R-001 76.3 Tuckpointing L.F 200 $50.00 $10,000.00

80.0 CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT FAÇADE
13 R-001 80.5 Install New CMU Cap EA 20 $200.00 $4,000.00

96.0 FAÇADE AND COPING
14 R-001 96.1 Install Metal Coping L.F 1150 $52.00 $59,800.00 15 R-001 96.2
Remove, Salvage, and
Reinstall Metal Fence L.S. 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
16 G-001
through
AG-702
Existing PARCS island
Demolition; Signage and
Striping L.S. 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
17 EQ-400
through
EQ-402
PARCS island rebuild at
South Entry/Exit Plaza;
OmniQ PARCS Equipment
Relocation and Reactivation;
PARCS-related signage
relocation
L.S. 1 $90,000.00 $90,000.00
TOTAL CONTRACT SUM____$478,300__________
For the Total Contract Sum of _Four Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand and Three Hundred dollars and Zero cents.

The above Total Contract Sum includes all allowances, if any, provided for in the Contract Documents.

Compensation for Unit Price Items shall be based upon the unit prices stated in the above schedule multiplied by the actual quantities or units of work and materials performed or 1015
00500

Page 4 ends

furnished. Unit prices paid by the STJPPFA may change depending on actual quantities or units of work completed in accordance with the Contract Documents.

Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773.2, the Contractor is hereby advised that copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages and a general prevailing rate for holidays, Saturdays and Sundays and overtime work in the locality in which the Work is to be performed for each craft, classification, or type of worker required to execute the Contract, are on file in the STJPPFA's office. The Contractor agrees that not less than said prevailing rates shall be paid to workers employed on this public works contract as required by Labor Code Section 1774. These rate determinations are found on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations’ website at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1813, the Contractor or subcontractor shall, as a penalty to the state or political subdivision on whose behalf the contract is made or awarded, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the contract by the respective Contractor or subcontractor for each calendar day during which the worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of this article. In awarding any contract for public work, the awarding body shall cause to be inserted in the contract a stipulation to this effect. The awarding body shall take cognizance of all violations of this article committed in the course of the execution of the contract and shall report them to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

ARTICLE 5 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Agreement includes and incorporates by reference the Contract Documents for the Project, which consists of the following documents:
(a) Notice to Bidders (Document 00100);
(b) Instructions to Bidders (Document 00200);
(c) Bid Proposal (Document 00400);
(d) Bidder's Bond (Document 00410);
(e) Designation of Subcontractors (Document 00420);
1016
00500

Page 5 ends

(f) Verification of Contractor & Subcontractor DIR Registration (00423) (g) Self-Performance Declaration (Document 00425);
(h) Debarment and Suspension Certifications (Document 00430); (i) Non-Collusion Declaration (Document 00432);
(j) Worker's Compensation Certification (Document 00435); (k) Business and Professions Code Sections 7028.15 and 7031 Statement (Document 00440);
(l) Bidder's Statement of Financial Responsibility, Technical Ability and Experience (Document 00450);
(m) Equal Employment Opportunity Certification (Document 00460); (n) Non-Lobbying Certification (Document 00465);
(o) Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Document 00466); (p) Agreement (Document 00500);
(q) Payment Bond Form (Document 00610);
(r) Performance Bond Form (Document 00620);
(s) Sample Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits In Lieu of Retention (Document 00630);
(t) Warranty/Guaranty Form (Document 00635);
(u) Acknowledgment of City Code (Document 00640);
(v) Bid Document Certification (Document 00650);
(w) The Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, dated 2018; the Standard Plans of the State of California, Department of Transportation, dated 2018, and the South Lake Tahoe Public Improvement and Engineering Standards;
(x) Special Provisions (which incorporate by reference, and, as specified, modify the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, dated 2018; the Standard Plans of the State of California, Department of Transportation, dated 2018, and the South Lake Tahoe Public Improvement and Engineering Standards) (Document 00700);
(y) Supplemental Conditions (Document 00800), if any;
(z) General Requirements, if any;
(aa) Construction Progress Documentation (Document 01300); (bb) Technical Specifications;
(cc) Contract Drawings (Lake Tahoe Garage Repairs – 2022 (R-001-502, 8-Sheets); Functional and PARCS Drawings (G001 to AG-702, 12 Sheets); and OmniQ PARCS Garage Upgrade – EQ-400 to EQ 402, 3 Sheets).
1017
00500

Page 6 ends

(dd) Addenda (numbers 1to 3, inclusive; and
(ee) Permits from other agencies as may be required by law. (ff) All Documents referenced as constituting the “Bid Documents” pursuant to Section 1.3 (“Bid Documents”) of the Special Provisions.

Exhibits to this Agreement are enumerated as follows:
• Exhibit A: Escrow Bid Document Certification; and
• Exhibit B: Insurance Certificates and Endorsements.

ARTICLE 6 - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of the Agreement, adequate and sufficient workers’ compensation insurance for all Contractor’s employees employed at the site of improvements, and, if any Work is sublet, Contractor shall require each subcontractor similarly to provide workers’ compensation insurance for all of the latter’s employees, unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by Contractor. If any class of employees engaged in Work under this contract at the site of the Project is not protected under workers’ compensation law, Contractor shall provide, and shall cause each subcontractor to provide, adequate insurance for the protection of employees not otherwise protected. Contractor shall indemnify the STJPPFA, the City of South Lake Tahoe and the California Department of Transportation for any damage resulting to it from failure of either Contractor or any subcontractor to take out or maintain such insurance.

By its signature upon this Agreement, Contractor certifies that it has carefully reviewed and is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation, or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code. Contractor, as a condition precedent to the commencement of its Work pursuant to the Agreement, shall comply with such provisions.

ARTICLE 7 - INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
To the fullest extent permitted by law, including, without limitation, Civil Code section 2782, et seq., and in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the STJPPFA and City of South Lake Tahoe, its officials, officers, STJPPFA Board members, employees, agent, the California Department of Transportation, the Project Manager, the Architect/Engineer, the Project consultants, and their respective principals, officers and employees, and each of them, of and from any and all claims, demands, suits, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, losses, or liability, in law or in equity, of every kind and nature whatsoever related to, arising out of, or in connection with, Contractor's operations to be performed under this Agreement, and as otherwise set forth in Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Section 7-1.05A of the Standard Specifications, as modified by Section 7.11 of the Special Provisions. The obligations of defense and indemnity set forth in this Article, and in the Contract Documents, shall not be limited by any insurance requirements or obligations pursuant to the Contract Documents, and shall not extend to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the STJPPFA, or the active negligence of the STJPPFA. The obligations arising from this Article shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other 1018
00500

Page 7 ends

rights or obligations of indemnity (including all duties to defend), which would otherwise exist as to a party, or person described elsewhere in the Contract Documents.

Contractor shall maintain the insurance coverage described in Section 7-1.06 of the Standard Specifications, as modified by Section 7.12 of the Special Provisions, throughout the performance of the Agreement, including any maintenance, warranty and/or guaranty periods.

This Agreement shall not be operative until evidence of such insurance has been provided to, and approved by, the STJPPFA as to form, amount, and carrier. Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence Work at the Project until subcontractor provides evidence to Contractor and STJPPFA that subcontractor has obtained insurance acceptable to the STJPPFA.

Notices required to be given to STJPPFA: Notices required to be given to Contractor:

Public Works Director/City Engineer JPB Designs, Inc.

City of South Lake Tahoe __5650 Main Street, Suite 2________________ 1740 D Street Orangevale, CA 95662
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251 ______________________________________ Notices required to be given to any surety(ies):

ARTICLE 9 - MISCELLANEOUS

9.1 Terms. Terms used in this Agreement will have the meanings indicated in the Contract Documents.

9.3 Successors and Assigns. STJPPFA and Contractor each binds itself, its partners, successors, assign, and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents.

9.4 Severability. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any law or regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions 1019
00500

Page 8 ends

shall continue to be valid and binding upon STJPPFA and Contractor, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision.

9.6 Third Party Beneficiary. Contractor expressly acknowledges the STJPPFA's status as a third party beneficiary solely with respect to the performance to be rendered under each subcontract, of any tier, upon the Project, and, as a result, Contractor acknowledges that STJPPFA possesses, inter alia, the rights enumerated within the South Lake Tahoe STJPPFA Code as to the enforcement of obligations under subcontracts of any tier.

9.8 Governing Law. This Agreement and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of El Dorado, State of California, and governed by California law. By entering into this Agreement, the Contractor consents and submits to the jurisdiction of Courts of the State of California, County of El Dorado, over any action of law, suit in equity, and/or other proceeding that may arise out of the Contract Documents.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the said STJPPFA of South Lake Tahoe, State of California, has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chair in its behalf, and the said Contractor has signed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

STJPPFA OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Contractor: JPB Designs, Inc.

By By
Cristi Creegan, Chair
South Tahoe Joint Powers Title Artyom Ponomarenko, President Parking Financing Authority
Business License No.

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By By
1020
00500

Page 9 ends

STJPPFA STJPPFA
Secretary General Counsel
END OF DOCUMENT 00500
1021
Exhibit A
Insurance Certificates and Endorsements
1022
Exhibit B
Payment Bond & Performance Bond
1023
Resolution 2023-XXX August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the South Tahoe
Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority (STJPPFA)
August 8, 2023
Authorizing and Directing STJPPFA to Execute a Contract with JPB Designs, Inc and Appropriating Funds for the Construction of the Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrade Project

BACKGROUND
A. On April 5, 2022, the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority entered into an agreement with Walker Consultants to evaluate the City Parking Garage and provide recommendations to upgrade the parking structure, circulation, Parking Revenue, and Access Control System (PARCS), the addition of 12 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and Advance Parking Guidance System (APGS).

B. On November 1, 2022, the City Council amended Walker’s Consultant contract to divide the project into two phases. Phase 1 will include structural and circulation upgrades. Phase 2 of the project consists of PARCS, APGS, and installation of the EV charging stations. To allow early bond payment, the City plans to stretch out the construction and award Phase 1 and bid Phase 2 by Spring 2024.

C. On June 18, 2023, the Public Works Department advertised the Parking Garage Upgrade Project on the City Planet Bids website. The Project bidding period closed on July 26, 2023.

D. Public Works received three sealed bids, which were publicly opened and read aloud at the scheduled bid opening located at the City Public Works Building. The lowest responsible and responsive bidder was determined to be JPB Designs, Inc., with a bid amount of $478,300.

A. Upon evaluation of proposals, the Department of Public Works recommends the award of a Construction Agreement in the amount of $478,300 to JPB Designs, Inc. of Orangevale, CA.

B. The Department of Public Works recommends a project construction contingency of 10% of the Construction Agreement in the amount of $47,830 to the project fund.

C. The Department of Public Works recommends funds to support project labor compliance and materials testing in the amount of $5,000 be appropriated to the project fund.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority:
1024
Resolution 2023-XXX August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 2

1. Appropriates an additional $171,130 from the Parking Garage Fund balance for the Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrades.

2. Transfers the available budget of $110,000 from the Technical Services into the project account (52005320-48030), Parking Garage Construction, for a total available funding of $531,130, including the existing budget of $250,000 in the Construction account, to award the Construction Agreement, provide construction contingency, and appropriate funds to support labor compliance and materials testing. Fund transfer detail in the table below.

From Fund: Description Amount
52005320-42030 Parking Garage - Technical Services (-) 110,000.00 52005320-xxxxx Parking Revenue Fund Balance (-) 171,130.00 Total (-) $281,130.00
To Fund: Task Amount
52005320-48030 Construction (+) $281,130.00
Total (+) $281,130.00

3. Authorizes and directs the Chair to execute the Construction Agreement with JPB Designs, Inc. of Orangevale, CA, in the amount of $478,300 with 10% construction contingency in the amount of $47,830.00
Adopted by the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority on August 8, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, Chair
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, Secretary
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1025
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Agenda Item #:17
Agenda Item: Citizen Appointments to Commissions and Boards Executive Summary: Due to four resignations and one existing vacancy, the City Clerk solicited applications for citizen appointments to the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission, Airport Land Use Commission, and the El Dorado County Community Action Council. Three applications were received for two (2) voting member positions (expiring 2/2024 and 2/2025) on the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission. No applications were received to fill one (1) non-voting representative position associated with the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District or Lake Tahoe Lodging Association (expiring 2/2024). o Rachel Carlson o Aubrie Williams o Nolan Barichievich (student applicant) Two applications were received for one position on the Airport Land Use Commission (Expiring 2/2025). o Charles Averett o Joshua Cleaver One application was received for one City Council Representative to the El Dorado County Community Action Council. (considered annually) o Chelcee Thomas Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Interview applicants, and: 1) Pass a Motion appointing: two (2) voting members to fill vacancies (expiring 2/2024 and 2/2025) on the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission; 2) Pass a Motion appointing one (1) non-voting representative (if any) associated with the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District or Lake Tahoe Lodging Association (expiring 2/2024) on the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission; 3) Pass a Motion appointing an applicant to the Airport Land Use Commission (Expiring 2/2025); 4) Pass a Motion appointing a City Council representative to serve on the El Dorado County Community Action Council; and directing the re-solicitation of applications to the fill any remaining vacancies.

Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Reviewed and Approved By: Heather Stroud, City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_-_Citizen_Commissions_and_Boards (6).docx 02-Notice of Solicitation -ACT Rep & ALUC & Community Action.pdf 03-06 08 2023 Maddy Act List.pdf
04-Res 2023-013 City Commission-Boards- Committees.pdf
05-ACT_redacted.pdf
06-ALUC_Redacted.pdf
07-EDC CAC.pdf
1026
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Title: Citizen Appointments to Commissions and Boards
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk (530) 542-6005 Background: The City of South Lake Tahoe Commissions and Boards consists of: Airport Land Use Commission; Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission; Building Board of Appeals; Parks and Recreation Commission; Planning Commission; Police Advisory Commission; and the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee. Additionally, City Council Representative are appointed to serve on the El Dorado County Community Action Council, El Dorado County Commission on Aging and the TRPA Advisory Planning Commission.

Due to four resignations and one existing vacancy, the City Clerk solicited for applications to fill those vacancies.

Issue and Discussion: Three applications were received for two (2) voting member positions (expiring 2/2024 and 2/2025) on the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission. No applications were received to fill one (1) non-voting representative position associated with the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District or Lake Tahoe Lodging Association (expiring 2/2024). o Rachel Carlson
o Aubrie Williams
o Nolan Barichievich (student applicant)
Two applications were received for one position on the Airport Land Use Commission (Expiring 2/2025). o Charles Averett
o Joshua Cleaver
One application was received for one City Council Representative to the El Dorado County Community Action Council. (considered annually)
o Chelcee Thomas
Financial Implications: Costs associated with staff support of the individual commissions/boards have been budgeted for within the department who oversees the commission.

Environmental Considerations: This is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies) Policy Implications: The solicitation and appointment of citizens to various boards and commissions meets the requirements set forth in Resolution 2023-013 and conforms to City Council Protocols.
1027
City of South Lake Tahoe
Notice of Solicitation of Applications
City Council Representative: El Dorado County Community Action Council (one seat) Airport Land Use Commission (one seat)
Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission (two voting members and one non-voting representative of the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District or Lake Tahoe Lodging Association)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe is soliciting for applications for appointments to the following:

El Dorado County Community Action Council: (Considered annually) The City Council will be appointing one representative to the El Dorado County Community Action Council.

Applicants must reside within the city limits. The Council meets the fourth Wednesday of each month at 10 a.m.

For information purposes, the following is an excerpt from the By Laws:
“The purpose of this Advisory Board is to advise the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, as the designated Community Action Agency, and Board of Directors thereto, for the County, and the Health and Human Services Agency, as the County Department designated by the Board of Supervisors to administer Community Action programs and activities, including the Community Services Block Grant, about the needs of the community on issues relating to human services needs for low-income residents of El Dorado County and to provide an avenue of participation for local government, private organizations, and private citizens of the community in serving the most vulnerable populations. The Council will provide advice and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, provide assistance in educating the community on human services and available resources in El Dorado County and participate in developing collaborative solutions to meet ongoing community needs, while working together to meet the basic needs and to improve the quality of life for residents of El Dorado County.” Airport Land Use Commission:

The City Council will be appointing one (1) member to serve a vacancy (expiring 2/2025) on the Airport Land Use Commission. Applicants must reside and be domiciled within the Tahoe Basin portion of El Dorado County. The Airport Land Use Commission review and determine compatibility of individual development proposals, general plan amendments, and other land use plans and regulations around airports as well as other responsibilities set forth in the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

The Airport Land Use Commission meets on an as needed basis.

Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission:

The City Council will be appointing one (1) non-voting representative associated with the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District or Lake Tahoe Lodging Association(expiring 2/2024) and two (2) voting members to fill vacancies (expiring 2/2024 and 2/2025) on the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission.

Applicants must reside and be domiciled within the Tahoe Basin portion of El Dorado County. The Commission review proposed policies on Arts, Culture and Tourism programs and report findings and review proposed public arts projects and make recommendations for appropriation of funds for specific projects. The Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission will meet quarterly as needed.

Applications: Applications may be obtained at City Hall located at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Applications can also be downloaded from the City's website at www.cityofslt.us, or emailed to interested parties upon request to the City Clerk's Office. Completed applications must be returned to the City Clerk's Office (email preferred [email protected]) no later than 4:00 p.m., on Tuesday, July 25, 2023.

The City Council will be making the appointments at the regularly scheduled meeting of August 8, 2023, at 9 a.m. or as soon thereafter.

For details regarding Duties and Responsibilities of City Boards and Commissions visit the City’s City Boards and Commissions webpage.

For questions, please contact Susan Blankenship, City Clerk at 542-6005 or via email at 1028 [email protected]
1029
Revised 06 08 2023

LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST
Government Code 54972 (Maddy Act)
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (2 Year Term)
Meets as needed to review compatibility of land use plans and regulations around the airport.

Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Fernando Manfredi 3/28/2023 2/2025
Vacant 2/2025
BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS (2 Year Term)
Meets as needed to hear appeals of Building Official determinations & monitor City building use, maintenance & construction requirements.

Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Keith Roberts 1/10/2023 2/2025
Frank Sylvester 1/18/2022 2/2024
Courtney Schmidt 3/1/2022 2/2024
Seth Howard 8/9/2022 2/2024
Scott McGill 1/10/2023 2/2025
INDEPENDENT CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (MEASURE P) (4 Year Term) Meets as needed to provide direction to City Council & Staff regarding the use & accounting of Measure P funds.

Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Jerry Bindel 1/10/2023 2/2027
David Gregorich 1/10/2023 2/2027
Marissa Fox 1/10/2023 2/2027
Faye-Marie Pekar 1/10/2023 2/2027
Jude Wood 3/28/2023 2/2027
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION (Alternating 2 Year Terms) Meets quarterly to advise City Council on policies and projects relating to city parks and recreation.

Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Amelia Richmond 1/10/2023 2/2024 (limited term vacancy) Kira Smith 1/10/2023 2/2025
Jerry Bindel 1/18/2022 2/2024
David Gregorich 1/18/2022 2/2024
Peter Fink 1/10/2023 2/2025
Margaret Kovarik-Maxhimer 1/10/2023 2/2025
Nicole Ramirez-Thomas 1/10/2023 2/2025
PLANNING COMMISSION (Alternating 2 Year Terms)
Meets monthly to assist in matters relating to the City’s general plan, serve as Delinquent Refuse Hearing Board & perform duties set forth in Article 7 of the Government code.

Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Natalia Wieczorek 1/10/2023 2/2025
Keith Roberts 1/18/2022 2/2024
Gavin Feiger 1/18/2022 2/2024
Nick Speal 1/10/2023 2/2025
Seth Howard 1/10/2023 2/2025
1030
Revised 06 08 2023
Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission (Alternating 2 Year Terms) Meets quarterly to advise City Council on policies and projects relating to Arts, Culture and Tourism.

Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Stacey Ballard 1/10/2023 2/2025
Vacant 2/2025
David Hamilton 1/10/2023 2/2025
Vacant 2/2024
Bryan Yerian 1/18/2022 2/2024
Aimi Xistra Rich 5/2/2023 2/2025 (non-voting representative) Boys & Girls Club Vacant 2/2024(non-voting representative) Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority Lodging Association

Police Advisory Commission (Alternating 2 Year Terms)
Meets quarterly to advise, assist, and collaborate on police/community issues.

Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Ayana Morali 1/10/2023 2/2025
Erika Gonzalez 1/10/2023 2/2025
Tom Davis 1/10/2023 2/2025
Claudia Andersen 1/18/2022 2/2024
Justin Zunino 1/18/2022 2/2024

Council Commissions with citizen representation
EL DORADO COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL - Council Commission with citizen representative Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Vacant Appointment considered annually
EL DORADO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING - Council Commission with citizen representative Name Date Appointed Term Expires
Chantelle Schenning 12/13/2022 Appointment considered annually

TRPA ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION – Council Commission with citizen representative Name Date Appointed Term Expires (2 Year Term)
Susan Chandler 12/13/2022 12/2024
1031
Res 2023-013
March 14, 2023 Page 1 of 6
Resolution 2023-013
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
March 14, 2023
City Commissions, Boards, and Committees
Replacing Resolution 2022-011 and Resolution 2018-111)

BACKGROUND
A. The City of South Lake Tahoe Commissions, Boards, and Committees consist of 1) Airport Land Use Commission; 2) Building and Housing Board of Appeals; 3) Parks and Recreation Commission; 4) Planning Commission; 5) Police Advisory Commission; 6) Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission; and 7) Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee ( Measure P).

B. This resolution provides the City Council, City staff and the public information regarding the structure, duties, qualifications and responsibilities of City Commissions, Boards and Committees.

C. This resolution provides the process for the appointment and removal of commissioners and board members and the general policies and procedures of City Commissions, Boards, and Committees.

D. This resolution assists in facilitating the City Commission, Board, and Committee operations and in maximizing public participation.

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

Section 1. Application Process/ Appointment Process/ Removal:

Application Process: Applications to serve on City Commissions, Boards, and Committees shall be received by the City Clerk on an ongoing basis and a solicitation/ recruitment shall be held commencing annually for any open seats on October 1 (or as soon thereafter). Appointments to Boards and Commissions shall be made only from persons who have applied.

Persons interested in serving may pick up an application from the Office of the City Clerk located at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California or downloaded from the City of South Lake Tahoe, City Commissions, Boards, and Committees webpage. Applications will also be mailed, faxed or emailed upon request to the Office of the City Clerk.

During the solicitation/ recruitment period, completed applications must be returned to the City Clerk by the deadline set forth in the Notice for the Solicitation period. 1032
Res 2023-013
March 14, 2023 Page 2 of 6
The City Clerk shall notify all current commissioners and applicants remaining on the Applicant List.

Appointment Process: The City Clerk will provide the City Councilmembers with copies of all applications received by the prescribed deadline.

The City Clerk will notify all applicants of the date and time of the City Council meeting when appointments will be made. Applicants are encouraged to attend the meeting and be available if they wish to address the City Council or if the City Council wishes to interview the applicant.

The City Council will vote for their appointments following City Council Protocols, ll. Rules of Conduct, 10. Procedure for Motion.

After the appointments have been made, the City Clerk will administer an oath of office to each newly appointed commissioner at their first commission meeting and will provide each commissioner with a copy of the City Commission Handbook which will include this resolution, the City's Code of Ethics and FPPC Financial Disclosure Statements ( see Section 4). Those selected, but not present at the Council meeting, will be notified by the City Clerk' s Office oftheir appointment.

In accordance with Government Code Section 54972, the City Clerk will prepare and maintain an Appointment List of the names and terms of those voted upon to serve on each City Commission.

Those applicants not appointed will be placed on an Applicant List prepared by the City Clerk' s Office. The Applicant List will be maintained until the commencement of the next solicitation period. In the event of a vacancy on any Commission or Board, the City Council may appoint from the names remaining on the "Applicant List," and the Appointee selected would serve the remainder of the unexpired term.

Removal: Any Commission, Board, or Committee member may be removed at any time during his or her term, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the City Council.

Section 2. Residency Requirements
The following residency requirements shall apply to members of City Commissions, Boards, and Committees.

A. Members of the Airport Land Use Commission, Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission, Building and Housing Board of Appeals, Independent Citizen’ s Oversight Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Police Advisory Commission, shall reside within the Tahoe Basin portion of El Dorado County.

B. Members of the Planning Commission shall reside within the City limits. 1033
Res 2023-013
March 14, 2023 Page 3 of 6
Section 3. Structure Terms of Office and Qualifications The Airport Land Use Commission shall consist of two (2) members and shall serve two-year terms, commencing in February of odd numbered years.

The Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission shall consist of five (5) voting members and two 2) non-voting representatives, serving two-year staggered terms. Three ( 3) members and one (1) non-voting representative shall have terms commencing in February of odd numbered years and two (2) members and one (1) non-voting representative shall have terms commencing in February of even numbered years. One non-voting representative even years) will be selected from the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District or Lake Tahoe Lodging Association and One (1) non-voting representative ( odd years) will be selected from the South Lake Tahoe Boys and Girls Club organization. The commission will seek to include members that have a background in tourism and public arts or a multi-cultural perspective. At least one member shall be a youth member with the qualifications listed above. In the event that a youth member does not apply, or are not selected by City Council, then the one position will be available to the general public.

The Building and Housing Board of Appeals shall consist of at least three ( 3) members, but no more than five (5) members and shall serve two-year terms, commencing in February of odd or even numbered years.

The Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee shall consist of at least five (5) members serving four (4) year terms commencing in February. The Committee shall end upon the completion of the construction of the new recreation complex.

The Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of seven ( 7) members serving two-year staggered terms. Four (4) members shall have terms commencing in February of odd numbered years and Three ( 3) members shall have terms commencing in February of even numbered years.

The Planning Commission shall consist of five (5) members serving two-year staggered terms. Three ( 3) members shall have terms commencing in February of odd numbered years and two (2) members shall have terms commencing in February of even numbered years.

The Police Advisory Commission shall consist of five (5) members serving two-year staggered terms. Three ( 3) members shall have terms commencing in February of odd numbered years and two (2) members shall have terms commencing in February of even numbered years. Two members will be reserved for members of the multicultural alliance.

In the event two members from the multicultural alliance do not apply, or are not selected by City Council, then the 2 positions will be available to the general public.

Section 4. Adoption of Rules and Procedures
Each Commission, Board, or Committee may adopt its own rules of procedure, provide for the selection of officers, and take such other steps as reasonably required for the conduct of business in conformity with the laws of the State of California. 1034
Res 2023-013
March 14, 2023 Page 4 of 6
The Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission; Parks and Recreation Commission; and Police Advisory Commission, shall meet at least quarterly; the Planning Commission shall meet monthly assuming there is business to conduct; the Airport Land Use Commission, Building and Housing Board of Appeals, and Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee shall meet on an as needed basis. There may be the need or occasion( s) for a Commission, Board, or Committee to hold a special meeting.

In the event any Commissioner, Board, or Committee member has three (3) absences in one calendar year ( assuming there have been scheduled meetings to attend), their seat will be deemed to have been vacated and a new appointment will be made in a manner consistent with this resolution.

The Airport Land Use Commission, Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission, Building and Housing Board of Appeals, Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission members are required to comply with the State of California Political Reform Act, regulated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, by filing a Statement of Economic Interests Form 700 with the City Clerk. If any member fails to file the required disclosure statement after written notice from the City Clerk, their seat shall be deemed vacated, and a new appointment will be made in a manner consistent with this resolution.

Section 5. Duties and Responsibilities
Members of Boards and City Commissions shall have the following duties and qualifications:

A. Airport Land Use Commission: The City's Planning Commission, when augmented with the Airport Land Use Commission, shall exercise the following responsibilities set forth in the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) under the authority of the California. Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, as follows:

1. The adoption of a basic Airport Land Use Commission Policy Plan, as adopted by the ALUC.

2. The adoption of land use plans for individual airports, as adopted by the South Lake Tahoe ALUC for Lake Tahoe Airport.

3. The incorporation of the land use compatibility guidelines contained in the CLUP into the general plan and land use regulations by cities and counties with jurisdiction over any geographic area subject to the CLUP.

4. ALUC review and determination of compatibility of individual development proposals, general plan amendments, and other land use plans and regulations around airports.

B. Building and Housing Board of Appeals: 1) Hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official in the application and interpretation of the Building and Housing related codes adopted by the City Council. 2) Hear and decide appeals regarding requirements of the City relating to the use, maintenance and change of occupancy of buildings and structures, including requirements governing alteration, additions, repair, demolition and moving. 3) Hear 1035
Res 2023-013
March 14, 2023 Page 5 of 6
and decide appeals relating to new building construction and appeals relating to existing buildings.

The Board shall have no administrative authority, nor shall it be entitled to waive provisions of the Code in deciding on appeal.

C. Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission: 1) Act in advisory capacity to the City Council and no express authority or power to act on behalf of the City is hereby delegated. 2) Review proposed policies on Arts, Culture and Tourism programs and report findings. 3) Review proposed public arts projects and make recommendations for appropriation of funds for specific projects.

D. Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee: 1) Act in advisory capacity to the City Council and no express authority or power to act on behalf of the City is hereby delegated. 2) The Committee shall receive and review the independent financial audit of the City Measure P transactions and other City financial reports necessary to review and report on the use of revenue from Measure P and advise the City Council of its findings and make recommendations for the use of funding during the design and construction of the new recreational complex.

E. Parks and Recreation Commission: 1) Advise the City Council concerning proposed policies relating to parks and recreation department operations within the City. 2) Review and recommend capital improvement projects in parks and recreation facilities within the City.

F. Planning Commission: 1) Assist in the preparation, update of and recommendations to the City Council concerning the general plan for the physical development of the City. 2) Perform those duties set forth in Article 7 of the California Government Code under such conditions as the City Council may from time to time establish. 3) Serve as the Delinquent Refuse Hearing Board.

G. Police Advisory Commission: 1) Review and discuss Police Department policy. 2) Receive, review, and discuss annual police employee personnel complaint statistics including number, nature, and outcomes of complaints. 3) Receive, review, and discuss various transparency related reports on RIPA data, use of force, and other information as directed by the commission and allowable by law. 4) Advise and assist the Police Department on recruitment strategies focusing on local and underrepresented populations. 5) Collaborate on community outreach strategies and local cultural competency training for police employees. 6) Open forum to discuss any other police/ community issues.

Any decision of any board or commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedures established for that purpose.

In order to keep the City Council better informed, all City Commissions, Boards, and Committees via their Commission/ Board Clerk, shall provide the City Council with copies of all City Commission/ Board agendas and minutes. Each City Commission and Board 1036
Res 2023-013
March 14, 2023 Page 6 of 6
shall have the opportunity at each City Council meeting, under agenda item City Commission Reports, to provide a brief report on their commission' s activities. All City Commissions, Boards, and Committees shall make a formal written report to the City Council annually at the Council' s November meeting.

Section 6. Miscellaneous Matters
All members of Commissions, Boards, and Committees shall be unpaid volunteers and not employees of the City. All members of Boards or Commissions shall be subject to the City's Code of Ethics and the City Clerk shall provide a copy of the City Commission Handbook, which includes the Code of Ethics, to each member of a Commission or Board upon their appointment.

To minimize operational costs, all meetings shall be scheduled in such a manner to reduce or eliminate the payment of overtime to city staff.

Any proposed training and travel expenditures will be provided by city staff to the City Manager for approval.

In compliance with the Brown Act, all meetings shall be open and public, and each meeting shall be audio or video recorded. Action Minutes shall constitute the official Minutes of Commission, Board, or Committee meetings and will serve as documentation of actions taken. Agenda packets shall be made available to the public for review at no charge. Copies, upon request, shall be assessed a fee consistent with the City's Fees & Charges Resolution adopted by the City Council.

The City Council may determine the need or necessity to appoint a Councilmember or City Staff member to serve as liaison to a City Commission, Board, or Committee which could occur during their Councilmember Appointments and Assignments that are held during the second City Council meeting in January of each year or otherwise at a regular meeting in which the item is placed on the agenda.

Section 7. All resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on March 14, 2023, by the following vote:

Yes: Bass, Creegan, Friedrich, Robbins and Wallace
Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, 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 ( Mar 15, 2023 08: 39 PDT)
Cristi Creegan ( Mar 16, 2023 15: 37 PDT)
Cristi Creegan Mar 16, 2023
1037
Res 2023-013 City Commission-Boards
Final Audit Report 2023- 03-16
Created: 2023- 03-14
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAy1vMDMm7WpAKxF1Xi_ zlG27X04UlylVM Res 2023-013 City Commission- Boards" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2023- 03- 14 - 11:37:13 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2023- 03- 14 - 11:39:59 PM GMT
Email viewed by Sue Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2023- 03- 15 - 3:38:50 PM GMT- IP address: 104. 47.65.254 Document e-signed by Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023- 03-15 - 3:39:08 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023- 03- 15 - 3:39:09 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023- 03- 16 - 10:37:19 PM GMT- IP address: 47.25.118. 95 Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Cristi Creegan 2023- 03- 16 - 10:37:35 PM GMT- IP address: 47.25.118. 95 Document e-signed by Cristi Creegan ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023- 03-16 - 10:37:37 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 47.25.118. 95 Agreement completed.
2023- 03- 16 - 10:37:37 PM GMT
Names and email addresses are entered into the Acrobat Sign service by Acrobat Sign users and are unverified unless otherwise noted. 1038

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

VOLUNTEER COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION
Please Legibly Print or Type
NAME: FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST COMMITTEE AND/OR CATEGORY APPL YING FOR:

Rachel A Carlson Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission

CITY STATE ZIP CODE

CITY STATE ZIP CODE
same as above
RESIDENCY: (Please select one)
CITY RESIDENT ti' EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENT DOUGLAS COUNTY RESIDENT STATE OF NEVADA RESIDENT BUSINESS: EMAIL ADDRESS:

EMPLOYER:
self, Black Bear Lodge
EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE:

BA, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
PLEASE LIST ANY PAST OR PRESENT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND/OR GROUP AFFILIATIONS:

Involved in Ski Run BID and Friends of Ski Run

WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS COMMITTEE AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IF APPOINTED?
I see the responsibility of this committee is to review policies and projects and make recommendations to city council. I believe that my experience as a longtime local and passionate business person make an excellent candidate for this role. I'll work hard lo connect available funds lo ready to go projects Have you taken the opportunity to attend any previous commi□· meeting prior to the notice of this vacancy? YES NO �
Please list any potential conflict of interests that you may foresee tf appointed to 'ffie1commission that you've applied:
none
If appointed to the Airport Land Use Commission, Planning Commission Building Board of Appeals, Parks & Recreation Commission, Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission or Independent Citizens' Oversight Commitee, you will be required by the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission to file a Conflict of Interest Statement with the City Clerk. Will you be willing to comply with this requirement?
CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT:

YES Iv' I NO □
I certify that all statements made in this application are true and complete. I understand that any false statement or omission of material facts will subject me to disqualifi · · · DATE: 7 /25/23 SIGNATURE:

Please note that the information provided on this application, including address, phone number and email address will become a matter of public record.

WHEN COMPLETED RETURN FORM
TO: Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Susan Blankenship - City Clerk
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6324
PH: (530) 542-6005
[email protected]
1039
July 25, 2023
Hello Art, Culture and Tourism Commission:

My name is Rachel and I am very interested in becoming a part of the Art, Culture and Tourism Commission. I’m a passionate business owner and know how much public art can impact a town. I’m inspired to bring the community together around our shared love for this special place and have a deep sensitivity to Tourism.

I own and operate a small hotel. I understand that many businesses and as such, employees, survive on tourism. I think there is a balance to be struck somewhere between us versus them.

There is a collective “we” in there and communication about important issues can be communicated through art.

I hope I have the opportunity to make an impact on this beautiful town that I call home.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rachel Carlson
Owner, Black Bear Lodge
1040

WHEN COMPLETED RETURN FORM
TO: Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Susan Blankenship - City Clerk
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6324
PH: (530) 542-6005
[email protected]

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

VOLUNTEER COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION
Please Legibly Print or Type
NAME: FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST COMMITTEE AND/OR CATEGORY APPLYING FOR:

RESIDENCE: STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX CITY STATE ZIP CODE
RESIDENCY: (Please select one)

CITY RESIDENT EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENT DOUGLAS COUNTY RESIDENT STATE OF NEVADA RESIDENT PHONE NUMBER(S): RESIDENCE: BUSINESS: EMAIL ADDRESS:

EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE:

PLEASE LIST ANY PAST OR PRESENT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND/OR GROUP AFFILIATIONS:

WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS COMMITTEE AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IF APPOINTED?
DATE:__________________________SIGNATURE
________________________________________________________ Please note that the information provided on this application, including address, phone number and email address will become a matter of public record.

Have you taken the opportunity to attend any previous commission meeting prior to the notice of this vacancy? YES NO
Please list any potential conflict of interests that you may foresee if appointed to the Commission that you’ve applied:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ If appointed to the Airport Land Use Commission, Planning Commission Building Board of Appeals, Parks & Recreation Commission, Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission or Independent Citizens' Oversight Commitee, you will be required by the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission to file a Conflict of Interest Statement with the City Clerk. Will you be willing to comply with this requirement?
CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT:

I certify that all statements made in this application are true and complete. I understand that any false statement or omission of material facts will subject me to disqualification or dismissal.

YES NO
1041

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

VOLUNTEER COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION
Please Legibly Print or Type
NAME: FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST COMMITTEE AND/OR CATEGORY APPL YING FOR:

N o · v/c)-, .._._ ,,......r ~ 4----'"lou... 1

ZIP CODE
q G, I D
P . . B ZIP CODE
.S ().._,,yyl fL lLS CL.lo o---v' e~
RESIDENCY: (Please select one)

CITY RESIDENT EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENT
EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE:
.So
PLEASE LIST ANY PAST OR PRESENT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND/OR GROUP AFFILIATIONS:

H-5 · c..t,L - A ·1
If appointed to the Airport Land Use Commission, Planning Commission, Building Board of Appeals, Parks & Recreation Commission, Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission or Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, you will be required by the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission to file a Conflict of Interest Statement with the City Clerk. Will you be willing to comply with this requirement?
CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT:

YES ~NOD
I certify that all statements made in this application are true and complete. I understand that any false statement or omission of material facts will subject me to disqual e I a A II .

DATE: ~ - ;2.8 - ;i_o ;>...3 SIGNATUR -
•
Please note that the information provided on this application, including address, phone number and emal address wlll beoome a matter of pubDc record. * i-h IL (_ 0 vv, VV7 vLYl i'+y
y\l h ,· C~ h W i 11 -fos+-..eA"
SL1 +ou...rj5 vv, •

WHEN COMPLETED RETURN FORM
TO: Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Susan Blankenship - City Clerk
1901 LisaMaloffWay, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6324
PH: (530) 542-6005
[email protected]
1042

WHEN COMPLETED RETURN FORM
TO: Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Susan Blankenship - City Clerk
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6324
PH: (530) 542-6005
[email protected]

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

VOLUNTEER COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION
Please Legibly Print or Type
NAME: FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST COMMITTEE AND/OR CATEGORY APPLYING FOR:

RESIDENCE: STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX CITY STATE ZIP CODE
RESIDENCY: (Please select one)

CITY RESIDENT EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENT DOUGLAS COUNTY RESIDENT STATE OF NEVADA RESIDENT PHONE NUMBER(S): RESIDENCE: BUSINESS: EMAIL ADDRESS:

EMPLOYER:

EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE:

PLEASE LIST ANY PAST OR PRESENT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND/OR GROUP AFFILIATIONS:

WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS COMMITTEE AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IF APPOINTED?
DATE:__________________________SIGNATURE:
____________________________________________
Please note that the information provided on this application, including address, phone number and email address will become a matter of public record.

I certify that all statements made in this application are true and complete. I understa d that any false statement or omission of material facts will subject me to disqualification or dismissal. _
YES NO
Charles CG Averett South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Camino, CA 95709 ✔ ✔ Mountain West Aviation 6+ years working at Mountain West Aviation - TVL, licensed pilot,Bachelors in Science from University of Tampa. Participate in epic promise through vail corp. Provide more accurate opinions and feed back from airport customers to the city of SLT. ✔ ✔
07/25/2023
1043

WHEN COMPLETED RETURN FORM
TO: Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Susan Blankenship - City Clerk
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6324
PH: (530) 542-6005
[email protected]

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

VOLUNTEER COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION
Please Legibly Print or Type
NAME: FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST COMMITTEE AND/OR CATEGORY APPLYING FOR:

RESIDENCE: STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX CITY STATE ZIP CODE
RESIDENCY: (Please select one)

CITY RESIDENT EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENT DOUGLAS COUNTY RESIDENT STATE OF NEVADA RESIDENT PHONE NUMBER(S): RESIDENCE: BUSINESS: EMAIL ADDRESS:

EMPLOYER:

EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE:

PLEASE LIST ANY PAST OR PRESENT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND/OR GROUP AFFILIATIONS:

I certify that all statements made in this application are true and complete. I understand that any false statement or omission of material facts will subject me to disqualification or dismissal. _
YES NO
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Agenda Item #:18
Agenda Item: Residential Parking Permit Program
Executive Summary: The City has received several requests from several neighborhoods for establishing a Residential Parking Permit Program RPPP), including the Heavenly Valley area and Lakeside neighborhoods. Adopting this ordinance will allow each neighborhood or street segment to petition for RPPP, if it meets certain requirements. Once the City receives a petition and meets the requirements in the Ordinance, the Council may pass a Resolution establishing RPPP for the particular roadways.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to hold the first reading of an Ordinance amending South Lake Tahoe City Code, Title 4, Chapter 4.25, Article V (Stopping, Standing and Parking) by adding Section 4.25.365 (Residential Parking Permit Program), and refer the second reading and adoption to the September 12, 2023 meeting.

Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works, David Stevenson, Chief of Police Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_RPPP_Final.docx
02 - Residential_Parking_Permit_Program_Ordinance_Final.docx 03 - RPPP.pdf
1054
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Title: Residential Parking Permit Program
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works - (530) 542-6031 David Stevenson, Chief of Police – (530) 542-6120
Background: City staff has received several requests for Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP), specifically from the Heavenly Valley and Tahoe Meadow residents. These neighborhoods and others near recreational and tourist activities are adversely impacted by motor vehicle congestion, particularly the long-term parking of motor vehicles on the streets. In these areas, non-resident vehicles substantially and regularly interfere with the use of most available onstreet spaces by adjacent residents, interfering with regular and significant daily or weekly intervals. The volume of non-resident vehicles in these certain areas causes unreasonable traffic hazards, noise, and trash impacts. A shortage of reasonably available and convenient residentialrelated parking spaces exists in these areas, and alternative solutions are not feasible or practical.

The City has authority under California Vehicle Code section 22507 to grant preferential parking privileges to residents on streets where parking is otherwise prohibited.

Issue and Discussion: To protect these areas and neighborhoods, it is necessary to enact parking regulations restricting parking by nonresidents while allowing residents to park near their homes. In these situations, uniform parking regulations restricting residents and nonresidents alike would not serve the public interest. Rather such regulation would contribute to neighborhood decline while ignoring alternatives to automobile travel available to nonresidents who park in these areas. For these reasons, a system of prereferral resident parking is needed. This system is called Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP).

For the purpose of this RPPP Ordinance, a “resident” would be defined as “a person who owns or rents a dwelling unit within a residential permit parking zone for their own living accommodations, including owner-occupants, long-term tenants, and second homeowners.” RPPP has the following general benefits:
 Reducing potential hazardous traffic conditions resulting from the long-term parking of vehicles or tourists in such areas and neighborhoods.
 Protecting neighborhoods from polluted air, excessive noise, trash and refuse caused by motor vehicles.
 Protecting the residents of such areas and neighborhoods from unreasonable burdens in obtaining parking near their residence and gaining access to their residence. 1055
Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 2
 Preserving the character of such areas and neighborhoods as residential, promoting the efficiency of the maintenance of the streets in a clean and safe condition.  Preserving the value of properties in such areas and neighborhoods.  Preserving the safety of children, pedestrians, and bicyclists.  Promoting traffic safety and the peace, good order, conform, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitant of the City of South Lake Tahoe.

The proposed RPPP can be designated for certain streets or any portions thereof if the City Council, upon finding that such zone is required to provide reasonably available and convenient parking for the benefit of adjacent residents, as residential permit parking zones, in which zones vehicles displaying a permit that is visible from the outside of the vehicle are exempt from parking prohibitions otherwise posted. Residents and neighborhoods can request or petition for an RPPP to the Police Chief or Director of Public Works. City staff will evaluate the request, and if justified based on traffic and parking impacts, the request will be presented to the City Council for formal review and approval.

Once a RPPP zone has been approved, the City Manager would develop an application for residential parking permits. Applicants for such permits must present proof of residence adjacent to the area designated as a residential permit parking zone. Permits for multifamily units will be issued to the property owner for distribution to tenants. Two guest vehicle permits will be issued per the address of the applicant(s). Permits are to be effective for one year from the date of issuance.

Financial Implications: There will be a cost to administer the RPPP program, which is expected to be offset by the permit fees. The cost of the permit will be based on expected administrative costs and will be presented to the City Council with the second reading of the Ordinance, scheduled for September 12, 2023. The Fee Schedule will be updated annually based on actual expenses.

Environmental Considerations: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) because the Ordinance addresses parking regulations on existing roadways.

Policy Implications: This project advances the City Council Strategic Priorities and Goals, specifically related to traffic safety and neighborhood preservation. 1056
Ordinance 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 1 of 3
Ordinance 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
September 12, 2023
An Ordinance Amending South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 4, Chapter 4.25 to Add Section 4.25.365 (Residential Parking Permit Program) to Designate Areas Where On-Street Parking Permits are Available to Residents of Streets Where Parking is Otherwise Prohibited

FINDINGS
A. The City has authority under California Vehicle Code section 22507 to grant preferential parking privileges to residents on streets where parking is otherwise prohibited.

B. The Public Works Director/City Traffic Engineer recommends adopting this Ordinance to establish a Residential Parking Permit Program that would allow the City Council to designate such areas where on-street parking permits are available to residents of streets where parking is otherwise prohibited.

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

SECTION 1. South Lake Tahoe City Code Title 4, Chapter 4.25 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic), is hereby amended to add Section 4.25.365 (Residential Parking Permit Program) as follows:

4.25.365 Residential Parking Permit Program.

A. City Council Findings. In certain areas of the City of South Lake Tahoe, non-resident vehicles do or may substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority of the available on-street spaces by adjacent residents; this interference occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly intervals; the volume of non-resident vehicles in these certain areas cause unreasonable traffic hazards, noise, and trash impacts; a shortage of reasonably available and convenient residential related parking spaces exist in these areas; and alternative solutions are not feasible or practical.

B. Authorization. The City Council, upon finding that such zone is required to provide reasonably available and convenient parking for the benefit of adjacent residents, may designate certain streets or any portions thereof as residential permit parking zones, in which zones vehicles displaying a permit that is visible from the outside of the vehicle are exempt from parking prohibitions otherwise posted.

C. Definition of resident. For the purpose of this section, a “resident” means a person who owns or rents a dwelling unit within a residential permit parking zone for their own living 1057
Ordinance 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 2 of 3
accommodations, including owner-occupants, long-term tenants, and second homeowners.

D. Permits. The City Manager is authorized to develop an application for residential parking permits. Applicants for such permits must present proof of residence adjacent to the area designated as a residential permit parking zone. Permits for multifamily units will be issued to the owner of the property for distribution to tenants. Two guest vehicle permits will be issued per address of applicant(s). Permits are to be effective for one year from the date of issuance.

E. Prohibitions. Residential parking permits are not transferable, and it is unlawful for a person to give, sell, or rent a residential parking permit to another person.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after the date of its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on September 12, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
1058
Ordinance 2023-XXX September 12, 2023 Page 3 of 3
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1059
Residential Parking Permit
Program
Council Presentation – August 8, 2023
1060
Residential Parking Permit Program Defined
 To protect these areas and neighborhoods, it is necessary to enact parking regulations restricting parking by nonresidents while allowing residents to park near their homes.
 In these situations, uniform parking regulations restricting residents and nonresidents alike would not serve the public interest.
 In these situations, a system of prereferral resident parking is needed, known as Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). 1061
Residential
Parking Permit
Program
Benefits
o Reducing potential hazardous traffic conditions resulting from the long-term parking of vehicles or tourists in such areas and neighborhoods.
o Protecting neighborhoods from polluted air, excessive noise, trash, and refuse caused by motor vehicles.
o Protecting the residents of such areas and neighborhoods from unreasonable burdens in obtaining parking near their residences and gaining access to their residences.
o Preserving the character of such areas and neighborhoods as residential, promoting the efficiency of the maintenance of the streets in a clean and safe condition.
o Preserving the value of properties in such areas and
neighborhoods.
o Preserving the safety of children, pedestrians, and bicyclists. o Promoting traffic safety and the peace, good order, conform, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitant of the City of South Lake Tahoe.
1062
Residential Parking Permit Program Application
o The proposed RPPP can be designated for certain streets or any portions thereof if the City Council, upon finding that such zone is required to provide reasonably available and convenient parking for the benefit of adjacent residents, as residential permit parking zones, in which zones vehicles displaying a permit that is visible from the outside of the vehicle are exempt from parking prohibitions otherwise posted. o Residents and neighborhoods can request or petition for an RPPP to the Police Chief or Director of Public Works. City staff will evaluate the request, and if justified based on traffic and parking impacts, the request will be presented to the City Council for formal review and approval.
o Hours and periods of RPPP can be adjusted based on impacts and needs. o Once an RPPP zone has been approved, the City Manager will develop an application for residential parking permits. Applicants for such permits must present proof of residence adjacent to the area designated as a residential permit parking zone. Permits for multifamily units will be issued to the property owner for distribution to tenants. Two guest vehicle permits will be issued per the address of the applicant(s). Permits are to be effective for one year from the date of issuance. 1063
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Agenda Item #:19
Agenda Item: Building Energy Efficiency Reach Code
Executive Summary: Adoption of a reach code is a component of the City's adopted Climate Action Plan to reduce energy use, and associate greenhouse gases from buildings. The City has initiated a public process to develop a reach code that would require newly constructed buildings to meet higher energy efficiency standards. Options are being presented to City Council to consider policy direction and a framework for a draft reach code.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion providing direction to staff on components of the reach code, including applicable building types, desired reach code option, and exemptions, a complimentary educational program and associated budget to increase local knowledge of building energy efficiency and electrification measures, and to conduct additional economic impact analysis to determine impacts on local construction industry, real estate market and housing costs.

Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services, Sara Letton, Sustainability Coordinator
Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01_CCStaffReport_ReachCode_20230718.docx
02-CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary.pdf
03-CostEffectivenessStudies.pdf
04-PollingResults_20230723.pdf
05-PowerPoint
1064
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 1 of 10
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Title: Building Energy Efficiency Reach Code
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services Sara Letton, Sustainability Coordinator
Background:

Climate Change
The City and region are experiencing the effects of climate change including warming trends, declining snowpacks, variations in precipitation extremes, heightened tree mortality, unprecedented droughts, more frequent and intense wildfires, and changes in streamflow timing (OPR et al. 2018). Governor Newsom’s Executive Order B55-18, issued in 2018, set a statewide target to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045.

Carbon Pollution Reduction Targets and CAP Adoption
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2020, setting carbon pollution goals for 2030 and 2040. 2030 has been identified as a key milestone year to achieve significant carbon pollution reductions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. On June 21, 2022, the City officially adopted a science-based carbon pollution target, refining the originally estimated target established in Resolution 2017-026. This target establishes a reduction target of 59.2% from the 2018 baseline levels and aligns with the City's commitment to carbon pollution reduction and renewable energy goals. The CAP outlines a framework consisting of five overarching strategies, each encompassing specific actions. These strategies are categorized as follows: transportation, land use, water and solid waste, carbon sequestration and watershed health, and building energy. Under each strategy, a set of actions is identified to guide the City's efforts in addressing climate change and promoting sustainability.

Building Energy and Greenhouse Gases
The City’s 2015 Baseline Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions inventory identified building energy as responsible for 59% of the City’s total emissions (see Figure ES-2. 2015 Baseline Communitywide Emissions in the Climate Action Plan, 2020). For greater context, transportation was responsible for 32%, solid waste 7%, and water/wastewater 2%.

The CAP includes eight actions under the Building Energy strategy, several of which are relevant to the development of a reach code.
1065
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 2 of 10
 EB-1: Implement robust energy audit and retrofit programs. o The measure also sets the ambitious goals of achieving a 50 percent reduction in energy use in existing buildings by 2040 and 75 percent by 2045.  EB-2: Electrify Buildings
o This measure also states, “By 2022, develop a policy roadmap to achieve decarbonization of the applicable existing building stock by 2030, without additional cost burden or displacement risk to vulnerable community members.”  ZNE-1: Adopt a Green Building Standard, including:
o “Explore potential “Reach” codes that include energy efficiency measures beyond state requirements for new construction. Include exemptions for affordable housing projects and additions, major alterations, and repairs for low-income residents. Consult with local stakeholders for ideas and insight regarding potential code updates. Develop the code to require or incentivize the following measures in new construction (new buildings, additions, major alterations, and repairs to existing buildings):
 All electric appliances
 Energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements beyond Title 24 standards
 Efficient indoor and outdoor lighting standards
 Installation of 240-volt outlets in garages for EV charging  Installation of Energy Star appliances wherever appliances are furnished as a standard part of the construction.”
o From the CAP regarding ZNE-1:
 “This measure assumes that the City will work with community stakeholders to develop and adopt a “Reach” code, which requires new development projects in the City to achieve energy efficiency savings (electricity and natural gas use) above what is required by the State’s 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards [since updated in 2022 code. See description below].

This measure is calculated by assuming that all new development in the City, once the “Reach” code is adopted, would use approximately 50 percent less energy than units built under the State’s current Title 24 energy efficiency standards… This measure assumes that by 2040 the City will have updated its building code to only allow zero net energy projects to be developed. These projects would not generate any additional energy demand beyond existing levels and therefore not generate additional GHG emissions.”
The City has engaged ID360 to provide technical support and assist in the reach code development process. ID360 is a sustainability consulting company with expertise in green building, rating systems, and energy codes.

Key Terms
All-Electric - Buildings using a permanent supply of electricity for space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying, with no natural gas or propane plumbing installed in the building. 1066
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 3 of 10
Mixed-Fuel – Buildings using natural gas or propane as fuel for space heating, water heating, cooking appliances, and/or clothes drying appliances or is plumb.

Electric-Ready - Gas appliances in mixed-fuel buildings have designated conduits and raceways and reserved capacity on the main electrical panel and subpanels to support electric appliances in the future.

Prescriptive Codes - Require one or more specific energy efficiency measures.

Performance Codes - Require a building to perform more efficiently based on California Energy Commission (CEC) approved energy modeling software and allow trade-offs between energy efficiency measures.

Incremental costs - Represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices.
2022 CA Building Code
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). The 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards became effective January 1, 2023. This most recent update focuses on four key areas in the new construction of homes and businesses:
• Encouraging electric heat pump technology and use.
• Establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed. • Expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards. • Strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.

The update introduced new requirements for new building construction, including the establishment of an energy budget based on efficient heat pumps for space or water heating to encourage builders to install heat pumps over gas-fueled HVAC units. The code includes electric-readiness requirements with dedicated 240-volt outlets and space (with plumbing for heat pump water heaters) to facilitate the future installation of electric appliances. The 2022 Energy Code also includes increased minimum kitchen ventilation requirements to better exhaust pollution from gas cooking, efficiency improvements, energy storage (battery) readiness, and battery installation requirements. Although buildings that use gas may be constructed, they must meet specified performance standards by installing other efficiency measures to offset the energy and emissions impacts of gas usage. In addition to new buildings, the standards apply to substantial upgrades to existing homes and businesses (See Attachment 02). In comparison to the 2019 Energy Code, the 2022 Energy Code is estimated to save 285,214 tons of CO2e annually throughout California (2022 Update to the California Energy Code Impact Analysis, June 2023).

Energy Code compliance can be achieved through a prescriptive or a performance method.

CEC-approved software is used to demonstrate performance compliance with residential and nonresidential provisions of the Energy Code. Performance modeling allows a user to assess 1067
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 4 of 10
building system performance against the Energy Code baseline. After construction, a certified acceptance test technician performs an inspection and testing required by the Energy Code.

It is important to note that the Energy Code includes exemptions to the baseline requirements such as the solar exposure exemption from PV installation requirements. This exemption may be granted based on limited solar exposure due to barriers such as trees, hills, or adjacent structures. An exemption to PV installation is also applicable where project design snow loads are greater than the highest-rated PV panels currently available.

Issue and Discussion:

Local governments can adopt building energy requirements that are more stringent than the California Building Code, through what are known as reach codes. A reach code is a local building code that reaches beyond the minimum requirements of the state energy requirements.

Adopting more stringent energy requirements for building design and construction can allow a local government to reduce emissions, lower utility bills, provide safer buildings, and improve public health. More than 70 local California governments adopted ordinances that prohibit gas appliances in newly constructed buildings or limit gas end uses, resulting in significant GHG emission reductions.

Several GHG-reducing measures that can be incorporated into new buildings, beyond minimum code requirements, include increased insulation, heat pump HVAC systems, heat pump hot water systems, electric appliances, induction cooktops, additional rooftop solar, battery storage, LED lighting, and EV charging capabilities. Each of these techniques has trade-offs in incremental costs, benefits, and conveniences. All-electric buildings have the potential for the greatest GHG emission reductions and have significant incremental cost savings due to the absence of gas infrastructure. However, the reliability of electric power during inclement weather and future costs of electric power is often cited as a concern. Backup power provided by a natural gas generator (whole house generator) can alleviate concerns with electric power reliability.

However, the incremental cost savings from excluding a gas connection for an all-electric building would not be realized with installation of a natural gas generator.

For mixed-fuel buildings, gas usage is highest for space heating and water heating. Installation of electric heat pumps for space and water heating generally triples the energy efficiency of these systems, however, the efficiency of a heat pump can be affected by colder outdoor temperatures. Weather protection of the exterior units, the use of allowable land coverage, and increased incremental costs are also considerations when installing heat pump systems. It is expected that the expanded adoption of new energy-efficient technologies required by the 2022 Energy Code will help reduce the costs of the technology over time.

Both California law and Federal law include requirements that affect locally adopted reach codes. Federal law sets the standards for building appliances and, like other local laws, reach codes cannot conflict with federal requirements (federal pre-emption). Local governments also cannot adopt a local reach code that is less stringent than the state Energy Code. The CEC ensures that local energy standards enforce building designs that limit energy consumption to the extent allowed by the state Energy Code. To adopt a reach code, a local government agency also needs to make findings on the cost-effectiveness of the proposed local energy standards.

Most energy efficiency measures cost money to implement and save money by reducing energy 1068
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 5 of 10
costs once the measure is in place. To be cost-effective, the money saved from the reduced energy costs needs to be enough to cover the initial cost within a reasonable period.

As part of many efforts to implement the CAP, City staff have explored potential reach code options that include energy efficiency measures beyond state requirements for new construction.

Options are being presented that would apply mandatory energy efficiency measures to residential and non-residential new construction projects and provide education and incentives for energy efficiency measures applied to existing structures.

Cost Effectiveness Studies
The Statewide Reach Codes Program (Statewide Team) has prepared an analysis of the costeffectiveness of several reach code options for new single-family, multifamily, and nonresidential (commercial) buildings. These studies document the cost-effectiveness of combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state code requirements. The analysis refers to “packages” that include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage for both all-electric and mixed-fuel buildings. These packages are analyzed for their cost-effectiveness using two different metrics.  On-Bill: The “on-bill” metric is the customer-based lifecycle (30 years) cost that values energy based on estimated use and utility rates.
 TDV: The “time dependent valuation” (TDV) metric captures the total cost of energy use over 30 years and accounts for long-term societal costs such as infrastructure impacts, costs of associated carbon emissions, and varying energy values based on the fuel source and peak demand periods.

Local jurisdictions can use either metric to support findings of cost-effectiveness when adopting a local reach code.

The Statewide Team is continuously updating the cost-effectiveness studies. Updates consider new baseline conditions as the Energy Code is updated, and new technologies and construction methodologies as they become available. The Statewide Team is also preparing custom costeffectiveness studies for the City of South Lake Tahoe that account for the City’s climate zone (CZ 16) and local utility tariffs. At the time of this report, staff has received the custom South Lake Tahoe cost-effectiveness studies for single-family, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and nonresidential (commercial) building types (See Attachment 03). The custom multi-family residential study is expected to be published soon.

The cost-effectiveness studies compare the on-bill and TDV costs of various design packages to a baseline/prototype design. For residential building types, the custom cost-effectiveness studies analysed both permanent resident and non-permanent resident scenarios because their utility use and rates are different.

Residential building packages that included battery storage were not found to be on-bill costeffective due to the current high cost of battery storage. All other packages were found to be cost-effective using both the on-bill and TDV methods.

Non-residential building types that included battery storage were also not found to be on-bill or TDV cost-effective due to the current high cost of battery storage. None of the all-electric 1069
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 6 of 10
packages applied to medium office or quick-service restaurant building types were found to be cost-effective. For the small hotel building type, the only all-electric package found to be costeffective includes a packaged terminal heat pump which is a more efficient alternative to packaged terminal air conditioners used in guest rooms that can also provide heating.

Legal Considerations for Gas Bans and All-Electric Requirements To mandate all-electric new construction, there are two alternative local reach code options adopted by several other California jurisdictions for the 2022 code cycle. One option is an ordinance banning gas piping to serve new buildings via a Health and Safety Code amendment and the second option is an all-electric building code amendment via CALGreen. Both of these options do not amend the energy code.

In 2019 the California Restaurant Association sued the City of Berkeley in federal court arguing that their natural gas ban (Health and Safety Code ordinance) was pre-empted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and by California law. The lawsuit was dismissed in federal district court; however, the Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court ruling in 2023 concluding that the EPCA pre-empts local governments from regulating the quantity of natural gas use by an appliance and that pre-emption extends to regulations that address the products themselves and the on-site infrastructure for their use of natural gas. In response to the ruling, several jurisdictions have decided to suspend their gas ban ordinances while Berkeley has filed a petition for rehearing. Due to ongoing litigation and uncertainty in this approach, a local prohibition on gas infrastructure serving a building is not included for Council consideration.

The Ninth Circuit ruling in the City of Berkeley case has also raised concern with ordinances that require all-electric appliances, heating, and water systems through a local amendment to the building code. Due to the legal uncertainty of the all-electric building code amendment, staff recommends that the City Council consider options that provide more flexibility in achieving energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions. The City’s journey to achieving goals set in the CAP will include many continuous steps and all-electric mandates should be considered in future amendments as litigation is resolved and the community and industry stakeholders become more knowledgeable of all-electric benefits and options.

Stakeholder and Community Input
The city is facilitating a standard and transparent public engagement process supported by our contracted consultants. The process consists of the following activities:

1. Industry stakeholder meeting #1

2. Community meeting #1

3. Council study session (this is the current Council agenda item)

4. Industry stakeholder meeting #2

5. Community meeting #2

6. Development of a reach code with staff and consultants, considering input from industry stakeholders, community members, and City Council.

7. Proposed reach code to Council in the fall.

8. Depending on the reach code that is adopted, it may need to be approved by the California Energy Commission.
1070
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 7 of 10
The first stakeholder meeting, held on May 4th involved nine participants and the first community meeting, held on June 1 involved five participants. Polling questions were deployed at the stakeholder and community meetings. Those questions, results, and comments are provided in Attachment 04 to this staff report.

Highlighted feedback from the industry stakeholder meeting includes:
 Prioritize topics where the community could benefit from additional education including heat pump technology and general building electrification.  Prioritize insulation/weatherization and HVAC as building systems to focus on reducing GHG and increasing energy efficiency.
 Economic impacts, cost-effectiveness, power outages, and options for backup power and backup heat are concerns that should be considered if the reach code requires all-electric new construction.
 The ‘efficiency’ option received the highest overall rank in priority for both residential and commercial new construction reach code options.
 Feedback was mixed when asked about a phased approach that would prioritize specified building types.

Highlighted feedback from the community meeting includes:
 Prioritize topics where the community could benefit from additional education including heat pump technology and general building electrification (same as the stakeholders’ response).
 Prioritize insulation/weatherization and HVAC as building systems to focus on reducing GHG and increasing energy efficiency (same as the stakeholders’ response).

Economic impacts, cost-effectiveness, power outages, and options for backup power and backup heat are concerns that should be considered if the reach code requires allelectric new construction (same as the stakeholders’ response).  The ‘electric only’ option received the highest overall rank in priority for residential reach code options with ‘electric only + efficiency’ and ‘efficiency’ as second priority.  Feedback on priority options for commercial construction was mixed.  Feedback on a phased approach that would prioritize specified building types prioritized commercial and single-family residential/ADUs, ranking multi-family as the lowest priority.

Reach Code Options
The cost-effectiveness studies, legal considerations, and public feedback support the opportunity for the City Council to consider reach code options that apply to single-family residential, accessory dwelling units, multi-family residential, and commercial buildings constructed for retail, office, restaurant, or hotel occupancy. The City Council may want to consider an exemption for affordable housing; however, a policy should consider that deedrestricted low- and moderate-income affordable housing is often constructed with subsidies and state building efficiency incentive programs focus on providing the greatest incentive to lowincome residents. Applying higher efficiency standards to newly constructed affordable housing would also likely reduce ongoing utility costs for residents. 1071
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 8 of 10
Efficiency
The ‘efficiency’ option would require all buildings, regardless of fuel type (electric and mixedfuel), to exceed Energy Code efficiency standards. This option would require a local amendment to the Energy Code and would primarily be enforced through the building energy analysis and field testing required for new construction. Owners would be able to select the combination of energy efficiency measures that are implemented with their project to achieve the required efficiency standard.

Electric Preferred
This type of reach code would provide the option for a newly constructed building to 1) be allelectric and only meet minimum Energy Code efficiency standards or 2) be a mixed-fuel building that exceeds Energy Code efficiency standards. This option would also require a local amendment to the state energy code and would be enforced through the existing plan review, building energy analysis, and inspection processes.

The City Council may want to consider specific exemptions that apply to projects that pursue the all-electric option such as gas-powered backup generators, commercial kitchen stoves, gas and wood fireplaces, swimming pool heat, etc.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits
Construction trends in the City are difficult to develop given the limited amount of construction that occurs in general. However, utilizing permit issuance data for residential new construction, since 2018 there have been an average of 32 single-family units, 23 multi-family units, and 8 condominium units permitted. Over that timeframe there has been an average of 7,709 sf of new retail space, 1,332 sf of new restaurant space, 1,752 sf of new office and 20,393 sf of new hotel space permitted each year. Utilizing the estimated metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per unit generated in the cost-effectiveness studies the expected GHG savings with each of these options include:

Type of Dwelling, by
prototype or average
square feet permitted
Reach Code Option Metric Tons of Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent
Reduced per year
32 Single Family homes Efficiency 22 MTCO2e
Electric Preferred 22 MTCO2e
7,709 sq ft of retail Efficiency 0.2 MTCO2e
1,332 sq ft of restaurant Electric + efficiency, with gas cooking exception
11 MTCO2e
1,752 sq ft of office Electric Preferred 0.01 MTCO2e
20,393 sq ft of hotel Electric Preferred 9 MTCO2e
Education/Incentive
The proposed reach code options staff is highlighting for Council’s consideration include additional mandatory requirements beyond building code minimums. Due to this and stakeholder feedback, it is recommended that the City also establish a program to provide education on 1072
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 9 of 10
building energy efficiency and electrification measures. Opportunities to increase communitywide knowledge may spur voluntary measures to improve existing and new building efficiency and will position design professionals, contractors, and homeowners to advance building efficiency as code requirements and technologies improve. There are opportunities to partner with other organizations such as the Sierra Business Council, Air Quality Management Districts, and the Community Economic Resilience Fund, to provide educational opportunities and technical assistance directly to local professionals and homeowners.

Due to Statewide goals aimed at decreasing GHG emissions and an increase in local California jurisdictions committing to the prioritization of building decarbonization and electrification, there are numerous rebate and incentive programs available to homeowners and building owners.

Locally, Liberty Utilities offers an Energy Savings Assistance Program and their Energy Audit program. On a federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law in August 2022, includes $200 million in electrification and energy efficiency. The IRA will directly provide contractor incentives for qualifying electrification and efficiency projects and point-of-sale consumer discounts to enable low- or moderate-income households to electrify their homes. The rebates are anticipated to begin rolling out in late 2023.

Economic Impacts
Although the cost-effectiveness studies provide an analysis of incremental versus long-term costs associated with various reach code options, stakeholders have raised questions about how these options could affect the overall construction and housing industries. If Council is concerned about making any final decisions before fully understanding the potential economic impact on the local construction industry, real estate industry, and housing costs, an option is to develop a custom cost-benefit and economic impact analysis representative of the City's current construction costs and real estate market.

Next Steps
After receiving additional public input and discussion among the City Council, staff is requesting that the Council confirm or provide direction on the following components of the reach code development:

Applicable Building Types:
 Single-family Residential (including condominiums)
 Accessory Dwelling Unit
 Multi-family Residential
 Commercial (retail, office, restaurant, or hotel occupancies) Reach Code Option:
 Electric Preferred (all-electric or mixed fuel with higher efficiency standard)  Efficiency
Exemptions to all-electric (If electric preferred option is pursued):
 Gas-powered backup generators
1073
City Council Agenda Report August 8, 2023 Page 10 of 10  Commercial kitchen stoves
 Gas/wood fireplaces
 Swimming pool/spas
 Specialized equipment for industrial processes, laboratories, medical uses  Plumbed in outdoor equipment (BBQs)
Educational Program:
 Direct staff to develop a complimentary educational program and associated budget to increase local knowledge of building energy efficiency and electrification measures.

Custom cost-benefit and economic impact analysis
 Direct staff to conduct additional economic impact analysis to determine impacts on local construction industry, real estate market and housing costs.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications associated with City Council receiving this presentation and providing feedback.

Environmental Considerations:

The action of receiving a presentation is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Policy Implications:
 2020 Climate Action Plan, as mentioned in ‘Background’  City Council Strategic Plan Action Item 1.5.1 – Implementation of the Climate Action Plan References:

OPR et. al. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency.

California Energy Commission, 2022 Update to the California Energy Code Impact Analysis, June 2023
1074
2022

BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

STANDARDS SUMMARY
1075
Executive Summary
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency with a mission to lead the state to a 100 percent clean energy future. The CEC develops policy to reduce energy usage and costs, limit the environmental impacts of energy generation and use, and ensure a safe, resilient, and reliable supply of energy.

What Does the CEC Have to Do With the Building Code?
Homes and businesses use nearly 70 percent of California’s electricity and are responsible for a quarter of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As California’s energy
policy agency, the CEC was mandated by the WarrenAlquist Act to periodically update and adopt building standards to increase energy efficiency of buildings and reduce GHGs. Part 6 of Title 24 implemented this mandate so that every three years the CEC presents Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) updates for
new construction and renovations to existing buildings.

After the CEC adopts these standards, they are submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for
approval and inclusion with other changes to the
building code. The Energy Code is designed to be
cost-effective so that implementation is affordable
while helping California manage energy demand and
advance the state’s climate and clean air goals.

HOMES AND BUSINESSES USE
NEARLY 70 PERCENT
OF CALIFORNIA’S ELECTRICITY AND

ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR A QUARTER
OF CALIFORNIA’S GREENHOUSE
GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS.

How Do Standards Affect Me?
The standards help everyone! As standards require upgrades such as better insulation and more effective climate control in buildings, the increases in energy efficiency reduce utility bills.

This also improves comfort inside buildings. The standards increase the market value of properties by making them more affordable to operate. They reduce GHGs by using less energy from fossil fuel-burning power plants that emit harmful smogforming pollutants and climate-changing gases. Some of the water-saving measures in the standards lead to more efficient appliances and building fixtures that buoy California’s water supply and save energy by using and moving less water.

Thanks in part to California’s efficiency standards, the state’s per capita energy use has stayed nearly flat since the early 1970s, even as the state’s economy grew by 80 percent.

CALIFORNIANS USE
31 PERCENT
LESS
ENERGY

COMPARED TO THE

AVERAGE AMERICAN
1 2
1076
WHAT’S NEW
FOR2022?
The proposed 2022 Energy Code update focuses on four
key areas in new construction of homes and businesses:
• Encouraging electric heat pump technology and use
• Establishing electric-ready requirements
when natural gas is installed
• Expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system
and battery storage standards
• Strengthening ventilation standards
to improve indoor air quality
2022 Energy Code: Better for the Environment and You
Heat pumps use less
energy and produce fewer
emissions than traditional
HVACs and water heaters.

Electric-ready building sets
up owners to use cleaner
electric heating, cooking, and
electric vehicle (EV) charging
when they’re ready to invest
in those technologies.

Using battery storage
allows onsite energy to be
available when needed and
reduces the grid’s reliance
on fossil fuel power plants.

Better ventilation can reduce
illness from poor air quality and
reduce disease transmission.
3 4
1077
The Energy Code in Action
Since 1978, energy standards have supported California’s long-term strategy to meet energy demand, conserve
resources, and act as an environmental steward. All
building standards under consideration must be costeffective and technically feasible to be adopted.

The Energy Code governs:
• Window and door materials
• Lighting
• Electrical panels
• Insulation
• Faucets
• And more
These requirements vary between home and business buildings, as well as among climate zones in which they are implemented. The Energy Code applies to new construction and renovations to existing buildings.

The Energy Code has not only revolutionized building construction in California, but influenced efficiency goals and practices in countries around the globe. Every update helps the state meet its energy and environmental goals while directly benefiting building owners and occupants through more comfortable buildings that save money on energy costs and, not incidentally, increase market value.

With climate change impacts accelerating, there is an even greater need for homes that are comfortable, efficient, and resilient. Each updated code guides the construction of buildings to keep energy use down, better withstand extreme weather, and reduce climate and air pollution. 40 YEARS

OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY

STANDARDS FOR

BUILDINGS AND

APPLIANCES HAVE

SAVED CALIFORNIANS

MORE THAN
$100 BILLION
It’s an Area We Call the
“Climate Zone”
California is so vast and varied in
landscape and weather that there
is no one building design that
can be the most energy-efficient
everywhere. To accommodate those
differences, the state is divided into
16 climate zones. Each climate zone
represents a geographic area based
on such factors as temperature,
weather, and typical energy use.

Each zone has an assigned energy
budget, based on the maximum
amount of energy that a building
(or portion of a building) can be
designed to consume per year.

Minimum efficiency requirements are
created from that energy budget.

The Energy-Efficient Revolution Continues
The CEC was born of the energy crisis that affected the United States in the early 1970s.

To address energy demand that outstripped supply, California created the CEC to design energy policy that reduced use through better efficiencies. The core focus of the building standards has been efficiency, but the 2019 Energy Code ventured into onsite generation by requiring solar PV on new homes, providing significant GHG savings. The 2022 update builds off this progress with expanded solar standards and the move to onsite energy storage that will help Californians save on utility bills while bolstering the grid. 5 6
1078

UPDATES
FOR2022
New and more efficient technologies are being developed all the time, with many supported by funding from state programs that bring these energy innovations to markets and consumers. The 2022 Energy Code builds on California’s technology innovations, encouraging inclusion of market-ready electric products in new construction, such as heat pumps for climate control and water heating.

The update also requires all new homes be electric-ready. That means buildings with gas stoves have the electrical panels and wiring to support a switch to electric stoves. Further advancements and cost reductions will continue to expand electric options for heating, cooking, laundering, and EV charging to meet all Californians’ needs. These are crucial steps in the state’s progress toward 100 percent clean electricity and carbon neutrality by midcentury, or earlier.

Proposed Standards
The 2022 Energy Code
update revises energy
efficiency standards
for newly constructed
buildings, as well as
additions and alterations
to existing buildings. The
CEC engaged in a lengthy
public process leading
up to adoption of the
proposed 2022 standards.
2022 Energy Code Benefits
Increases on-site
renewable energy
generation from solar.

Increases electric load
flexibility to support
grid reliability.

Reduces emissions
from newly
constructed buildings.

Reduces air pollution
for improved
public health.

Encourages adoption
of environmentally
beneficial efficient
electric technologies.

How Does the 2022 Energy
Code Affect Homes?
• Establishes energy
budgets based on
efficient heat pumps for
space or water heating
to encourage builders to
install heat pumps over
gas-fueled HVAC units.
• Requires homes to be
electric-ready, with
dedicated 240-volt
outlets and space
(with plumbing for
water heaters) so
electric appliances
can eventually replace
installed gas appliances.
• Increases minimum
kitchen ventilation
requirements so that
fans over cooktops have
higher airflow or capture
efficiency to better
exhaust pollution from
gas cooking and improve
indoor air quality.
• Allows exceptions
to existing solar PV
standards when roof area
is not available (such
as for smaller homes).

How Does It Affect
Businesses?
• Establishes combined
solar PV and battery
standards for select
businesses. Systems
are sized to maximize
onsite use of solar
energy and avoid
electricity demand
during times when
the grid must use
gas-powered plants.
• Establishes new
efficiency standards
for commercial
greenhouses (primarily
cannabis growing).
• Improves efficiency
standards for building
envelope, various
internal systems,
and grid integration
equipment, such as
demand-responsive
controls to buoy
grid stability.

OVER 30 YEARS,
THE 2022 ENERGY CODE

IS ESTIMATED TO PROVIDE
$1.5 BILLION

IN CONSUMER BENEFITS
AND REDUCE 10

MILLION METRIC

TONS OF GHGS, EQUIVALENT
TO TAKING NEARLY 2.2

MILLION CARS OFF
THE ROAD FOR A YEAR.
7 8
1079
Breaking Down the Updates
Heat Pumps:

The New Standard
Heat pumps are an electric
technology for water and
space heating that increases
efficiency, reduces GHGs,
and enables load flexibility.

Current California market
share is less than 6 percent in
new home construction.

Standards include:
• Single-family homes
— heat pump water
or space standard.
• Multifamily homes such
as apartment buildings
— heat pump space
heating standard.
• Businesses — heat
pumps standard for
schools, offices, banks,
libraries, retail, grocery.

New Homes to Be
Electric-Ready
The standards require
single-family homes to be
electric-ready, including:
• Electrical circuits for
space heating, water
heating, cooking/ovens,
and clothes dryers.
• Electrical panel,
branch circuits, and
transfer switch for
battery storage.
• Dedicated circuits and
panels to easily convert
from natural gas to
electric in the future.

Solar and Storage
Use Expanded
The 2022 Energy Code
extends solar and introduces
battery storage standards to
the following building types:
• High-rise multifamily
(apartments and condos)
• Hotel-motel
• Tenant space
• Office, medical
office, and clinics
• Retail and grocery stores
• Restaurants
• Schools
• Civic (theaters,
auditoriums, and
convention centers)
The Challenge of
Existing Buildings
In addition to new buildings,
the standards apply to
substantial upgrades to existing
homes and businesses.

At least 50 percent of
single-family homes and
nearly 60 percent of
California’s apartment
complexes (about 14 million
total residences) were
built before the state’s first
energy standards.

Updating older buildings is
critical to achieving the state’s
climate and clean energy goals.

Communities Ahead of the Curve
California is already an international leader in energy efficiency and clean energy. However, after each update, many cities and counties choose to adopt standards that exceed the state minimum. The California Green Building Standards (“CALGreen” or Part 11 of Title 24) include voluntary reach standards, which offer model building code language for local governments that wish to go beyond the minimum statewide requirements.

Reach standards are an important tool for jurisdictions to meet their own climate goals. It allows them to decide on standards that meet their needs and interests, so long as they also meet or exceed state code requirements.

Historically, such local ordinances have served as a bellwether for statewide standards. They provide a place to test market readiness for new technologies and regulations, drive innovation of new technologies and efficiencies, and bring down the cost of efficient building technologies by creating an installed user base that encourages scale manufacturing.

What’s Next?
In developing the standards over the past two years, the CEC met with more than 50 industry stakeholder groups, and 43 public workshops were held.

Under the rulemaking, the standards are vetted over a 45- to 60-day period before they go to the CEC for adoption.

Then they are submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for approval as one part of the whole building code. Builders, contractors, and other stakeholders have one year until implementation to gear up for the change. 2022 Energy Code Update Timeline
California Energy Commission Adoption August 2021
California Building Standards Commission Approval Hearing December 2021 Effective Date January 1, 2023
9 10
1080
For Further Reading
• The Rulemaking Process: bit.ly/3fPO2H8
• 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards Frequently Asked
Questions: bit.ly/3fJHOs8
• 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action
Plan: (overall webpage) bit.ly/3s4fYMc
• California Building Decarbonization
Assessment: bit.ly/3iwpuEM
Governor
Gavin Newsom
Chair
David Hochschild
Executive Director
Drew Bohan
Commissioners
Karen Douglas, J.D.

Siva Gunda
J. Andrew McAllister, Ph.D.

Patricia Monahan
August 2021
energy.ca.gov | facebook.com/CAEnergy | twitter.com/CAEnergy | instagram.com/CAEnergy 1081
Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2023/02/03
Revision 1.1
2022 CODE CYCLE:

Single Family and ADU
Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis:

South Lake Tahoe
1082
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe
Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.

Acronym List
B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CBSC - California Building Standards Commission
CEC - California Energy Commission
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
CZ – Climate Zone
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
IOU – Investor-Owned Utility
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Liberty – Liberty Utilities
NPV – Net Present Value
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility)
POU – Publicly Owned Utility
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
SCE – Southern California Edison (utility)
SCG – Southern California Gas (utility)
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility)
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 1083
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................1 2 Methodology and Assumptions...............................................................................................................................2

2.1 Reach Codes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.1 Benefits......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Costs............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.4 Utility Rates................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 Prototype Designs and Measure Packages............................................................................................................4

3.1 Residential Occupancies ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 4 Results........................................................................................................................................................................5

4.1 Residential Occupancies ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................8 6 References .................................................................................................................................................................9 7 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................10

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones......................................................................................................................................... 10

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules......................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.2.1 Liberty Utilities............................................................................................................................................................. 11

7.2.2 Southwest Gas............................................................................................................................................................ 13

7.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 14

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Utility Tariffs in South Lake Tahoe .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Residential Prototype Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3: South Lake Tahoe Permanent Resident Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Summary ........................................................... 6 Table 4: South Lake Tahoe Permanent Resident ADU Cost-Effectiveness Summary ......................................................................... 6 Table 5: South Lake Tahoe Nonpermanent Resident Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Summary ..................................................... 7 Table 6: South Lake Tahoe Nonpermanent Resident ADU Cost-Effectiveness Summary ................................................................... 7 Table 7: Summary of All-Electric Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................ 8 Table 8: Summary of Mixed Fuel Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness............................................................................ 8 Table 9: Southwest Gas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ........................................................................................................................ 13 Table 10: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions................................................................................................................... 14

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of California climate zones........................................................................................................................................... 10 1084
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 1
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 1 Introduction
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2022) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

This report is an addendum to the 2022 Single Family New Construction Cost-effectiveness Study modified to accurately represent the City of South Lake Tahoe, California. The study analyzes cost-effectiveness of measures and measure packages that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities - collectively known as the Reach Codes Team.

The prototype building designs analyzed in this study are newly constructed:
• Single Family Home
• Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
The methodology, prototype characteristics, and measure packages are retained from the main studies referenced above except for the energy costs are calculated using local South Lake Tahoe utility rates. Measure packages include combinations of energy efficiency, electrification, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage with results evaluated for California Climate Zone 16.

This report presents measures or measure packages that local jurisdictions may consider adopting to achieve energy savings and emissions reductions beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), effective January 1, 2023.

Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code, it is important to understand the economic impacts of any policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions.

Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected]. 1085
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 2
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Codes Team analyzed two residential prototype designs to represent a variety of common building types using the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below. The general methodology is consistent with analyses of other prototypes, whereas some specifics such as utility rate selection are customized for the City of South Lake Tahoe rates.

2.1 Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Benefits
This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate costeffectiveness. Both on-bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between on-bill and TDV is how energy is valued:
• On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration for residential and 15 years for nonresidential designs, accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 7.2.3.
• TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods.

The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using the most recent software available for 2022 Title 24 code compliance analysis, CBECC-Res v1.0.

2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over the lifecycle of 30 years for the single family and ADU buildings. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Codes Team obtained measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance and replacement costs are included.

2.1.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. • NPV: The Reach Codes Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings).
• B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one 1086
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 3
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.

Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual on-bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs.

However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost. In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”.

Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.

2.1.4 Utility Rates
In coordination with the City of South Lake Tahoe, the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate tariffs for each package, summarized in Table 1, based on the annual load profile of the prototype and the corresponding package, and the most prevalent rate for each building type in addition to the impacts for permanent versus nonpermanent residents.

For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules.

Table 1: Utility Tariffs in South Lake Tahoe
Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
Residential (Single Family and Detached ADU)
Liberty / Southwest Gas
Permanent Resident D-1 GN 10
Nonpermanent Resident
D-1 (without
baseline quantities
GN 15
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions detailed in Appendix 7.2. Please see the main 2022 Single Family New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Studies for further details on methodology.

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates built-in to CBECC-Res. There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Natural gas fugitive emissions, which are shown to be substantial, are not included. There are two strings of multipliers—one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.1
.
1 CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (presumed to be Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (assumed to be Southern California). 1087
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 4
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 3 Prototype Designs and Measure Packages

3.1 Residential Occupancies
Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each residential prototype design. The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral.

Table 2: Residential Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story ADU
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 625 ft2
Num. of Stories 1 2 1
Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 1
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 20%
The Reach Codes Team evaluated three packages for mixed fuel homes and five packages for all-electric homes for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.

1. All-Electric Code Minimum: This package meets all the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Code.

2. Efficiency Only: This package uses only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope and water heating or duct distribution efficiency measures.

3. Efficiency + NEEA (Preempted): This package was evaluated for the all-electric homes only and shows an alternative design that applies water heating equipment that is more efficient than federal standards meeting the NEEA Tier 3 rating. The Reach Codes Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice.

4. Efficiency + PV: Using the Efficiency Package as a starting point, PV capacity was added to offset most of the estimated electricity use.

5. Efficiency + PV + Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, a battery system was added.

For mixed-fuel homes the package of efficiency measures differed from the Efficiency Package in some climate zones to arrive at a cost effective solution.
1088
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 5
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 4 Results
Results are presented as per the prototype-specific Measure Packages described in Section 4. Overarching factors impacting the results include:
• Designation of a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings, and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’ • All-electric packages will have lower GHG emissions than equivalent mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • The Reach Codes Team coordinated with the City of South Lake Tahoe to select the most prevalent tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile. The Reach Codes Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness although utility rate changes or updates can affect onbill cost-effectiveness results.

4.1 Residential Occupancies
Table 33 and Table 44 show results for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively, for permanent residents using Liberty/Southwest Gas rates. Table 55 and Table 6 show results for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively, for nonpermanent residents using Liberty /Southwest Gas rates. Results are shown for all the evaluated packages. All packages are cost-effective based on TDV. All of the single family packages are On-Bill cost-effective with the exception of the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery case. All of the ADU packages are On-Bill cost-effective with the exception of the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery case and the all-electric Efficiency + PV + Battery case under permanent resident rates.
1089
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 6
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Table 3: South Lake Tahoe Permanent Resident Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Summary Table 4: South Lake Tahoe Permanent Resident ADU Cost-Effectiveness Summary Case
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle (2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 6.0 -4,314 404 1.5 $79 $7,647 ($3,257) ($2,954) >1 $10,602 >1 $3,139 Efficiency Only 9.7 -4,027 404 1.6 $124 $8,705 ($1,943) ($1,479) >1 $10,184 >1 $3,675 Efficiency + NEEA 10.9 -3,825 404 1.6 $154 $9,429 ($1,943) ($1,479) >1 $10,908 >1 $4,277 Efficiency + PV 9.7 1,331 404 1.8 $921 $27,576 $7,051 $10,549 2.6 $17,026 1.9 $8,576 Efficiency + PV + Battery 18.1 1,183 404 2.3 $899 $27,055 $12,497 $22,036 1.2 $5,019 1.6 $11,922 Mixed Fuel
Efficiency Only 14.9 -106 119 0.7 $191 $6,159 $3,344 $3,755 1.64 $2,404 2.2 $4,123 Efficiency + PV 14.9 1,331 119 0.8 $403 $11,201 $5,756 $6,981 1.6 $4,220 1.9 $5,419 Efficiency + PV + Battery 22.6 1,235 115 1.2 $382 $10,636 $10,780 $18,007 0.6 ($7,371) 1.5 $8,024 Case
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle (2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 0.1 -1,807 122 0.4 ($37) $1,010 ($2,640) ($2,261) >1 $3,272 1.0 $22 Efficiency Only 8.8 -1,508 122 0.5 $12 $2,159 ($2,749) ($1,170) >1 $3,329 9.9 $748 Efficiency + NEEA 12.8 -1,400 122 0.5 $28 $2,539 ($2,749) ($1,170) >1 $3,709 >1 $1,580 Efficiency + PV 8.8 3,669 122 0.7 $779 $20,326 $5,941 $10,452 1.9 $9,874 1.7 $6,200 Efficiency + PV + Battery 16.4 3,629 122 1.0 $773 $20,183 $11,453 $22,027 0.9 ($1,845) 1.4 $7,321 Mixed Fuel
Efficiency Only 8.7 -628 87 0.4 $57 $2,553 $510 $1,787 1.43 $766 1.0 $52 Efficiency + PV 8.7 3,669 87 0.5 $694 $17,631 $7,723 $11,433 1.5 $6,199 1.4 $4,505 Efficiency + PV + Battery 16.2 3,652 87 0.8 $691 $17,568 $13,234 $23,007 0.8 ($5,438) 1.2 $4,937 1090
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 7
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Table 5: South Lake Tahoe Nonpermanent Resident Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Summary Table 6: South Lake Tahoe Nonpermanent Resident ADU Cost-Effectiveness Summary Case
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle (2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 6.0 -4,314 404 1.5 $57 $7,726 ($3,257) ($2,954) >1 $10,681 >1 $3,139 Efficiency Only 9.7 -4,027 404 1.6 $107 $8,895 ($1,943) ($1,479) >1 $10,374 >1 $3,675 Efficiency + NEEA 10.9 -3,825 404 1.6 $141 $9,717 ($1,943) ($1,479) >1 $11,196 >1 $4,277 Efficiency + PV 9.7 1,331 404 1.8 $1,028 $30,719 $7,051 $10,549 2.9 $20,169 1.9 $8,576 Efficiency + PV + Battery 18.1 1,183 404 2.3 $1,002 $30,114 $12,497 $22,036 1.4 $8,078 1.6 $11,922 Mixed Fuel
Efficiency Only 14.9 -106 119 0.7 $209 $6,775 $3,344 $3,755 1.8 $3,019 2.2 $4,123 Efficiency + PV 14.9 1,331 119 0.8 $456 $12,627 $5,756 $6,981 1.8 $5,646 1.9 $5,419 Efficiency + PV + Battery 22.6 1,235 115 1.2 $432 $11,984 $10,780 $18,007 0.7 ($6,023) 1.5 $8,024 Case
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle (2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 0.1 -1,807 122 0.4 ($55) $769 ($2,640) ($2,261) >1 $3,030 1.0 $22 Efficiency Only 8.8 -1,508 122 0.5 $1 $2,102 ($2,749) ($1,170) >1 $3,272 9.9 $748 Efficiency + NEEA 12.8 -1,400 122 0.5 $20 $2,543 ($2,749) ($1,170) >1 $3,713 >1 $1,580 Efficiency + PV 8.8 3,669 122 0.7 $891 $23,188 $5,941 $10,452 2.2 $12,736 1.7 $6,200 Efficiency + PV + Battery 16.4 3,629 122 1.0 $884 $23,022 $11,453 $22,027 1.0 $995 1.4 $7,321 Mixed Fuel
Efficiency Only 8.7 -628 87 0.4 $58 $2,692 $510 $1,787 1.5 $906 1.0 $52 Efficiency + PV 8.7 3,669 87 0.5 $797 $20,193 $7,723 $11,433 1.8 $8,761 1.4 $4,505 Efficiency + PV + Battery 16.2 3,652 87 0.8 $794 $20,121 $13,234 $23,007 0.9 ($2,886) 1.2 $4,937 1091
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 8
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 5 Summary
The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

Table 7: (all-electric) and
Table 8 (mixed fuel) summarize results for each prototype and depict the efficiency EDR2 compliance margins achieved for each package in Climate Zone 16. There were minor differences in the cost-effective outcome between permanent and nonpermanent resident rates. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Codes Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies.

All results presented in this study have a positive compliance margin. • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• Cells not highlighted depict a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.

The Reach Codes Team found all-electric code compliant new construction to be feasible and cost effective based on TDV and Liberty electricity rates for both the single family and ADU prototypes. The code-compliant all-electric building resulted in lower first year utility cost for the single family home, but slightly higher first cost for the ADU.

Combining higher capacity PV systems and all-electric construction further reduces utility costs.

For a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings the mixed fuel efficiency, PV, and battery package was found to be cost effective based on TDV for both prototypes with EDR2 margins equal to 16.2.

Table 7: Summary of All-Electric Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Single Family ADU
Residency Code
Min EE EE+PV EE+PV/Batt
Code
Min EE EE+PV EE+PV/Batt
Permanent 6.0 9.7 9.7 18.1 0.1 8.8 8.8 16.4
Nonpermanent 6.0 9.7 9.7 18.1 0.1 8.8 8.8 16.4
Table 8: Summary of Mixed Fuel Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Single Family ADU
Residency EE EE+PV EE+PV/
Batt EE EE+PV EE+PV/Batt
Permanent 14.9 14.9 22.6 8.7 8.7 16.2
Nonpermanent 14.9 14.9 22.6 8.7 8.7 16.2
1092
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 9
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 6 References
California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairsdivision/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf 1093
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 10
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 7 Appendices

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 1. The map in Figure 1 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 1. Map of California climate zones.
1094
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 11
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the Liberty and Southwest Gas tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package.

7.2.1 Liberty Utilities
Following are details on the Liberty Utility electricity tariff, D-12, applied in this study. For nonpermanent residents the rate for quantities in excess of baseline was applied to all energy use. A net energy metering arrangement was evaluated that credits any net generation monthly based on the appropriate rate per the tariff. Any generation credits do not offset the monthly minimum charge.3 The CPUC Reimbursement Surcharge is applied monthly only when net kWh is positive.
2 https://california.libertyutilities.com/uploads/CalPeco%20Tariffs/Schedule%20No%20D-1.pdf 3 https://california.libertyutilities.com/uploads/NEM_NEMA%20PDF%207-13-17.pdf 1095
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 12
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 1096 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 13
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03

7.2.2 Southwest Gas
The Southwest Gas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2022 according to the rates shown in Table 3.4 The monthly basic service charge was based on the most current tariff statements. A Franchise Fee of 2.5% was applied to the total monthly bill. Lastly, the annual California Climate Credit of $49.44 for 2022 was applied.5
Table 3: Southwest Gas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month GN-10 GN-15
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 $1.73806 $1.86329 $1.9138 $1.9138
Feb 2022 $1.71260 $1.83783 $1.88924 $1.88924
Mar 2022 $1.62528 $1.75051 $1.80192 $1.80192
Apr 2022 $1.65098 $1.77621 $1.82762 $1.82762
May 2022 $1.88741 $2.01264 $2.06405 $2.06405
June 2022 $1.99564 $2.12087 $2.17228 $2.17228
July 2022 $1.85374 $1.97897 $2.03038 $2.03038
Aug 2022 $1.85405 $1.97928 $2.03069 $2.03069
Sept 2021 $1.54984 $1.67507 $1.7218 $1.7218
Oct 2021 $1.71208 $1.83731 $1.88404 $1.88404
Nov 2021 $1.65364 $1.77887 $1.8256 $1.8256
Dec 2021 $1.67571 $1.80094 $1.84767 $1.84767
4 https://www.swgas.com/en/california-rates-and-regulation 5 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/climatecredit/
1097
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 14
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03

7.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates

7.2.3.1 Residential Occupancies
The average annual escalation rates in Table 10 were used in this study. The electricity and natural gas rates are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for South Lake Tahoe, therefore electricity escalation rates for PG&E and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied.

Table 4: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions
Year
Statewide Natural
Gas Average Rate
(%/year, real)
PG&E Electric
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
2023 4.6% 1.8%
2024 4.6% 1.8%
2025 4.6% 1.8%
2026 4.6% 1.8%
2027 4.6% 1.8%
2028 4.6% 1.8%
2029 4.6% 1.8%
2030 4.6% 1.8%
2031 2.0% 0.6%
2032 2.4% 0.6%
2033 2.1% 0.6%
2034 1.9% 0.6%
2035 1.9% 0.6%
2036 1.8% 0.6%
2037 1.7% 0.6%
2038 1.6% 0.6%
2039 2.1% 0.6%
2040 1.6% 0.6%
2041 2.2% 0.6%
2042 2.2% 0.6%
2043 2.3% 0.6%
2044 2.4% 0.6%
2045 2.5% 0.6%
2046 1.5% 0.6%
2047 1.3% 0.6%
2048 1.6% 0.6%
2049 1.3% 0.6%
2050 1.5% 0.6%
2051 1.8% 0.6%
2052 1.8% 0.6%
1098
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 15
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Get In Touch
The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies.

As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.

Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process.

If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.

TRC Companies, Inc
Prepared for:

Jay Madden, Codes and Standards Program, Southern California Edison Last modified: 2023/02/03
Revision: 2.1
2022 CODE CYCLE:

Nonresidential New Construction
Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis:

South Lake Tahoe
1100
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Southern Califronai Edison and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.

Acronym List
B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CBSC - California Building Standards Commission
CEC - California Energy Commission
CZ – Climate Zone
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
IOU – Investor-Owned Utility
POU – Publicly Owned Utility
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility)
SCE – Southern California Edison (utility)
SCG – Southern California Gas (utility)
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility)
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
NPV – Net Present Value
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 1101
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03

2.1 Reach Codes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.1 Benefits......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Costs............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.4 Utility Rates................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Nonresidential Occupancies ................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 Results........................................................................................................................................................................6

3.1 Nonresidential Occupancies ................................................................................................................................................. 6 4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................10 5 References ...............................................................................................................................................................13 6 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................14

6.1 Map of California Climate Zones......................................................................................................................................... 14

6.2 Utility Rate Schedules......................................................................................................................................................... 15

6.2.1 South Lake Tahoe....................................................................................................................................................... 15

6.2.2 Southwest Gas............................................................................................................................................................ 17

6.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Utility Tariffs in South Lake Tahoe .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Nonresidential Prototype Characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary.......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Medium Retail Cost-Effectiveness Summary.......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 5. Quick-Service Restaurant Cost-Effectiveness Summary ........................................................................................................ 8 Table 6. Small Hotel Cost-Effectiveness Summary .............................................................................................................................. 9 Table 7. Summary of Medium Office Packages.................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 8. Summary of Medium Retail Packages .................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 9. Summary of Quick Service Restaurant Packages ................................................................................................................ 11 Table 10. Summary of Small Hotel Packages..................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 11: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions................................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of California climate zones........................................................................................................................................... 14 1102
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 1
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 1 Introduction
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.

This report is an addendum to the 2022 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study modified to accurately represent the City of South Lake Tahoe, California. The study analyzes cost-effectiveness of measures and measure packages that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities - collectively known as the Reach Code Team (or “the Team” in short).

The prototype building designs analyzed in this study are newly constructed:
• Medium Office
• Medium Retail
• Quick-Service Restaurant
• Small Hotel
The methodology, prototype characteristics, and measure packages are retained from the main studies referenced above except for the energy costs are calculated using local South Lake Tahoe utility rates. Measure packages include combinations of energy efficiency, electrification, solar photovoltaics (PV) with results evaluated for California Climate Zone 16.

Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected]. 1103
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 2
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Codes Team analyzed four nonresidential prototypes to represent a variety of common building types using the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below. The general methodology is consistent with analyses of other prototypes, whereas some specifics such as utility rate selection are customized for the City of South Lake Tahoe rates.

2.1 Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculate cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Benefits
This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate costeffectiveness. Both on-bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between on-bill and TDV is how energy is valued:
• On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 15-year duration for residential and 15 years for nonresidential designs, accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 6.2.3.
• TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. This refers to the “Total TDV” that includes all the energy end uses such as space-conditioning, mechanical ventilation, service water heating indoor lighting, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems, and covered process loads.

The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using the most recent software available (June 8, 2022) for 2022 Title 24 code compliance analysis, California’s Building Energy Code Compliance Software CBECC 2022.1.0 (1250).

2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over the lifecycle of 15 years for the nonresidential buildings. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Code Team obtained baseline and measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as RS Means.

2.1.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. • NPV: The Reach Codes Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost 1104
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 3
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings).
• B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criterion for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.

Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.

2.1.4 Utility Rates
In coordination with the City of South Lake Tahoe and Liberty (LIB) and Southwest Gas (SWG) utilities, the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate tariffs for each package, summarized in Table 1, based on the annual load profile of the prototype and the corresponding package, and the most prevalent rate for each building type.

For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 6.2 Utility Rate Schedules.

Table 1. Utility Tariffs in South Lake Tahoe
Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
Nonresidential Buildings
LIB / SWG A-1/A-2/A-3 SWG
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions detailed in Appendix 9.2 of the main report. Please see the main 2022 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study for further details on methodology.

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates built-in to CBECC software. There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including RPS projections. There are 32 strings of multipliers, with a different string for each California CZ and each fuel type (metric tons of CO2 per kWh for electricity and metric tons of CO2 per therm for natural gas).

2.3 Nonresidential Occupancies
Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each nonresidential prototype design. 1105
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 4
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Table 2: Nonresidential Prototype Characteristics
Medium Office Medium Retail Quick-Service Restaurant Small Hotel Conditioned floor
area (ft2) 53,628 24,563 2,501 42,554(77 guest rooms)
Number of stories 3 1 1 4
Window-to-Wall
Area ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11 0.14
Window Ufactor/SHGC
U-factor:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
Nonresidential:

U-factor:

CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 –0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
Guest Rooms:

U-factor: 0.36
SHGC: 0.25
Solar PV size 123 kW – 204 kW
Depending on CZ
64 kW – 87 kW
Depending on CZ None 17 kW – 25 kWDepending on CZ
Battery Storage 217 kWh – 360 kWh
Depending on CZ
70 kWh – 94 kWh
Depending on CZ None 16 kWh – 24 kWhDepending on CZ
HVAC System
VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units,
gas boilers, VAV terminal
units with hot water
reheat
CZ 1
Heat recovery for Core
Retail space only
CZ 1, 16
< 65 kBtu/h: SZAC with gas
furnace
> 65 kBtu/h and < 240
kBtu/h: SZHP and gas
furnace (i.e., dual fuel heat
pump). VAV.
> 240 kBtu/h: SZAC VAV
with gas furnace
CZ 2-15
< 65 kBtu/h: SZAC with gas
furnace
> 65 kBtu/h and < 240
kBtu/h: SZHP VAV
> 240 kBtu/h: SZAC VAV
with gas furnace
< 65 kBtu/h:

SZAC + gas furnace
> 65 kBtu/h:

SZAC VAV
Nonresidential and Laundry:

VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units, gas
boilers, VAV terminal units
with hot water reheat
Guest Rooms: SZAC with gas
furnaces
SHW System 5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
100-gallon gas water
heater
Nonresidential: 30-gallon
electric resistance water
heater
Laundry Room: 120-gal gas
storage water heater
Guest rooms: Central gas
water heater, 250 gallons
storage, recirculation loop
1106
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 5
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 The Reach Codes Team evaluated mixed fuel efficiency and all-electric packages for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.
 Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures: Mixed-fuel prescriptive building per 2022 Title 24 requirements, including additional efficiency measures.
 All-Electric Code Minimum Efficiency: All-Electric building to minimum Title 24 prescriptive standards and federal minimum efficiency standards. This package has the same PV size as mixed-fuel prescriptive baseline.  All-Electric Energy Efficiency: All-Electric building with added energy efficiency measures related to HVAC, SHW, lighting or envelope.
 All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Load Flexibility: All-Electric building with added energy efficiency and load flexibility measures.
 All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Solar PV: All-Electric building with added energy efficiency and additional Solar PV. The added PV size is larger than prescriptive 2022 Title 24 code requirements and accounts for roof space availability.

For Quick Service Restaurant (QSR), the Reach Code Team has analyzed two scenarios for All-Electric packages, one with electric cooking and the one with gas cooking (the latter of which is referred to as the “HS” package to reflect allelectric HVAC and SHW).

For Small Hotel, the Reach Code Team also analyzed an alternative scenario with PTHP instead of SZHP in All-Electric scenario. It is denoted by the “PTHP” in parenthesis in package name. 1107
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 6
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 3 Results
Results are presented as per the prototype-specific Measure Packages described in Section 4. Overarching factors impacting the results include:
• Designation of a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings, and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’ • Most all-electric packages will have lower GHG emissions than equivalent mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • The Reach Codes Team coordinated with the City of South Lake Tahoe to select the most prevalent tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile. The Reach Codes Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness although utility rate changes or updates can affect onbill cost-effectiveness results.

3.1 Nonresidential Occupancies
Across all prototypes in climate zone 16, the Reach Code Team identified cost-effective package of energy efficiency measures when added to the mixed-fuel baseline prototype.
• The Team identified On-Bill cost-effective packages for all-electric Medium Retail but couldn’t identify any cost-effective all-electric packages for the Medium Office prototype. • For Quick Service Restaurant, the Team could not identify any cost-effective all-electric packages. • For Small Hotel, all-electric packages are On-Bill cost-effective with added efficiency with PTHP measures. 1108
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 7
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 •
Table 3 through Error! Reference source not found. shows the results for the four nonresidential prototypes for all the evaluated packages for climate zone 16. Most packages are cost-effective based on On-Bill impacts due to lower electricity rates and high gas transportation charges.
• Across all prototypes in climate zone 16, the Reach Code Team identified cost-effective packages of energy efficiency measures when added to the mixed-fuel baseline prototype. • The Team identified On-Bill cost-effective packages for all-electric Medium Retail but couldn’t identify any cost-effective all-electric packages for the Medium Office prototype. • For Quick Service Restaurant, the Team could not identify any cost-effective all-electric packages. • For Small Hotel, all-electric packages are On-Bill cost-effective with added efficiency with PTHP measures. 1109
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 8
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Table 3. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary
Package
Elec
Rate
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy
Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(Onbill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV
)
NPV (Onbill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency Measures LIB-A2 9,204 (125) 0.4 3.6 3.5 0.11 $0 $18,936 $16,744 >1 >1 $18,936 $16,744 All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency LIB-A2 (130,271) 5,799 0.8 (66.5) (63.6) 0.33 ($52,070) ($147,106) ($303,371) 0.4 0.2 ($95,036) ($251,301) All Electric Energy
Efficiency LIB-A2 (123,647) 5,799 1.4 (63.7) (60.8) 0.50 ($52,070) ($132,203) ($290,084) 0.4 0.2 ($80,133) ($238,013) All-Electric Energy
Efficiency and Load
Flexibility LIB-A2 (111,041) 5,799 5.0 (54.6) (51.6) 1.61 ($52,070) ($104,623) ($246,130) 0.5 0.2 ($52,552) ($194,059) Table 4. Medium Retail Cost-Effectiveness Summary
Package
Elec
Rate
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy
Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(Onbill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (Onbill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency Measures LIB-A2 4,232 (86) 0.2 3.8 3.9 0.13 $0 $8,456 $8,480 >1 >1 $8,456 $8,480 All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency LIB-A2 (44,088) 3,537 11.4 (26.4) (26.5) 7.67 ($67,904) ($28,887) ($57,931) 2.4 1.2 $39,017 $9,974 All Electric Energy
Efficiency LIB-A2 (40,583) 3,537 12.0 (22.6) (22.6) 8.04 ($67,904) ($21,904) ($49,384) 3.1 1.4 $46,001 $18,521 Table 5. Quick-Service Restaurant Cost-Effectiveness Summary Package
Elec
Rate
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy
Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV
(On-bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency Measures LIB-A1 10,088 936 7.0 208.0 208.0 113.86 $22,540 $49,360 $46,308 2.2 2.1 $26,820 $23,768 All Electric HS
Energy Code
Minimum Efficiency LIB-A1 (57,545) 4,788 14.7 (315.2) (315.2) (11.34) $23,206 ($45,993) ($70,150) -2.0 -3.0 ($69,199) ($93,356) All-Electric HS
Energy Efficiency LIB-A1 (36,879) 4,788 18.6 (56.6) (56.6) 14.47 $45,745 $10,545 ($12,601) 0.2 -0.3 ($35,200) ($58,346) 1110
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 9
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 All-Electric HS
Energy Efficiency +
Load Flexibility LIB-A1 (36,807) 4,788 20.0 28.7 28.7 23.39 $51,155 $10,743 $6,395 0.2 0.1 ($40,412) ($44,760) All-Electric HS
Energy Efficiency +
Solar PV LIB-A1 (6,302) 4,788 20.1 (56.6) 177.8 23.90 $96,153 $94,196 $39,572 1.0 0.4 ($1,957) ($56,581) All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency LIB-A2 (160,672) 12,242 36.0 (395.8) (395.8) (18.97) $143,959 ($67,951) ($222,219) -0.5 -1.5 ($211,909) ($366,177) All Electric Energy
Efficiency LIB-A2 (138,982) 12,242 40.1 (123.7) (123.7) 8.04 $166,498 ($21,970) ($161,663) -0.1 -1.0 ($188,469) ($328,161) All-Electric Energy
Efficiency + Load
Flexibility LIB-A2 (139,097) 12,242 41.7 (26.6) (26.6) 18.17 $171,908 ($17,737) ($140,052) -0.1 -0.8 ($189,645) ($311,960) Table 6. Small Hotel Cost-Effectiveness Summary
Package
Elec
Rate
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(Onbill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (Onbill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency
Measures LIB-A2 8,939 2,952 18.4 30.6 30.6 6.4 $21,214 $89,204 $116,017 4.2 5.5 $67,990 $94,804 All Electric Code
Minimum
Efficiency LIB-A2 (313,257) 17,363 61.4 (56.4) (56.4) 17.4 ($179,779) ($491,561) ($248,882) 0.4 0.7 ($311,782) ($69,103) All Electric Energy
Efficiency LIB-A2 (271,171) 17,363 65.0 (35.4) (35.4) 18.8 ($158,565) ($290,419) ($167,773) 0.5 0.9 ($131,854) ($9,207) All Electric Code
Energy Efficiency
+ Solar PV LIB-A2 (194,632) 17,363 67.9 (35.4) (0.4) 19.9 ($3,588) ($127,186) ($35,212) 0.0 0.1 ($123,598) ($31,623) All-Electric Code
Minimum
Efficiency with
PTHP LIB-A3 (299,522) 17,363 64.5 (38.3) (38.3) 18.6 ($652,012) ($452,057) ($180,549) 1.4 3.6 $199,956 $471,464 1111
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 10
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 4 Summary
The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

CZ Utility
Mixed
Fuel All-electric All-electric "HS" (HVAC+SHW)
EE Code
Min EE EE + LF Code Min EE EE + LF EE + PV
16 LIB/SWG Both - - - - - Comp -
The combined result of cost effectiveness and code compliance across all packages are detailed in Table 7 through Table 10 below. The tables are formatted to show:
 “Both” with green highlight – for scenarios that are cost effective on both metrics and have positive compliance margin across all three compliance metrics.
 “TDV/On-Bill” with yellow highlight – for scenarios that are cost effective on either one of the metrics and has positive compliance margin across all three compliance metrics.  “Comp” with gray highlight – for scenarios that are not cost effective on either metric but have positive compliance margin across all three compliance metrics.
 “-” with no color highlight – for scenarios that do not comply across any one code compliance metric and may or may not be cost effective.

The package names in table results columns are as follows:
 Mixed fuel – EE: Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures
 All-Electric – Code Min: All-Electric Code Minimum Efficiency  All-Electric – EE: All-Electric Energy Efficiency
 All-Electric – EE+ LF: All-Electric Energy Efficiency and Load Flexibility  All-Electric – EE + PV: All-Electric Energy Efficiency and Solar PV  All-Electric – Code Min with PTHP: All-Electric Code Minimum Efficiency with PTHP The QSR has two electrification scenarios, with and without cooking appliance electrification, which is denoted by “HS” prefix.

The Small Hotel has an extra package that evaluates a different HVAC type in the All-Electric Code Minimum Efficiency package, a Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP) instead of a Single Zone Heat Pump.

Due to the greenhouse gas savings potential, the Reach Code Team advises jurisdictions to require All-Electric packages where there is green or yellow highlight (cost effective and compliant). Jurisdictions may also consider adopting all-electric requirements where packages are shown as gray highlight (compliant but may or may not be 1112
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 11
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 cost effective) if they are looking to require electrification based on energy code compliance alone and less concerned about cost impacts.

Table 7. Summary of Medium Office Packages
CZ Utility
Mixed
Fuel All-Electric
EE Code
Min EE EE + LF
16 LIB Both - - -
Table 8. Summary of Medium Retail Packages
CZ Utility
Mixed
Fuel All-Electric
EE Code
Min EE
16 LIB Both - -
Table 9. Summary of Quick Service Restaurant Packages
CZ Utility
Mixed
Fuel All-electric All-electric "HS" (HVAC+SHW)
EE Code
Min EE EE + LF Code Min EE EE + LF EE + PV
16 LIB Both - - - - - Comp -
Table 10. Summary of Small Hotel Packages
CZ Utility
Mixed
Fuel All-Electric
EE Code
Min EE EE + LF EE + PV Code Min + PTHP
16 LIB Both - - - - -

LEGEND KEY
Please refer to the limitations of this study, described in 2022 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Section 3.5, while using these results to inform reach code policies. Medium Retail All-Electric packages are cost-effective, but not code-compliant due to the use of electric resistance VAV reheat systems. The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a variable air volume reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this system cannot be modeled in CBECC at the time of the writing of this report.

As such, the Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly. This modeling capability is anticipated in early 2023 according to discussions with the CBECC software development team, and the costeffectiveness analysis should become available in the first half of 2023. Heat pump systems are multiple times more efficient, but may also be multiple times more costly than the electric resistance reheat systems currently analyzed.

Both Compliant & c/e on both metrics
On-bill/TDV Compliant & c/e on one metric
Comp Compliant not c/e
- Not compliant
1113
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 12
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel nonresidential building types for all four prototypes in South Lake Tahoe. The All-Electric packages indicate the capability of achieving the greatest greenhouse savings as compared to mixed-fuel buildings. All-Electric Medium Retail is found to be cost effective but is not code compliant. The Team didn’t identify cost-effectiveness for any of the Quick Service Restaurant, but with added efficiency and Load Flexibility, they are compliant in climate zone 16 and hence can be pursued for reach code with an exemption for the commercial cooking appliance. All-electric Small Hotel with PTHP is cost-effective in climate zone 16 but do not achieve compliance because of high heating loads being met by electric resistance VAV system instead of efficient heat pumps in nonresidential areas. This is a similar limitation as Medium Office and will be re-evaluated in 2023.
1114
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 13
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 5 References
California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairsdivision/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf E3. (2021). Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233260&DocumentContentId=65748 NORESCO. (2020). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233257&DocumentContentId=65743 1115
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 14
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 6 Appendices

6.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 1. The map in Figure 1 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 1. Map of California climate zones.
1116
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 15
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03

6.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the South Lake Tahoe tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill impacts.

6.2.1 South Lake Tahoe

6.2.1.1 Nonresidential
Following are the South Lake Tahoe electricity tariffs applied in this study. Liberty for electricity usage, and Southwest Gas for gas usage.

6.2.1.1.1 Liberty
Following are the Liberty electricity tariffs applied in this study.1 A-1/A-2/A-3 is applied based on the peak demand. 1 Liberty Tariffs & Rates Page
1117
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 16
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 1118 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 17
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03

6.2.2 Southwest Gas
Following are the GN-40 Southwest Gas tariffs applied in this study. The Transportation Service Charge doesn’t apply here since South Lake Tahoe is not a “transportation customer”. The transportation customer refers to a nonresidential customer who purchases their natural gas independently of Southwest Gas on the natural gas market, and then pays Southwest Gas a monthly transportation fee to transport their purchased gas to their facility. 1119
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 18
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03

6.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates

6.2.3.1 Nonresidential Occupancies
Table 11 below demonstrate the escalation rates used for nonresidential buildings.

Table 11: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Source
Statewide Electric
Nonresidential Average
Rate (%/year, real)
Statewide Natural Gas
Nonresidential Core Rate
(%/year, real)
2023 E3 2019 2.0% 4.0%
2024 2022 TDV 0.7% 7.7%
2025 2022 TDV 0.5% 5.5%
2026 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.6%
2027 2022 TDV 0.2% 5.6%
2028 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.7%
2029 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.7%
2030 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.8%
2031 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.3%
2032 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.6%
2033 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4%
2034 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4%
2035 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.2%
2036 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.2%
2037 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.1%
1120
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: South Lake Tahoe 19
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-02-03 Get In Touch
The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies.

As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.

If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.

Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to
access our resources and sign up
for newsletters
Contact [email protected]
for no-charge assistance from expert
Reach Code advisors
Follow us on Twitter
1121
Reach Code Stakeholder Advisory Committee Poll Results and Comments South Lake Tahoe
Polling Conducted: 5/4/23
Participants
Building electrification 5/9 participants 55%
Heat pump technology (i.e., space heating and cooling, hot water, dryers) 8/9 participants 88% Solar PV and Energy Storage Systems (ESS) 2/9 participants 22% Induction cooking for commercial applications 3/9 participants 33% Induction cooking for residential applications 4/9 participants 44% Participants
Appliances 3/9 participants 33%
HVAC Systems (Space heating and cooling) 6/9 participants 66% Hot water systems 4/9 participants 44%
Solar PV and Energy Storage Systems (ESS) 1/9 participants 11% Insulation / Weatherization 7/9 participants 77%
Electric Vehicle Charing Infrastructure 2/9 participants 22% Participants
Economic impacts of requirements 7/8 participants 87%
Cost effectiveness of requirements 6/8 participants 75% Effect of requirements on meeting City GHG and energy efficiency goals 2/8 participants 25% Options for backup power and back up heat sources 6/8 participants 75% Power outages and grid reliability 6/8 participants 75% I need more information to respond. 0/8 participants 0% Poll #1: Other Educational Topics

2. Additional Comments

1. If City Council were to consider requiring all-electric new construction for new residential and commercial buildings what information should be included in those decisions?

2. Additional Comments
- Heat source reliability.
- Doing a cost benefit analysis of how to start getting power lines underground. 8 1.Which topics do you feel our community could benefit from with additional education? 9 1. Which building systems should be priority for the City to address with respect to GHG reduction and energy efficiency?
9 Poll #3: All-electric Buildings
Poll #2: Other Building Systems
- Looking into alternative materials for roads so that they don’t have to be redone all the time and could possibly last longer than a season.

2. Additional Comments
- Ensure that it doesn’t create extra waste or expense by switching over. 1122
7 Participants No Priority
Lowest
Priority Top Priority
Efficiency Pathway: All new construction exceeds minimum energy code 0 0 7 Electric-Preferred Pathway: Only mixed fuel buildings exceed minimum energy code 1 4 2
Electric Only: All new construction is electric only 3 2 2 Electric Only Plus Efficiency: All new construction is electric only and exceeds minimum energy code 3 3 1
Poll #4: Residential New Construction

1. For new residential construction, please rank the reach code policy pathway the City should prioritize.

2. Additional Comments
No additional comments.
1123
7 Participants No Priority Lowest
Priority Top Priority
Efficiency Pathway: All new construction exceeds minimum energy code 0 1 5
Electric-Preferred Pathway: Only mixed fuel buildings exceed minimum energy code 1 3 2
Electric Only: All new construction is electric only 4 1 2 Electric Only Plus Efficiency: All new construction is electric only and exceeds minimum energy code 3 4 0
6 Participants No Priority
Lowest
Priority Top Priority
Residential (Single-family, ADUs) 0 2 4
Residential (Multi-family) 0 3 3
Commercial 0 2 4

1. In the event of a phased approach for reach codes, please rank your priority of requirement categories that the City should prioritize.

2. Additional Comments
No additional comments.

Poll #6: Phased Approach

2. Additional Comments
No additional comments.

Poll #5: Commercial New Construction

1. For new commercial construction, please rank the reach code policy pathway the City should prioritize. 1124
1125
Participants
Grants and/or rebates for property owners 5/6 participants 83% Cash incentives for installation contractors 2/6 participants 33% Expedited plan review 2/6 participants 33%
I need more information to respond. 0/6 participants 0% - Right now the city plan review is reasonable, but expediated review may be a value in the future. - Liberty does currently offer incentives for commercial customers, both new construction and retrofits. On the residential side, Liberty also has a weatherization and appliance upgrade program (statewide run) for income qualified residential customers - this would be for existing however.

2. Additional Comments
Poll #7: Incentives

1. If the City or utility were to provide incentives, what type of incentives do you feel will be most valuable to achieve those goals?

END OF DOCUMENT
- Make sure that energy costs are monitored since electric companies have been increasing like crazy lately for heating and cooling.
- Incentives or support for retrofitting energy saving measures for existing homes.

Poll #8: Other Considerations

1. Based on your industry knowledge and /or experƟse is there anything else that the City should be considering related to impacts of buildings on GHG emissions and energy usage? 6 1126
Reach Code Community Meeting #1 Poll Results and Comments South Lake Tahoe
Poll Conducted: 6 /01/23
Participants
Building electrification 5 votes 100%
Heat pump technology (i.e., space heating and cooling, hot water, dryers) 3 votes 60% Solar PV and Energy Storage Systems (ESS) 2 votes 40%
Induction cooking for commercial applications 1 votes 20% Induction cooking for residential applications 2 votes 40% Participants
Appliances 1 votes 20%
HVAC Systems (Space heating and cooling) 4 votes 80%
Hot water systems 2 votes 40%
Solar PV and Energy Storage Systems (ESS) 2 votes 40%
Insulation / Weatherization 4 votes 80%
Electric Vehicle Charing Infrastructure 3 votes 60%
Participants
Economic impacts of requirements 3 votes 60%
Cost effectiveness of requirements 3 votes 60%
Effect of requirements on meeting City GHG and energy efficiency goals 3 votes 60% Options for backup power and back up heat sources 3 votes 60% Power outages and grid reliability 3 votes 60%
I need more information to respond. 0 votes 0%
5 Participants No Priority Lowest Priority Top Priority Efficiency Option: All new construction exceeds minimum energy code 1 1 2 Electric-Preferred Option: Only mixed fuel buildings exceed minimum energy code 3 1
Electric Only: All new construction is electric only 1 1 3 Electric Only Plus Efficiency: All new construction is electric only and exceeds minimum energy code 1 2

1.Which topics do you feel our community could benefit from with additional education? 5 1. Which building systems should be priority for the City to address with respect to GHG reduction and energy efficiency?
5 Poll #3: All-electric Buildings

2. Additional Comments
- Efficiency first!
Poll #4: Residential New Construction

1. For new residential construction, please rank the reach code policy option the City should prioritize.

Poll #1: Other Educational Topics

2. Additional Comments

1. If City Council were to consider requiring all-electric new construction for new residential and commercial buildings what information should be included in those decisions?

2. Additional Comments
- Weatherization / envelope, backup sources during outages, EV home power backup. - Lighting.

2. Additional Comments
Poll #2: Other Building Systems
5 - Economic impacts of requirements for community
- Cost effectiveness of requirements for owners
- Grid capacity
- Does it help reach CAP goals? Is this a top policy to reach CAP goals? Spend time on actions that make the largest impact.
1127
4 Participants No Priority Lowest Priority Top Priority Efficiency Option: All new construction exceeds minimum energy code 1 1 2 Electric-Preferred Option: Only mixed fuel buildings exceed minimum energy code 2 2
Electric Only: All new construction is electric only 2 0 2 Electric Only Plus Efficiency: All new construction is electric only and exceeds minimum energy code 0 2 2
Poll #5: Commercial New Construction

1. For new commercial construction, please rank the reach code policy option the City should prioritize.

Poll #6: Phased Approach

2. Additional Comments
- Efficiency first!
1128
2 Participants No Priority Lowest Priority Top Priority Residential (Single-family, ADUs) 0 2 3
Residential (Multi-family) 0 3 1
Commercial 1 0 4
Participants
Grants and/or rebates for property owners 5 votes 100%
Cash incentives for installation contractors 1 votes 20% Expedited plan review 2 votes 40%
I need more information to respond. 0 votes 0%

END OF DOCUMENT
- This reach code initiative is fantastic. New buildings will last for decades and we need to be planning now for the long term future. At some point, however, we will reach diminishing returns and each marginal dollar spent on making new construction better might not be as effective as it would be spent updating old leaky buildings. But these dollars would be spent by different people, so I get that it is tricky! - It seems to me like the ultimate long-term way to reduce overall building energy use would be to replace old wasteful buildings with new code-compliant ones, and I'd like to see the City consider the effects of these regulations on the incentives that homeowners face when considering how long to make an old building work before replacing it with a new one.
- Grid capacity for all-electric.

Poll #8: Other Considerations

1. Based on your industry knowledge and /or experƟse is there anything else that the City should be considering related to impacts of buildings on GHG emissions and energy usage? 5 - Upstream/midstream rebates are almost always more effective than downstream.

2. Additional Comments
Poll #7: Incentives

1. If the City or utility were to provide incentives, what type of incentives do you feel will be most valuable to achieve those goals?

1. In the event of a phased approach for reach codes, please rank your priority of requirement categories that the City should prioritize.

2. Additional Comments
No additional comments.
1129

REACH CODE

ORDINANCE
City Council Study Session
City of South Lake Tahoe
DATE: August 8, 2023
SPEAKERS: ID360 & City Staff
1130
South Lake Tahoe and
Climate Change
• The Tahoe Basin Region has
experienced effects of climate
change such as:
• Variable winter snowpack
• Warming lake temperatures
• Frequent intense droughts
• Severe wildfires
• City Council adopted the Climate
Action Plan on October 20, 2020.
1131 2
Climate Action Plan (CAP): Community-wide Emissions
2015 Baseline Community –wide Emissions
1132 3
National & Statewide Context
Federal:
• Executive Orders calling for a “government-wide approach to climate change”. • Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) providing rebates and tax credits for electrification and efficiency efforts.

State:
• Multiple executive orders and legislation setting goals and standards for emissions reductions and carbon neutrality.
• California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) eliminated subsidies for gas line hookups to new buildings.
• California Air Resources Board (CARB) is set to ban the sale of new gas furnaces and water heaters by 2030.
1133 4
Energy Reach Codes
What is a Reach Code?
• Statewide Code updated every three years.
• Local code that “reaches” beyond baseline
state requirements.
• Based on statewide cost-effectiveness
studies.
• Cannot go above federal standards for
appliance efficiency.

Why Reach Codes?
• Supports local governments climate policy
goals.
• Energy savings.
• Greenhouse gas emission reductions.
• Encourages high-performance buildings.
• Advances decarbonization efforts, especially
when clean energy is available.
1134 5
• 70+ California Jurisdictions (as of 3/20/23)
• Variety of policy approaches to reach codes:
• All-Electric Only Whole Building
• All-Electric Only Specific Systems
• Electric-Preferred
• Efficiency Reach Codes
• Aspen, CO: Efficiency performance benchmarking in MF, and commercial.
• State of Oregon: Flexible prescriptive requirements,
similar to the electric-preferred approach for residential and commercial buildings.
• State of Vermont: Performance requirements for SF, MF, and commercial new constructions and retrofits to
existing buildings.
• Truckee, CA: Staff is currently exploring building and EV reach codes for new and existing buildings.
• Crested Butte, CO: All-Electric requirements and AllElectric Readiness in SF, MF, and commercial. • Beacon, NY: All Electric requirements for SF, MF, and commercial new constructions and remodels.

Other cold climates
Adoption Trends
1135 6
Staff meetings
to discuss
priorities and
parameters.

Cost
Effectiveness
Study (State)
Stakeholder
and Public
Engagement
Meetings
Council Study
Session
Additional
Stakeholder
and Public
Outreach
Submit Reach
Code for Approval
and File with the
State
Target
Effective
Date
Technical
information &
analyses
Reach Code Process: Development to Implementation
Local stakeholder input & public process
Develop Reach
Code Ordinance
and Bring to
Council
1136 7
2022 CA Energy Code
Residential
• Heat pumps = prescriptive baseline
• Residential: space heating or water heating
• Performance credit for all-electric design
• Pre-wiring required for gas appliances- “electric
readiness”
• Higher ventilation rate for gas stoves
• Energy storage systems (ESS) ready
• Solar PV installation requirements
Nonresidential
• Heat pumps = prescriptive baseline
• Nonresidential: water and/or space heating
for most building types
• Performance credit for all-electric design
• Solar PV prescriptive
• Requirements based on building type
• Battery Storage system prescriptive
• Requirements based on building type
1137 8
C/E Study Overview
• C/E Study required for local amendments
to California Energy Code
• Not required for All-Electric only amendment
• Two metrics/methodologies
• “On-bill” (individual consumer, utility rates)
• ”Time Dependent Valuation” (code, societal)
• City determines C/E metric to use
• Cannot preempt Federal appliance
standards
• Measures assembled into packages
1138 9
Energy Reach Code Options

1. Efficiency
All new construction (electric & mixed-fuel) exceeds minimum energy code.

2. Electric Preferred
Only new mixed-fuel buildings have increased requirements.

3. All-Electric or Electric Only (with limited exceptions) Appliances must be electric with some limited exceptions for gas end uses.

4. Electric Only Plus Efficiency
All-electric buildings plus increased efficiency.
101139
Potential Reach Code Exemptions
• Emergency backup power
• Public swimming pools and spas
• Water heating, cooking or space
heating for attached ADU and
JADUs
• Fireplaces (indoor/outdoor)
• Outdoor equipment (BBQs)
• Commercial cooking equipment
• Specialized equipment for
industrial processes, laboratories,
medical uses
• Technical infeasibility
When combustion equipment is allowed, require electric ready. 111140 Stakeholder Feedback
12 1. Prioritize education topics for the community (heat pump technology, general electrification).

2. Prioritize insulation/weatherization and HVAC as building systems to focus on reducing GHG emissions and increasing efficiency.

3. Economic impacts, cost-effectiveness, power outages, and options for backup power and backup heat are concerns.

4. “Efficiency” option received highest overall rank in priority for both residential and commercial new construction.

5. No clear priority for building occupancies in a phased approach to reach codes. 1141
Community Feedback
13 1. Prioritize education including heat pump technology and general building electrification.

2. Prioritize insulation/weatherization and HVAC as building systems to focus on reducing GHG emissions and increasing efficiency.

3. The "Electric-only” option received the highest overall rank in priority for residential, followed by the “Efficiency” options.

4. Single-family, ADUs, and commercial construction were identified as priorities. 1142
Reach Code Policy Considerations
• Building Types Impacted
• New Residential Single-family and ADUs
• New Multi-family
• New Non-residential
• Incentives and Rebates
• Workforce Development
• Potential Exemptions for
Specified Building Types
• Commercial Kitchen
• Laboratory/Medical/Industrial
Processes
• Backup Power/ Backup Heat Sources
• Detached ADU/JADU
• Fireplaces
• Swimming Pool/Spas
When combustion equipment is allowed, require electric ready. 141143 Recommendations

1. Staff is requesting that the Council confirm or provide direction on the following components of the reach code development.

2. Applicable Building Types: Single-family Residential (including condominiums), Accessory Dwelling Units, Multi-family Residential, Commercial (retail, office, restaurant, or hotel occupancies).

3. Reach Code Options: Electric Preferred, Efficiency (all-electric and mixed-fuel)

4. Exemptions: Gas-powered backup generators, commercial kitchen stoves, gas/wood fireplaces, swimming pool/spas, etc.

5. Educational Program: Direct staff to develop a complimentary educational program. 151144
THANK YOU.
1145

SUPPLEMENTAL SLIDES
1146
Single Family Cost Effectiveness Summary
Package Incremental Cost Utility Savings TDV NPV On Bill NPV GHG Reductions (metric tons)
First Year Lifecycle First
Year
Lifecycle
All-Electric Efficiency Only ($1,943) ($1,479) $124 $8,705 $3,675 $10,184 1.6 All Electric Code Minimum ($3,257) ($2,954) $79 $7,647 $3,139 $10,602 1.5 All Electric Efficiency + PV $6,678 $10,591 $1,040 $31,366 $8,489 $20,775 1.8 All Electric Efficiency + PV +
Battery
$12,124 $22,078 $1,018 $30,845 $11,834 $8,768 2.3
Mixed Fuel Efficiency Only $3,344 $3,755 $191 $6,159 $4,123 $ 2,404 0.7 Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV $5,756 $6,981 $438 $12,307 $5,419 $5,325 0.8 Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV +
Battery
$10,780 $18,007 $416 $11,701 ($6,307) $8,024 1.2
181147
ADU Cost Effectiveness Summary
Package Incremental Cost Utility Savings TDV NPV On Bill NPV GHG Reductions (metric tons)
First Year Lifecycle First
Year
Lifecycle
All-Electric Efficiency Only ($3,065) ($1,665) $46 $3,251 $1,204 $4,916 0.5 All Electric Code Minimum ($2,798) ($2,509) ($2) $2,103 $250 $4,611 0.4 All Electric Efficiency + PV $5,625 $9,957 $813 $21,418 $6,656 $11,461 0.7 All Electric Efficiency + PV +
Battery
$11,138 $21,533 $807 $21,275 $7,776 ($258) 1.0
Mixed Fuel Efficiency Only $352 $1,539 $84 $3,396 $280 $1,857 0.4 Mixed Fuel + PV $7,565 $11,185 $720 $18,474 $4,733 $7,289 0.5 Mixed Fuel + PV + Battery $13,076 $22,759 $718 $18,411 $5,165 ($4,348) 0.8 191148
Commercial Cost Effectiveness Summary
Building Type Package Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
TDV NPV On Bill NPV GHG Reductions
(metric tons)
Medium Office Mixed Fuel +
Efficiency
Measures
$0 $17,085 $16,744 $17,085 0.4
Medium Retail All-Electric Energy
Efficiency
$0 $6,818 $8,547 $6,818 0.6
Quick Service
Restaurant
All-Electric Energy
Efficiency and
Load Flexibility
(w/ gas cooking)
$51,155 $69,323 Not C/E $18,168 20.0
Small Hotel Mixed Fuel +
Efficiency
Measures
$21,214 $123,752 $94,804 $102,538 18.4
201149
Single Family / ADU Efficiency Measures
21 Measure Performance level Incremental Cost: SF Incremental Cost: ADU Reduced Infiltration 3.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $591 $362
Window U-factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2280 $285
Window SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0
Cool Roof 0.25 vs 0.20 aged solar reflectance $219 $53
Attic Insulation R-49 vs R-30 $872 NA
R-60 vs R-30 $1420 NA
R-60 vs R-38 $1096 NA
Slab Edge Insulation R-10 vs R-0 $651 $449
Low Pressure Drop Ducts 0.35 vs 0.45 W/cfm $99 $49
Buried Ducts Buried, radical design $281 NA
Duct Insulation R-8 vs R-6 $201 NA
Ductless Mini-Split Heat
Pump
Ductless system meeting the VCHP
credit vs. ducted split heat pump
NA $1,571
Compact hot Water
Distribution
Basic – gas tankless $196 $0
Basic- HPWH $-134 $0
1150
Nonresidential Efficiency Measures
22 Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Proposed
Measure
Included Building
Types
Incremental cost
Cool Roof Low slope roof: ASR = 0.63
TE = 0.75
Low slope roof:

ASR = 0.7,
TE = 0.85
Med. Office $0.04/ft2
Eff. Vert. Fenestration U-factor = 0.36
SHGC = 0.25
U-factor = 0.34
SHGC = 0.22
M. Office, M. Retail, S.

Hotel (Guestrooms), S.

Hotel (Nonres.)
$1.75/ft2
Vert. Fenestration by
Orientation
40% window-to-wall ratio in
each orientation per Title 24
Table 140.3-B.

Redistribute
window areas by
orientation
Med. Office $0
Water eff. Fixtures in Kitchen Kitchen faucet max flow rate is

1.8 GPM (Title 20)
Kitchen faucet flow
rate is 1 GPM
Quick Service Restaurant H. Eff
Door/Dishwasher
$7633/unit
Faucet aerator
$8/unit
Ozone Wash. Machine Not required Reduced hot water
use
Small Hotel
(Nonresidential)
$25469/unit
1151
Nonresidential Efficiency Measures cont.
23 Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Proposed
Measure
Included Building Types Incremental
cost
Eff. Hot Water Distribution Apx. A Pipe size
Std. 1.5” insulation
Apx. M pipe Size
2” insulation
Small hotel $5819
DCV & Transfer Air DCV required in kitchen for
exhaust air rate > 5000 cfm
DCV for all exhaust
fans
QS Restaurant $8500
Guest rm. Ventilation, &
Fan Power
occupancy sensing zone
controls, ventilation fan power
not required.

Updated fan
power and HVAC
schedules
S. Hotel (Guestrooms) $0
Variable Speed Fans Variable speed required if
cooling capacity > 65,000 Btu/h
Variable speed
control for smaller
capacity systems
M. Retail, QS Restaurant $6390/unit
Interior Lighting Reduced
LPD
Per Area Category Method,
varies by Primary Function Area.

Top 20% of market
products
M. Office, M. Retail, QS
Restaurant, S. Hotel
(Nonresidential)
$0
1152
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Agenda Item #:20
Agenda Item: Agenda Planning Calendar
Executive Summary: The Agenda Planning Calendar is a projection of items coming before City Counci, for consideration.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: A Councilmember may request that an item be placed on a future agenda. Upon the support of one (1) additional Council Member, direction shall be given to the City Manager to calendar the item for a convenient future agenda, but no sooner than the second meeting after the request was made, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.

Responsible Staff Member: Joseph Irvin, City Manager
Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Attachments:

APC - 08 02 2023.pdf
1153
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 02 2023)
Agenda Item Agenda Section
Aug 22, 9:00 a.m. Budget Workshop
City Attny Franchise Agreement with South Tahoe Refuse
Public Works Award of Ski Run Park ADA Consent
Award Lakeview/Harrison ADA Upgrade Contract Consent
Sep 12, 9 a.m. City Attorney Local Hire Ordinance (First Reading) UB Dev Services Pro-Housing Designation NB
Commercial Linkage Consent
4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd (Chateau) update NB
Waiting list for Housing Needs NB
Finance Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report June 2023 Fiscal Year 2023-20224 Investment Policy and Authority
Investment Portfolio Report June 30, 2023
Revised Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) FY 2023-2024 Police Opioid Settlement Barton Agreement NB
Public Works Financing Options for Snow Operations (Service Area 3 Parcel Tax) NB Department
1154
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 02 2023)
Award PD Roof Upgrade PSA Consent
Snow removal from City Sidewalks NB
Sep 26, 5:30 p.m. City Manager Via cost analysis of municipal fixed-route and microtransit service NB Charter City Discussion NB
Energy Services Contract NB
Comprehensive Energy Services Contract
Dev Services Employee Housing Bill of Rights NB
Local Housing/Transit Funding Analysis:TOT UB
Finance 2023 Lease Revenue Bonds Post Sale Budget Appropriations True-up Public Works Hwy 50/89 Concrete/Pavement Option NB
New Fire Station 3 Feasability Analysis/Interim Fire Station 3 Upgrades UB Broadband PPP Contract UB
Oct 17, 5:30 p.m. City Attny ADA Transition Plan update NB City Manager TRPA Regional Grant Program (EV Charging/Pioneer Project) Dev Services Area Plan Updates NB
PLHA Formula Grant Amendment NB
1155
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 02 2023)
Mid-Town Area Plan Technical Consultant PSA UB
3900/3908 Lake Tahoe Blvd DDA UB
Finance Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budgeted Funds Re-Appropriation Nov 7, 9 a.m. Dev Services Inventory of vacant/underutilized sites NB Nov 21, 5:30 p.m. Dev Services REACH Code Adoption NB
MFD/SRO Program Evaluation
Dec 12, 5:30 p.m.

City Attorney
City Clerk Records Management Policy (Updated)
City Manager Minimum Wage Discussion
Electric Vehicle Charging Contract
Electric Municipality - Feasability Analysis
SEED Solar Photovoltaic Project PPA
Dev Services Plan Area Statement Update for Tourist Accommodation Uses City/CTC land exchange agreement
Unscheduled/Pending
1156
2023 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 02 2023)
VHR TAU Requirement Discussion
Finance
Fire Weed abatement/nusance Program - Defensable Space Policy Type III Fire Engine Purchase
Parks & Rec Parks Foundation MOU
Amendment 1 to Bijou Bike Park Association Maintenance Agreement Tahoe Swim Team Use Agreement
Bijou Golf Course "Rock the Lake" Event and Review
1157

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilAugust 8, 2023

South Lake Tahoe City Council
August 8, 2023